Where you can and can't fly a drone
bbc.com
bbc.com
This is incorrect. The 400ft "limit" is a guideline for safe separation from manned aircraft (which are generally restricted from operating below 500ft).
It is true that the Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9, 1981) restricts operation above 400 feet, but this is document is explicitly non-binding and has never been given the force of law. A hard 400' limit was considered and rejected in both the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the FAA's pending Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
If you are interested in the details of pending U.S. legislation, I suggest following the Academy of Model Aeronautics' Government Relations blog: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/
That's an interesting perspective, because I'd say if anything they've passed from the enthusiast and hobbyist sphere into the commercial/military one.
Edit: I guess it all depends on the definition of "drone"...
I think that even if nothing against the CAA rules happened, they should probably be tightened to give a large perimeter around airports.
The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a likely common use - looking where you can't see. That's a bit of a shame for those wishing to get excellent photos or video of landscape features, buildings, etc. I can see why it would make the CAA nervous, but a real time video feed to the operator is surely close enough to 'line of sight' or making it more like a manned aircraft?
Even if they hadn't been operating beyond the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) conditions (they were apparently at 700ft, CAA accepts VLOS to be below 400ft), I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft was in breach of other rules, such as operating an FPV/Surveillance aircraft over a congested area, or within an aerodrome traffic zone.
> The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a likely common use - looking where you can't see.
I think you'd be surprised at how much of a "non-issue" this is (excuse the awkward grammar). UAVs are my profession and I do a lot of surveillance and data acquisition work, and I can't remember ever _needing_ to fly out of VLOS. Real time video feeds give you a great view of what is going on in front of the camera, but not of what is happening around the aircraft. As advanced as UAVs have become they are not infallible and, as unlikely as it may seem, you should be prepared for your flying blender to fall out of the sky at any moment.
We were operating just a few days ago and the crew list was: pilot, pilot's spotter/assistant, payload operator, and three spotters. This may seem like overkill but a 7kg object falling from 50m can do some serious damage, and that is assuming the blades stop spinning on the way down.
And I think this simple ignorance illustrates the looming problem for the UAV community. As a commercial pilot and experimental aircraft owner, I can tell you that if the UAV community does not start to self-police these types of excursions, either by education or with software solutions (like the GPS-limiter mentioned in the article), then the regulating bodies will do it for them.
Most HN readers would agree that there is huge potential for UAV technology, but one needs only to look at the glacial progress of certified aviation technology in both the US and Europe to see that over-regulation can and does stifle innovation.
For readers familiar with the differing regulations in the US for experimental category amateur-built aircraft vs. certified light aircraft, you've seen the wide gap between what is possible to do with technology and what is legal to certify. In most cases, an aircraft built in your garage is far superior in display and sensor technology than your average certified airplane. This trend has only recently started to self-correct.
The point is, US organizations such as the EAA and AOPA do a tremendous amount of work to educate their members and to lobby Congress to ensure that what limited freedoms we have are maintained. I think the UAV community needs something similar or their industry will get regulated to death -- especially after the first drone gets ingested into a jet engine.
These have no idea what they're doing and do not participate to forums/communities/etc thus are difficult to regulate.
Blaming it on the UAV community is actually also being ignorant. The actual community is literally spammed by posts about flying safe/where to fly/etc.
I think that a decent analogy to these drone pilots are laser-pointer owners pointing at airplanes. That's totally retarded, doesn't achieve anything exciting - it only risk other ppl's life with low chance of getting caught. Just like drones attempting to "film" 747's landing and the like.
I wouldn't say I "blame" the UAV community at all, because, as you say, there are always outliers who can't/won't be educated.
But since I imagine the UAV forum-readers and would-be professional operators are interested in keeping government oversight out of their industry as much as possible, I'd say it's their responsibility to take action on this matter, much like the EAA and AOPA do with personal aircraft.
Much easier to find the source of a laser pointer than the person flying a drone though. I'm not sure how you can deal with that.
* The Small UAV Coalition (Amazon, AirWare, etc.) http://www.smalluavcoalition.org/
* Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (trade association): http://www.auvsi.org/home
Lots of individual universities, media companies, and tech companies have also been lobbying for UAV use.
There is also the Academy of Model Aeronautics, which is focused on hobby flying, including "drones."
As such, you don't need to stipulate that there is a line of sight as you fly using the camera / video feed.
Edit: whoops. i read that 150m part _completely_ wrong, cheers vp
I suspect their 150m surveillance rule is part privacy, and part a belief that if you're trying to film something/somebody with a camera you pose a higher risk than if you're just flying past them.