FAA seeks public input on drone operations
faa.gov
faa.gov
As a fixed wing pilot for almost 30 years it seems to me that the real danger is with hot air balloons and their inability to safely maneuver and control their direction within the airspace and not the operation of ‘drones’ or UAV’s.
I realize that my opinion is probably not going to be popular but it’s just my opinion.
Drones are incredibly difficult to see and last I checked FAA was proposing right of way and the burden of detect and avoid (and blame, if collision) on the balloonist. Basically anyone without adsb. And fixed wing pilots love to forget the entire forms of aviation exist outside part 91.
I’m a paramotor pilot and my entire flights are under 400 AGL around populated areas, and this also affects me.
I think it’s pretty fucked up for drones to have right of way over any manned flight.
I think there are ways to bring forward innovation with drones without this strange proposal that essentially shifts liability away from large corporations.
Some old info on this: https://usppa.org/faa/bvlos/
So, again, it’s my opinion that balloons are the real danger, not UAV’s.
Claiming that “balloons are a risk, not UAVs” is almost so bizarre that I mentally flag your posts as trolling.
Giving UAVs the right of way is bogus and will cost many human lives in General Aviation. There are already countless accidents reported with UAVs nearly taking down planes. They are impossible to see.
Edit: Your comment almost sounds like out of some bad communication workbook for lobbyists from the 70s - “pedestrians are the real danger on the street, cars are safe. Jay walking needs to be punished severely” ; “Public transportation is a communist idea threatening the very ideals of our society - every person should instead buy his OWN car”. Man, Balloons are the neatest and most harmless most easy to avoid objects in the sky. Don’t try to make them look bad. Everyone loves em.
Edited: “It was never…” to “I never…” Didn’t realize that @looping__lui was referring to a different comment. And, I’m not trolling e_e.
Who goes after balloons with “balloons are a risk, not UAVs”!?
In General Aviation thats like kicking puppies. And this direct quote to me very much sounded like “UAVs are not a risk”.
If I had to place my bets, I think that drone-operated aviation, delivery, etc. will become a trillion dollar market.
If that's the case, then obviously it takes precedence.
Hot air balloons or even small personal aircraft are a niche that serve a mostly wealthy subset of the population. Drone delivery and transportation will likely grow to serve all of us and kick off a multitude of further technological and business innovations. Because of this, drones should get regulatory approval and preference due to the huge potential benefits for society.
Not sure I met many “wealthy” balloon pilots, but glad you make “the trillion dollar industry of drones” a “fight for the common man”
For remote areas, military resupply and such, sure, drone will works just fine. But that is hardly a trillion dollar market, regardless how hard all those pitch decks try to make it one.
It's been years since fedex/ups/usps has done anything but quickly drop packages at my front door and get back in their truck asap
Since both aircraft have a strong incentive to avoid collision, there are fairly few mid-air collisions.
Now they want to give drones the right of way with no skin in the game. They can just go from waypoint to waypoint, never looking for anything, and if they hit something, they won't die, and they won't even get sued. If they're feeling particularly callous, they could even sue the other pilot's estate for the cost of their crashed drone.
I was shocked when a couple months ago I flew by a paraglider at the edge of my local D airspace, 1000' above the D and 1000' under the B shelf. You guys get crazy but it looks fun
To me it seems like the overall solutions have been pretty obvious - for drones capable of operating in IFR-only controlled airspace, the story is clear (transponder, ADS-B, follow filed flight plan and ATC instructions). For drones operating at lower altitudes in "see and avoid" VFR conditions, drones must be capable of seeing and avoiding traffic (there are some vendors in this space already). Giving commercial drone operators right of way just to make their development simpler is not the answer.
More troubling to me personally, the FAA is once again proposing rules that clearly encroach on private airspace rights. There is clear precedent from US v Causby that the government obviously does not control airspace all the way down to the ground, yet the FAA continues to propose and enact rules that would give it authority to prohibit personal use of the near airspace while providing it to commercial users. E.g. the position that the FAA can regulate your own drone flown over your own property below 400 feet, while enabling companies to do so, represents a serious encroachment on property rights.
Barring that they’ll encroach further and further.
Many jurisdictions allow armed defense of one’s private property against even human trespassers. Do you think corporate drones flying over your head taking videos of you in your own private back yard deserve more rights?
I was just thinking earlier today about the absolute meaninglessness of my Big Tech job — and whether it's even feasible or worthwhile to try and find something better.
I have meetings, and many of those meetings are about other meetings. In fleeting moments between calendar chimes, video calls, chat pings, and the flood of email, I code little morsels of SQL or Blub to at least do something interesting. It's tolerable, like all studies in nihilism. But you've got me wondering what it'd be like to work on something I'm genuinely enthusiastic about.
I really dislike the notion of taking a reduction in income to get that, though. I can't pay the bills with "meaning."
How are you all thinking about compensation in terms of salary vs. equity? I've never sweated over salary. Quite the opposite, I've intentionally sacrificed salary in favor of equity. I've taken calculated risks based on "expected values" I learned in school, and as expected things have turned out well. I prefer to own what I'm working on, and I appreciate the power of specialization. In exchange for meeting my high expectations, I've always trusted my current project or company leadership. Our interests are aligned, so it's easy. So far, prioritizing equity has paid off.
When I left the self driving car project for Zipline, right before it spun off as Waymo, my manager's manager asked me why I was considering leaving. On top of the exciting technical challenges, I mentioned the calculations I had done. I negotiated an offer that had the same expected value, but Zipline's upside was significantly higher. The manager thought it was crazy at the time. When I took the Zipline offer, It was a solid 25% decrease in salary. 7 years later that manager is at another company; several of my friends that stayed at Waymo are now laid off, and others that weren't have been casually looking for new opportunities. Meanwhile I've been having a blast and only have wonderful things to say.
Congrats on your work at Zipline.
I expect something about drone delivery “in the future” like some of Amazon’s promos from years ago.
No, they have a working version. And it’s not just a prototype, it’s pretty heavily battled tested in the real world.
AND it’s useful today. Its operation is not subsidized by VCs burning huge amounts of cash. It’s not in use just to use it for testing. It’s doing its actual job in a way that is cheaper and better than the alternatives.
In short: it’s 100% real. And I’m excited by the chance we may see it here.
I'm not sure why you think this, but Zipline is running at a loss at the moment and is dependent on VC cash. That doesn't mean it can never be profitable, but right now it is not.
I was referring more to the model of Uber and some others of just pour hundreds of millions into a hole for a decade until you’re all that’s left and then profit will magically appear.
Anyway, cheers.
"The FAA is seeking public input on four requests to conduct beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) drone operations at or below 400 feet. If granted, Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, Zipline, and UPS Flight Forward will continue to expand the envelope of FAA-approved BVLOS drone operations. Data collected from these operations will inform the FAA’s ongoing policy and rulemaking activities."
Zipline: autonomous delivery
UPS Flight Forward: drone delivery
uAvionix: looks like BVLOS tech?
Phoenix Air Unmanned: "aerial data acquisition services"
Alternatively, maybe it's time to push them to have a lighter, non certified version of ADSB for light aircraft/drones and mandate a price requirement for a mobile transponder/receiver under 1k. If apple can sell an AirTag for $20, there isn't any reason we couldn't get the prices of longer range beacons down.
The electronics aren't why the beacons are expensive, it's the regulations. Your proposal is to add more?
- Lack of support for the 1090 MHz ADS-B channel on any consumer handheld devices
- Cost, Size, Weight and Power (CSWaP) requirements of ADS-B transponders on CSWaP constrained UA
- Limited bandwidth of both uplink and downlink, which would likely be saturated by large numbers of UAS, endangering manned aviation
Understanding these technical shortcomings, regulators worldwide have ruled out the use of ADS-B for the small UAS for which UAS RID and DRIP are intended.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-arch-31.html
Anything beyond line of sight or over 400ft anywhere near controlled airspace probably needs to have ADSB to avoid being targeted by air or drone defenses. Even balloons. ADSB is now down to 26 grams.[1]
Still priced over $2000, but expect that to come down.
but if it is less restrictions on what can be done, I'm all for it.
Are there airforce based mercenaries who charge for intelligence and others ops and provide service to field armies and other mercs?
I don't see why it is so difficult to permit anyone to fly drones below 500m, over public roads, following the direction of traffic, below a certain weight and noise output.
The general plan seems to be to enforce RemoteID (local broadcast of UAV ID, mission, ground station location, etc.) https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDownloadDocument?pubId=&..., UAV and proposed flight path pre-registration with the local regulator plus a "well clear" avoidance zone around other UAVs. Once this is seen to work, commercial operations at scale can begin. There is an IETF DRIP standard being proposed allowing the develop of generic avionics to effect similar methods globally. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drip-arch/ https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-drip-arch-31.html
After trawling through 100s of "me balloon, you drone, balloon no like drone" comments, some of the 'better' articulated comments are https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0061/attachm... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0011 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0014 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0022 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0006 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0018 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0015 https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1256-0036/attachm... https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FAA-2023-1256-0005
Finally.
Sort of like the somewhat-mandated "shutter click" sound for digital cameras.
> In 2012 the agency donated two space telescopes to NASA. Despite being stored unused, the instruments are superior to the Hubble Space Telescope. One journalist observed, "If telescopes of this caliber are languishing on shelves, imagine what they're actually using."