Trump Administration Proposes Rules Allowing Drones To Operate At Night, Over Populated Areas (reuters.com)

The Trump administration is proposing rules that would allow drones to operate over popular areas and end a requirement for special permits for night use. The goal is to "help speed commercial use of small unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States," reports Reuters. From the report: The proposals, drafted by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Transportation Department, come amid concerns about dangers that drones potentially pose to aircraft and populated areas. The FAA said that in developing the proposals its challenge was to "balance the need to mitigate the risk small unmanned aircraft pose to other aircraft and to people and property on the ground without inhibiting innovation." The FAA is proposing ending requirements that drone operators get waivers to operate at night. Through 2017, the FAA granted 1,233 waivers and "has not received any reports of (drone) accidents," it said. The FAA would require that drones have "an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles," as well as testing and training.

Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."

Comments

Fly by night

[fustakrakich]

People are going love that racket buzzing over their houses all night long...

Re:Fly by night

[Jane Q. Public]

Actually, yes it is.

And always has been, historically. Just like the minerals under the ground are.

As a Constitutional matter, the FAA only has authority over airspace that is involved (at least theoretically) in interstate commerce. In fact that's where they got their authority in the first place: from the 1926 Air Commerce Act.

Anything other than potentially interstate, commercial airspace is beyond their lawful jurisdiction. That is, in fact, why the rules formerly stated a 5-mile radius around airports, and an altitude limit: closer than that to airports, or higher than that, is potentially subject to interstate air commerce.

This jurisdictional issue is one of the same reasons EPA's "Waters of the US" (WOTUS) regulation was thrown out.

So someone in central Nevada, let's say, who is not 5 miles from an airport, and is under 400 feet, should not be under Federal jurisdiction at all: there is no practical way they could be engaged in interstate commerce.

Further (I just looked up what the actual rules are): this new set of rules defines any "aircraft", anywhere, that is unmanned as falling under their regulations. That is unconstitutionally vague and overreaching. The wording suggests that toy gliders that cost $1, and paper airplanes, are under their jurisdiction, requiring the pilot to get a certification and the toy to be registered.

Surely that will be challenged in court. It is completely ridiculous. But that is what it says.

Re:Fly by night

[jpaine619]

The airspace above their homes is not theirs

You could not be more wrong.. The United States Supreme Court ruled that you do OWN the airspace above your property to 83 feet. The FAA said 500 feet... So the 83 to 500 ft chunk is still in debate, but it's at least 83 feet for sure..

United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

Re:Fly by night

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, exactly.

And the 500 (I believe it's actually 400) foot limit is because manned aircraft may be flying above that level, affecting "interstate commerce".

Still, the FAA is trying to have it both ways here. Looks like they want to regulate "all" airspace, but they have no Constitutional authority to do so. Only airspace that, as a practical matter, may be used for interstate commerce.

Brilliant

[perry64]

How the plan was conceived:

(Think of the old Guinness commercials, with two old time guys talking to each other):

Guinness guy #1: "Almost all the problems between planes and drones have been when drones are SEEN in the vicinity of aircraft or airports."

Guinness guy #2: "Correct."

#1: "Yes, and drones are much HARDER TO SEE at night."

#2: "Again, correct."

#1: "So we'll fly drones at night. The planes and airports won't be able to see them, so there will NO LONGER be problems between planes and drones."

#2: "BRILLIANT!!"

How is this different from automobiles?

[stevent1965]

Tens of millions of people in the U.S. drive automobiles and other vehicles every day. The potential for accidents, even fatal ones, is omnipresent. Operators must take driver education courses; they must be licensed; they must carry insurance; there are criminal penalties for reckless operation. Plus, there are rules: signs, designated lanes, speed limits, etc. Why should aerial drone operations be any different? Too many people are losing their fricking minds over the prospect of a sky filled with purposeful drones when that's exactly what we have on the ground, already. The technology is new but it's not the problem; the problem is how we humans determine its most beneficial use and, in the case of aerial drones, that requires regulation similar to that governing the operation of automobiles.