FAA Proposes Rules To Limit Commercial Drone Use 119
An anonymous reader sends this report from the NY Times:
In an attempt to bring order to increasingly chaotic skies, the Federal Aviation Administration on Sunday proposed long-awaited rules on the commercial use of small drones, requiring operators to be certified, fly only during daylight and keep their aircraft in sight. The rules, though less restrictive than the current ones, appear to prohibit for now the kind of drone delivery services being explored by Amazon, Google and other companies, since the operator or assigned observers must be able to see the drone at all times without binoculars. But company officials believe the line-of-sight requirement could be relaxed in the future to accommodate delivery services.
Good. (Score:1)
"If you can see me, I should be able to see you," is a core consequence of free society.
The operator needing line of sight with the drone is per se much less important than the ability for the drone to be recognised and associated with its operator.
Re: (Score:2)
The operator needing line of sight with the drone is per se much less important than the ability for the drone to be recognised and associated with its operator.
These two things have nothing to do with each other, and the FAA has repeatedly mentioned that privacy concerns are not their turf and won't be part of what they do in rule making or enforcement. That's more a local law enforcement matter, and there are already abundant laws on the books dealing with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So if I run a spy satellite and it's currently above the horizon where I am then it's "much harder for that equipment to be used to invade a person's privacy"? Really?
There's a world of difference between "I can see what you're doing" versus "I can see something that can see what you're doing."
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a world of difference between "I can see what you're doing" versus "I can see something that can see what you're doing."
It doesn't matter. That's not what the rule is about. The Line-Of-Site rule is meant to make up for the fact that there is no pilot onboard the aircraft, and thus no way (if you're beyond line of site) to do the duty of seeing and avoiding other air traffic. If your UAS is a couple of kilometers away, invisible beyond something like a big tree line, you've got no idea how to quickly maneuver it if it's entering the path of, say, something like an air ambulance that's descending through 500' to land at an accident site. That's exactly the sort of scenario they're worried about: somebody like a journalist trying to get overhead shots of something like an accident scene, and sending his flying camera robot half a mile away BLOS to the location - and in comes a properly piloted traffic, S&R, or police helicopter. Or two. The journalist might be able to hear them, but if he can't even see, unaided, his own machine in the air, that's a serious hazard. Hence, LOS operations.
Re: (Score:1)
If pilots were all that's needed to avoid air to air collusions, there would be none in the history. None of your theories would justify a pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Actually, it's often pretty easy to spot satellites. Visibly. There's 100-ish [satobs.org] that are brighter than mag 4 (the limit for unaided vision in perfectly dark skies is 6, about 100-fold dimmer). If the position and angle are right the ISS can be mag -5.9 - an order of magnitude higher than the peak brightness of Venus, and readily visible during the day if you know where to look. Most commonly it's -2 to -4, so roughly between the average brightness of Jupiter and the average brightness of Venus. Iridium
Re: (Score:2)
They do in practice unless you're being wilfully intellectually dishonest.
What? The FAA's mission has never included privacy concerns. They already regulate all of the ways you can do aerial photography (yes, including kites, if you send them high enough), and none of their rules speak to privacy, because that's not their territory, regulation-wise. You do actually understand that, right? No? Yes?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, one of its first roles was overriding the privacy concerns of householders when aircraft started flying over their houses, by declaring a height above which the property owner doesn't get a say.
Federal regs and laws surrounding overflight of private property aren't about whether or not someone can use a camera during that flight. You're still confused about the FAA's role relative to privacy. The DoT isn't about privacy either, even though you might very well be using a 1000mm lens on a camera as you sit on the shoulder of a federal highway photographing over someone's fence into their back yard.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is TFA lists TWO (2) proposed FAA regulations:
1.) Drone has a camera
2.) Drone does not have camera
I didn't see that and, I didn't see:
3.) Drone has a microphone.
Please provide a quote.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet that doesnt apply to aircraft or satellites...?
That sniffs like a made up assertion ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, treating them like an other vehicle sounds like a reasonable approach, as does banning storing of recorded images without extenuating expressly-permitted/licensed circumstances.
The barrier for getting to fly delivery missions should be compared to delivery vehicles: if the per-package rate of collateral damage can be shown to be similar to or less than that of delivering by truck, and likewise with emissions, then it should not have a bunch of legal barriers put in front of it. Drone manufacturers shou
In Future News... (Score:2)
Amazon employees have become frequently sighted in the Space Needle holding remote controls. Waves of reportings across town have been made of drones carrying lightweight parabolic solar reflectors that can be seen by the unaided eye dozens of miles away....
Re: (Score:2)
Come to think of it, even a green pen laser kept aimed at the operator at all times would provide naked-eye visibility to a couple dozen miles out, barring obstructions or inclement weather.
Re: (Score:2)
I have flown RC tons in the last 30 years, and I can tell you orientation can be a bitch.
My take is the latest is a way for them to weasel out of providing clear regulation.
What you will get is the same thing that's always happened, those wishing to use them commercially will follow guidelines and use them accordingly those not will ignore regs and keep using them how they always have been.
We will stil
Re: (Score:1)
Not Amazon employees but independent contractors. And if they get busted / fined / crash the drone / have it in-pounded / etc they have to pay for it + the package.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because traffic and diesel fumes and road noise from surface delivery are a-okay in your book?
Re: (Score:2)
The not having the delivery truck crashing through the roof of my house because of a strong wind is a-okay in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Straw man. First off, any commercial drones are going to have to be able to prove that they can cope with whatever conditions they're permitted to fly in (and not fly in conditions they're not approved for), as well as to gracefully handle failures. And secondly, even a piano won't crash though the roof of a house - let alone a couple dozen kilo (tops) drone. Roofs are not as weak as you seem to think they are - unless your house is condemned or something. And third, if the wind is strong enough to blow a d
Re: (Score:2)
The amazon drones are quadcopters. They have no airfoils other than the propellers (rapidly rotating airfoils, moving at speeds faster than even tornado-force winds).
Last I checked, tree branches breaking and falling into houses during windstorms is not a myth, so I'm not sure what exactly you're going on about.
Re: (Score:2)
The not having the delivery truck crashing through the roof of my house because of a strong wind is a-okay in my book.
This size and structure of the delivery drones makes it very unlikely that they would go through your roof. They are mostly made of Styrofoam.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't bother me...
What is different? (Score:2)
Isn't this what the rules say now? How does this differ from what is already in place?
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, ScentCone [slashdot.org] posted the answer. Prior to these laws, all commercial drone use was prohibited. Wow... how silly...
Re: (Score:3)
Prior to these laws, all commercial drone use was prohibited.
And still will be for at least a couple of years while this regulatory wagon rolls slowly down the road. Meanwhile, developed countries around the world are getting their shit together, and seeing immediate economic benefits from work in this area.
Right now, if you want to do sUAS aerial work for pay, you have to do an incredibly onerous federal dance in filing for a 333 exception, and have to have at least a Private Pilot's License. That's right, you're flying a tiny little DJI quadcopter with GoPro o
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Obama administration.
I know you are bitter and ranting, but really, calm down please.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are bitter and ranting, but really, calm down please.
So, which part is a rant? Specifically?
Am I confused about who Huerta's boss is?
Am I confused about the words written in the proposed rules, and the disparate impact they would have on a scenario exactly like the one I described?
Or are you simply in ad hominem defend-the-administration mode, and carefully avoiding any actual comment on the substance of the matter because you're the one who's bitter and ranty about the reality of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you dared speak ill of the "Chosen One".
Please report to Room 101 for re-education.
Re: (Score:2)
The antidote to dishonest hyperbole is not more dishonest hyperbole.
Which didn't stop you from also carefully avoiding any attempt to point out which of the facts mentioned is wrong or ranty - just another lazy bit of ad hominem, showing you prefer to deliberately avoid talking about the actual matter at hand. Thanks for being predictable, at least.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Schools in my area charge around $7,000 for a private pilot license package deal. They are far from the cheapest in the nation. The minimum required flight time for a PPL is 40 hours, with 20 hours instruction. The average time is around 70 hours. Not hundreds. You need to pass one medical exam, which is fairly basic. And the DHS does the background check (once), there's not much you need to do.
If you think these rules have anything to do with who is in the White House, you have no clue about the FAA and ho
Re: (Score:2)
If you think these rules have anything to do with who is in the White House, you have no clue about the FAA and how it operates.
Huerta, a political appointee, is 100% in charge of the agenda here. He's the one that has decided to ignore the congressional requirement on the timing of this, and the one who is tap-dancing around the the issues that people raise when addressing the oddly capricious lines being drawn.
You many think the average farmer who wants to fly a cheap quadcopter over his bean field to look for dry spots is going to be able to start from scratch and get a PPL in 60 hours (never going to happen) and that there i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I understand the FAA's position. The precaution to ban all commercial use until a good system is put in place is unfair to roofers but likely prevents some far more wild and daring commercial ventures -- people motivated by money will go a lot further than people motivated by leisure -- that would likely have resulted in damage and injuries or worse. That's the reality of needing laws -- they are bound to be unfair to some but are considered to be beneficial for the society overall.
And IMO had the r
Re: (Score:2)
people motivated by money will go a lot further than people motivated by leisure
You mean, like those guys who video themselves on motorcycles weaving through traffic at 120mph, compared to professional drivers? Or (more topically) the guys who fly RC machines beyond LOS in the clouds or around national monuments or through moving traffic 10' off the ground, or who (like Pirker) buzz pedestrians, buzz police cars, etc., all to stir up YouTube traffic for fun? Compared to, say, a farmer who wants to look for crop damage, a local volunteer who wants to support LEOs in a rural search and
Re: (Score:2)
Or he'll just do it. The FAA doesn't have the manpower to catch him... and even if they do catch him once, the fine is $10,000 and thus lots cheaper than doing it legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there another administration that would handle this in a way you think better? This is the exact process I'd expect. If Obama were holding anything up, the relaxed rules wouldn't be anywhere close to passing. All you can say is that he hasn't expedited the process, and it isn't clear to me that another President would. Your "Thank you, Obama:" probably should be "Thank you, FAA" or "Thank you, bureaucracy".
Headline 100% Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially ridiculous, of course, is that people flying the exact same machines, in exactly the same place, at exactly the same time, with all of the exact same safety precautions and practices, but who are doing it for recreational purposes, will not be beholden to the same rules. Flying after the sun goes down? Just fine if you're an enthusiast. Making exactly the same flight, but getting $50 to do it? Federal fine!
Another capricious, irrational regulatory stance on the part of the executive branch. The new rules, if and when they ever stick, despite congress requiring them, by law, to have it done by September (it will never happen), will have zero impact on a reckless amateur noob or someone malicious. This is just a fee grab looking to feed the FAA with $150 every 24 months from some guy who does roofing and wants to inspect gutters without putting up a dangerous ladder. Right now he's not allowed. Someday he will be able to, if he pays more money to do so. But his neighbor can do it for fun with no legal risks. Absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to 21st century America, Citizen. Hope your freedom was worth the security.
Re:Headline 100% Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I honestly don't get what your point is Like, are you saying that if commercial operators can't fly drones nobody should, or maybe the other way round? Either way it is an absurd false equivalence.
I'm just telling you what the actual situation is. You can decide for yourself if you think that means that a journalist flying a 4-pound plastic quadcopter with a GoPro should be able to do the same things as the hobbyist who's standing right next to him doing exactly the same thing with the same equipment in exactly the same way, or whether you think the enthusiast should be subject to the same limitations as the journalist. Think what you will. I'm pointing out that the Obama administration thinks that the journalist should be currently banned from flying at all while the guy standing next to him can carry on unmolested. And that the proposed rules, once they go into effect in a couple of years, will still make strangely arbitrary distinctions between the two uses (and users).
Re: (Score:2)
The journalist is not doing exactly the same thing. The journalist is flying for money, the hobbyist not.
The FAA's rules for aviation are written in blood. The reason I'm not allowed to fly for money is because experience shows that people take risks when money is involved, risks they wouldn't otherwise take. In general, the pressure to fly my plane in order to get home in time for is much less than the pressure to fly in order to get a paying client home on time for his dinner, especially if I need the mon
Re: (Score:2)
Note, this is not a discussion about the relative risk of a 2kg UAV being flown for money.
OK then, talk about that, instead.
Two guys standing right next to each other, each flying their 4-pound micro quad up to the top of the same 25' chimney to see if there's raccoon damage to the metal mesh at the top. They each do the same pre-flight checks, operate according to exactly the same safety standards, control people in the area the same way, handle their identical rigs in the same way, complete their 30' flights in a minute and a half, and land right back at their feet. One of them has been of
Re: (Score:2)
On an individual flight, you won't be able to tell. Over a long period, you'll likely find that the commercial guy will be more reluctant to turn down work, and will fly when a hobbyist might take the drone out of service for maintenance, or decide the weather's too bad, or something. The commercial pilot is also likely to take more risks in the flight, if there's some problem with getting a good view of the raccoon mesh or whatever.
The law is not a precision instrument. It can only function by puttin
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pointing out that the Obama administration thinks that the journalist should be currently banned from flying at all while the guy standing next to him can carry on unmolested. And that the proposed rules, once they go into effect in a couple of years, will still make strangely arbitrary distinctions between the two uses (and users).
Heh, heh, welcome to the twilight world of the kind of laws that apply to firearms. I'm glad the rest of society can enjoy the sorts of muddle-headed thinking such as the
Re: (Score:2)
s/Obama administration/FAA/
Re: Headline 100% Wrong (Score:1)
Big deal, you can fly a small plane with friends and have no problem. Fly them for $50 and you can get fined if you do t have a commercial transport license.
Re: (Score:2)
Big deal, you can fly a small plane with friends and have no problem. Fly them for $50 and you can get fined if you do t have a commercial transport license.
So out of curiosity, how do you justify that distinction? What is it about the $50 that makes the pilot suddenly less safe? Specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
So out of curiosity, how do you justify that distinction? What is it about the $50 that makes the pilot suddenly less safe? Specifically.
The government isn't getting their cut, which means the pilot will soon be surrounded by men with guns. That's what makes them suddenly less safe.
Forms 1040 and 1099 exist (Score:2)
The government isn't getting their cut
Why should this cut exceed the tax on the income that an independent contractor already declares on form 1040?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really simple. Past experience has shown that pilots do stupid things for money. We take risks we shouldn't when our paycheck is on the line. It used to be that I didn't need a commercial license to fly for money, but after seeing too many people get injured and die because of risky behavior (weather, fuel, maintenance, etc...) the FAA saw that regulations about commercial flight were necessary.
Imagine there's a blizzard outside. Think about your motivations to drive yourself to a friend's house, vs. y
But then (Score:1)
how will the drones be able to fly through my pet door to deliver my bag of potato chips directly to my couch?
Re: (Score:2)
how will the drones be able to fly through my pet door to deliver my bag of potato chips directly to my couch?
Oh, that is easily answered!
Step 1. Start with the pool of tech workers who have been displaced by the oversubscription of H1-B visa workers (The Pacific NW will be a great place to start!)
Step 2. Sign them up with brand new car ride-share service Druber (Drones R our Uber!) (that is, all the ones who own cars, and not those hipsters who eschew the Modern American Car)
Step 3. Using a new social networking App (DroneDrivers!), they check in at the automated, drone based delivery service's warehouse. (Let's c
Bureaucratic red tape (Score:4, Informative)
"keep their aircraft in sight"
So they're basically negating the one major aspect of a drone, the ability to fly significant areas autonomously by tethering it to someone on the ground. Sounds like bureaucratic red tape to me, if you can't kill a thing make it useless to do it by wrapping it in so many "common sense" measures as to make it useless. I can understand some things, requiring insurance, constant tracking, keeping records, but maintaning line of sight either shows a complete lack of understanding of what a drone is or a blatant attempt to kill a (possibly) nascent industry.
Re:Bureaucratic red tape (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bureaucratic red tape (Score:5, Informative)
These are safety rules people Keeping the aircraft in sight means and having the ability to have the operator take control is actually a good rule. It should help keep down injuries and property damage. Remember this is for a vehicle of up to 50lbs. A 50lbs vehicle moving at say 80 mph can do a lot of damage.
And before anyone says it this is for all remote control aircraft and not just quadcopters! I have seen fixed wing RC aircraft moving a lot faster than 80mph.
These rules will allow for things like aerial photography for movies, news, and real estate, also for a lot of AG uses and other inspection tasks.
Nope these are good rules to start with and in a few years maybe opened up.
The last thing anyone wants is for a 50lbs drone to crash into a school bus full of Nuns taking orphans to a Christmas party and having it crash into an animal shelter killing all the kids, nuns, and puppies.
Re: (Score:3)
Except one rule that sort of prevents aerial photography for movies - the part about "can't fly over people".
You're cherry-picking words. It's can't fly over people unless they are involved in what's going on and under control safety-wise. Exactly like you can't use a 100' construction crane "over people," but you can use a 100' camera crane over people (without hard hats!) when everyone involved is under the care of people who are controlling the set and looking out for the safety of all involved. Flying a 20-pound drone to film a car chase through a controlled set is WAY safer than using a full-scale manned hel
Re: (Score:2)
"In most cases, they could not fly over people other than the operators."
It says in most cases.
On a closed set with safety precautions it would be allowed.
Bureaucratic red tape (Score:2)
Can you promise the drone, out of your site, will not run into another aircraft, person or building?
For experimental situations over known terrain maybe autonomous drones will work fine. For commercial operations in situations where other aircraft may be operating (IE EMS helicopters, AG aircraft, other drones, etc), the drone needs to operate under the same rules as the manned aircraft they are in the vicinity of. Manned aircraft have to see and avoid other aircraft. It doesn't always work, but certainly
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is guaranteed. But just because a remotely operated vehicle is out of physical sight doesn't mean it is out of control. First off they shouldn't be operating anywhere near aircraft, drone flight should be restricted below 500' (planes, jets and helicopters are supposed to remain above this altitude), above 300' unless they have the permission of the land owner to fly lower and nowhere near airports. And no one in their right mind is saying that these things should be allowed to fly about unmonito
Re: (Score:2)
Commercials (Score:5, Funny)
FAA Proposes Rules To Limit Commercial Drone Use
I've always thought commercials drone on and on. Glad to see the FCC is doing something about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said
I'd like to mod you as both Insightful and Funny
What about fees that should... (Score:2)
...be paid to landowners for easements? We've already been sold down the river when it comes to commercial aircraft and radio waves that pass over our property. Personally, I think the line should be drawn here. You want to fly a drone a few feet over my house, you pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and you should get money for every satellite that passes over you too!
First off, nobody is talking about flying "a few feet over your house". Unless you just ordered something, wherein one would presume that you're giving the drone permission to come to your house.
Secondly, you purchased a piece of ground. Not a cylinder of area reaching from the Earth's core up to the edge of the known universe. You have rights in the immediate vicinity of your house, but not far above it. As it should be.
Technical solution? (Score:2)
So if we add an external camera on a stick, pointed toward the drone, does that count? /duck
Once again, short-sighted (Score:2)
The no night flying restriction is incredibly myopic when it comes to search & rescue operations. As an 8-year veteran of SAR ops, I can tell you that most searches start at night. Why? Because it's only after it gets dark that the reporting party decides that they need help. We never ever delay an initial response for daylight hours. Low-cost FLIR cameras are starting to become available. And I'm certainly not going to submit a flight plan 24 hours in advance. 87% of all searches are resolved
Re: (Score:2)
It would be great if you could find someone who would pledge to pay your legal bills if the FAA sues you, and then launch anyway and hopefully use it to save someone's life. The publicity such a case would bring would do wonders for improving drone regulations.
It's an opportunity! (Score:2)
I envisage a helicopter load of UAV operators in "line of sight".
For the helicopter providers, it is a great opportunity.
For the LOS UAV operators, it is a wonderful range extension.
For the rest of us, underneath, maybe not so great.
--
Most people are not nearly as paranoid as they should be.
the fanciful way of doing things (Score:1)
Posing politicians are part of the process, no doubt. To what extent the model we learned about in school exists, or whether it ever existed, is not terribly relevant. There is a belief about the US government that many Americans share. Here goes ...
Fundamentally, complaints should go through the judicial branch; if they are serious and lingering enough, legislators write laws to address the issue; and finally, the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws.
When the executive branch circumvents the co