Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkaljundi | Hacker News Reader

FAA has never allowed the use of drones to deliver packages. The right headline would be "The FAA does still not allow use of drones to deliver packages."

View on HN

The FAA has no physical ability, and currently no legal authority, to allow or disallow the use of drones to deliver packages. This document is a set of rules that the FAA would like to carry legal weight, but which currently do not.

I'm assuming you're referring to FAA v. Pirker.

Isn't the case still undecided?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-...

The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal?

But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0].

[0] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims...

In this case the appeal stays the decision:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...

Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.

Even if they lose, won't the laws change to give them these powers ? I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.

The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS.

However, the FAA's rulemaking abilities are limited by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and they haven't made any yet.

So, even if the FAA's appeal fails, there will be a very short window (probably a year or less) before drones are explicitly regulated on less shaky footing.

> The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS.

So claims the FAA. I can't make my way through the text of the law, nor can I find any legal summary or analysis other than the FAA's own claim that it gives them the authority to regulate UAS.

Let me save you the trouble. As a lawyer, familiar with reading legislative text, it clearly requires them to do rulemaking about UAS, and grants them the authority to do so.

Everybody is arguing if they have the authority or not the more important question is why do they want to?

I find the FAA's attempt at banning anything commercial relating to drones a bit curious.

Step 1. Ban/regulate all commercial Drones.

Step 2. Require a license for commercial use.

Step 3. Profit?

The FAA's goal in life is to ensure safety in the air. Drones are obviously within their field of interest. When commercial drones take off, there will obviously be a lot more drones in the air than the recreational drones and toy aircraft now, since there is a lot of money to be made, while comparatively few people fly things for a hobby.

If that was the intent they would be putting rules in place to prevent people from getting hurt not outright banning them which is what their doing now.

This looks more like a move to kill an industry before it takes off if you pardon my pun.

Not to mention there's nothing to regulate at the moment no people have been hurt by drones and there's very few companies actually looking into them.

So the next logical question is who would loose money if commercial drone delivery services become the norm?

> I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.

Really? How about people hitting baseballs with bats unregulated? That's a heck of a lot more dangerous than most hobbyist drones, perhaps unless you're deliberately trying to do harm (in which case regulations don't matter).

It's risk assessment time. How many people are hitting baseball bats with unregulated bats today versus the number of drones that will be flying around cities delivering things all the time (and bumping into people on the sidewalks)? It takes little imagination to see that once drones are accepted as an efficient method of transportation, then companies will want to use them as much as possible, thus possibly creating a situation where we might want them to be regulated. Perhaps it's hard to see this happening from the few examples we've of hobbyist usage today but that is probably going to change (if they're accepted, etc, etc).

This downvote pattern in HN is really interesting. Instead of discussing ideas people seem to downvote based on how they agree with it or not. The argument's validity usually is dismissed if it goes against someone's view. And, of course, serious replies rarely follow. Talk about bias bubble SV :)

That's interesting. Is it well-accepted that an appeal stays the decisions? If not, then this might just be another case of the FAA claiming its desires. And even if the appeal is stayed, what is the default state?

In the case of the NTSB court, yes, a "timely" appeal stays the decision by default. 49 CFR § 821.43

It's a valid point but does it matter in reality? If it's not the FAA's then some other govt agency (or even a new one) will regulate things that fly around in our cities. The way I see it, the FAA is just getting ahead of future events.

Regardless of the legal enforceability of these rules, I do think Amazon and the FAA need to be certain that a swarm of package-delivering drones don't cause, say, a passenger airplane crash or the failure of an airport's air traffic control system, before we see general deployment of these drones.

I suspect the true difficult technical challenge here will be upgrading the planes and airports to handle hundreds of little drones flying around, with the legal framework to follow.

The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. In this regard, it makes the statement that they are now banning it more true than they are still banning it, because they have never expressly disallowed it in the past (to my knowledge -- if incorrect, probably renders my point moot).

Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.

Nope!

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf...

UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling).

That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone).

EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene.

One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.

Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular.

In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.

Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash."

I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing.

I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!"

As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.

Why don't you expect the FAA to "correctly regulate" drones? They've done a great job regulating commercial passenger and freight planes, leading to an excellent safety record for these vehicles.

I believe they'll err too far on the side of caution for small drones, stifling potential innovation by requiring expensive airworthiness certification, ADS-B, and flight planning for all drones which fly beyond line of sight, even those which are small enough not to pose a major threat to commercial aviation or bystanders.

The FAA's roadmap here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/UAS_Roadmap_2...

indicates that they plan to implement these requirements for all drones which aren't sUAS with a line-of-sight requirement.

I believe these drones should be authorized for testing and commercial flight over unpopulated areas below 500ft and possibly above in certain airspace classes - basically, that the existing, frequently ignored hobbyist "recommendations" should be enforced as "rules" and applied commercially.

If we put outselves in FAA's shoes, if they're too un-restrictive against drones now they run the risk of letting the situation get out of control in the future. As a thought exercise, how would the recommendations be enforced? Once drones are accepted as common transportation agents, how do you identify the one skipping the recommendations and, more importantly, who is flying it?

According to the FAA, they clarified this in 2007. No flying a UAS for commercial purposes, only one case has ever been approved.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

at least the 2012 act requires them to allow flying UAS for commercial purposes (at the very least in the arctic, and likely elsewhere, depending on how you read it), and start a rulemaking about it

The 2012 act requires that the FAA have rules in place by 2015. So far, the FAA has missed nearly every deadline that was required by the 2012 act.

In theory, the FAA's funding is contingent upon having rules in place. In practice, I'm sure congress will grant them an extension when they end up late.

Oops. Thanks for the clarification. That explains the yo-yo voting patterns I'm seeing on my post, I suppose.

Which law are you talking about?

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_...

This 2007 policy document clarifies the FAA's stance about drone operations, citing various FAA notices and arguing that commercially flown drones are subject to the standard Part 91 aircraft regulations and none are approved - thus, making them illegal.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf...

This 2012 notice clarifies the FAA's stance that model aircraft are not all aircraft under 55lbs, but rather those that are flown by hobbyists non-commercially, again citing various FAA notices (but no actual rules).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the FAA explicit authority to regulate Unmanned Aerial Systems and requires that they implement rules within a certain timeframe (as yet, no rules are implemented - they work through this process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act ).

The FAA tried to fine a high-profile UAV operator (the founder of Team Black Sheep): http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/03/07/faa-...

The lowest NTSB court ruled that the FAA's current UAS regulations are unenforceable as the FAA's attempt relied on Notices to Airmen and FAA Policy documents, but no actual enforceable FAA Rules. However, the FAA appealed which immediately stays the decision (due to the procedure for NTSB proceedings).

Observers expect the appeal to fail, but by the time the court proceedings are complete there's a good chance that the FAA's actual Rules will be in place.

Clicked link, ads shown -> mission accomplished (for TC, at least)

I didn't see any ads

Reply on news.ycombinator.com