DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
faa.gov
faa.gov
Quick edit: I'll leave my last two sentences there for posterity, but turns out you only need to report if there's $500 of damage, excluding damage to the UAS
More importantly, these rules are going to cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain.
Today, we use ground vehicles to transport stuff. When people click "buy now" on Amazon, it results in multi-ton metal boxes speeding through neighborhoods. When vehicles and pedestrians exist in close proximity, people get hurt. Every day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being hit by cars. Around a dozen die.[2] Even if drones are every bit as dangerous as fearmongers say, they're not that bad. The more that drones substitute for ground vehicles, the safer we'll be.
Unfortunately, the FAA is optimizing for "minimum number of people harmed by drones" and not "minimum number of people harmed".
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
2. 2013 CDS statistics: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/
From the FAA Summary.
> Accordingly, any waivers that the FAA may grant to the visual-line-of-sight provisions of part 107 will not allow the operation to transport property for compensation or hire beyond visual line of sight.
That makes drone parcel delivery all but impossible.
1. http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
Not if they launch it from an airship! A sky full of dirigibles here we come!
How many of those are killed by package delivery vehicles?
Also, drones can substitute for more than just delivery vehicles. They could replace most car trips involving moving things (as opposed to moving people). Instead of driving to the Apple store, a drone could pick up your broken laptop and return it when it's fixed. A drone could pick up and return your dry cleaning. Drones could deliver groceries. Etc. The end result is fewer car trips and fewer people maimed or killed.
Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;"
So these are rules for people doing chimerical work like "property assessment" or outdoor photography. Not your hobby flyer / AMA member.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun...
A key item is "Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission." (Here's the US airspace classification.[1])
Most US airspace near the ground is class G. So, as a practical matter, almost all farmers and ranchers will be able to use drones with few restrictions.
Classes B, C, and D are around airports and go all the way down to the ground. They're controlled by FAA control towers with radar. To do anything in the air in B, C, and D airspace, you have to be visible to ATC and in communication with them. This now applies to drones, too. There are now ADS-B transponders for drones; the smallest weighs 20 grams.[2] This makes your drone visible and identifiable to air traffic control. If you're taking real estate photos or shooting a movie in a big city, you need to be visible to ATC and talking to them. ATC towers have published phone numbers.
The hardest place to operate is New York City. City policy can be summed up as "No way". NYC assumes that anything unauthorized flying over the city is a terrorist attack, and ATC will not grant permission. Some bozo crashed a small drone into the Empire State Building early this year.[3] He was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) [2] http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/ [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-video...
Hopefully, as the technology evolves, so will people's comfort level in allowing for flight near buildings. Collision avoidance systems are slowly getting baked into drones
So, yes; you can technically fly to 1400ft near a 1000ft building.
This makes sense to me - the FAA being concerned with, well, basically commerically-oriented UAV flights and using their authority to establish parameters. Hopefully this is a helpful step to start integrating more flights and more interest in the field with trying to minimize ignorance that could be somewhat dangerous.
>The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation.
Sounds like this could get a waiver if the group is established and has the right safety record / resources. That's pretty neat. As a concert / festival / event attendee the last thing I'd want as a souvenir is a mangled noggin or appendage from an improperly or irresponsibly piloted UAV with a camera on it coming down on me.
Also, while the licensing parameters might seem a bit overbearing to some, I kind of think they rather reflect just how utterly terrible the testing and credentialing process is for automobile drivers in the US.
>Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate.
To me it's not that the UAV license is too much, but that consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines.
I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.
e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-...
Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.
It'll only take a handful of well publicized court cases to solve that problem.
As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on.
> FAA "will provide all drone users with recommended privacy guidelines as part of the UAS registration process and through the FAA’s B4UFly mobile app."
Bonus points for wrapping public concerns with privacy into the registration sequence.
I'm a private pilot too. Were you able to decipher this to determine if people with an existing PPL will need an endorsement or currency requirement, or if we are already considered certified in this context as well? I couldn't figure it out.
I'll probably get a UAS certificate just for kicks. (Why not?)
In that case I think you'd find our rather loose maritime laws to be particularly triggering. Our gun regulations are the same way. In that way its semi-consistent, smart people aren't going to get in trouble no matter what, dumb people are going to do dumb things no matter what regardless of what laws are written, so why bother.
These regulations regulate both hobbyist and commercial usage. Where did you see that the rules are for commercial use only?
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2...
"Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95."
The one part that I found very interesting is 'First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways,' opening the door for some wiggle room on how the line of sight and see-and-avoid rules get applied.
I suspect that the FAA would not see that as part of their mandate. They're primarily concerned with aviation safety in this context.
I'm really hoping as drones become mainstream people will be made aware of their right to privacy and where they have it. I spend a fair amount of time watching clips of ignorant people attacking cameramen and drone operators in public.
This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is socially acceptable.
Drones are normally really loud and annoying. In addition, the sound tends to radiate because it's above the things that would absorb the sound. If I'm out to enjoy some quiet on a trail, and I've got a gaggle of "Drunk Go-Pro Drone Bros", I'm going to be upset, and I'm going to have words with them (been there, done that).
The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.
Charming. Let's all try to solve problems by being kindergarten bullies.
This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the WWF for role models.
And the reason why we have regressed to needing to threaten someone physically is because an entire generation has been raised to believe that they are "special little flowers" who don't have to pay attention to the fact that what they do has an impact on other people.
While, yes, it is technically illegal to shoot a drone out of the sky over your own property, there is a reason why nobody has been willing to push the point in court.
Seriously wtf.
Anyway - people who attack cameramen very often say "What you're doing is illegal - I didn't give you permission to record me." - not, "Please don't record me, I would appreciate not appearing in your video." There's a HUGE difference here. They have every right to record you in public view, and you can ask nicely to avoid being caught in their view. This does NOT include threatening violence. What gets me is you only care about the 1 camera out of hundreds because there's a person behind it you can immediately see.
You are exactly the type of person who needs Civics.
Side note: If drones become a problem for hikers I expect to see certain areas like state parks adopt rules about drone usage to curb bad behavior. Hopefully such bans on drone operation will be carefully enacted, as drones have done a LOT to enable new perspectives on tired landscapes.