Link:
Excerpt from above article:
Some very bad news for drone pilots this morning: An appeals board has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has wide latitude to make all drone flights illegal in the United States.
The decision, by the National Transportation Safety Board, determined that the FAA's existing "aircraft" regulations can apply to model aircraft, drones, and remote controlled aircraft, which is perhaps the most restrictive possible outcome for drone pilots in a legal saga that has dragged on for more than a year.
Comments
Brendan S: you're correct, I looked at "Civil Aircraft of the United States."
As for why they didn't investigate the Brooklyn accident, it beats me. Can you remind me of the circumstances?
Reporting requirements are in 830.5; 830.2 is Definitions, and says, in relevant part, "Unmanned aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of any public or civil unmanned aircraft system that takes place between the time that the system is activated with the purpose of flight and the time that the system is deactivated at the conclusion of its mission, in which:
(1) Any person suffers death or serious injury; or
(2) The aircraft has a maximum gross
takeoff weight of 300 pounds or greater and sustains substantial damage.
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60
FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995; 75 FR 51955, Aug. 24,
2010]
I think this move by the FAA will only create a new class of outlaw - the cowboy drone pilot. The FAA can pass new rules, but if the hurdle is too high, those who really want to fly are going to ignore them.
The biggest problem that I see with that is that prohibition creates criminals. Think of alcohol - during prohibition people did not stop drinking, they just went underground, and that's not good. Undergrounds create black markets, and the people that run those become criminals.
What was the difference between Auggie Busch and Al Capone? They both sold beer, but when Busch's beer got outlawed, Al Capone stepped in and filled the void. If a vendor didn't get paid by Busch, he went to court. Al Capone solved the same problems in a terrifying way.
Bill, we are in agreement. The FAA has created a situation that is wide open to abuse by those so inclined. Worse, they have created a situation where hundreds, maybe thousands, of would-be entrepreneurs are totally frustrated by their inability to get approval even to conduct test flights, let alone do anything "useful" with UASs.
I just returned from Paris where I participated in last week's` AAE symposium on the "Present and Future of Civilian RPAS" (http://www.academie-air-espace.com/RPAS/prog.php -- there is an English version available upper right) and I can tell you I came away very frustrated with the situation here in the U.S. In 2012 the DGAC published a very well-structured set of regulations covering these vehicles and systems (see http://www.drone-rc.com/en/regulation ). The net result: one slide presented during the conference told the story--at the end of April, 2014, there were over 1000 approved operators utilizing over 1600 "drones." The conference was a complete sellout, and was well-attended by manufacturers, regulators, users, and interested parties. Programs using multirotor and fixed-wing drones were presented by France TV, EDF, Bouygues, Agricultural interests, SNCF, and the petroleum industry...they are actively and legally using these devices for the kind of network surveillance (pipelines, EDF, SNCF), crop mapping and other precision agricultural applications, etc. that we talk about in our NRC report. In contrast to what we have here in the US., representatives from industry were publicly giving credit to the DGAC for implementing these regulations in 2012...it is clear that this action has enabled a burgeoning industry just as we discussed in our NRC report...but in this case, it isn't potential, it's real. It was very exciting, but, as a citizen of the U.S., also very frustrating.
The FAA was subject to significant criticism, and not, this time, by me. When the FAA representative present asked me at lunch the first day what I thought of that criticism, I was pretty blunt in my comments to the effect that they were "right on target." We talked about how this situation came to be, and later in her remarks to the conference, she essentially acknowledged that the FAA was behind the power curve, but suggested strongly that the forthcoming "light UAS" rule-making ("before the end of the year" ) would change the situation markedly. But the truth is that what is about to be released is a NPRM, and it will easily be two years before rules are actually in place. Meanwhile, if you want to develop your UAS/Drone business, it would seem to be easier in France than here in the U.S.
Jake Stew has posed an interesting question above regarding "navigable airspace." If you Google "case law: 91.119" you'll find lots of case law exists. Jake and I agree, it won't do to claim that the FAA doesn't have the right to regulate our low-flying activities. My concern is that any serious incident involving one of our UASs and a bystander or a civil aircraft could cause a serious over-reaction from the FAA, or worse, from Congress. So once again, it is in our long-term interests for all of us to conduct our operations safely within the bounds of applicable regulations, and using common sense, and as Bill says, let's "educate those who choose to be teachable."
I think everyone here agrees that we must operate responsibly and safely and use common sense. Of course we don't fly near an airport where there are larger manned aircraft. I think part of the problem is a lack of education and part of the problem is that idiots can buy these things too.
You can't fix stupid, but you can educate those who choose to be teachable. I think promoting a simple, common sense set of guidelines might be a worthwhile compromise until the FAA comes up with a set of usable rules.
I think that things like blanket bans and prohibitions by the FAA are something that makes the drone flying public see the FAA as an adversary instead of a helpful partner, and that can lead to a backlash.
My previous post was meant to be a joke, but the FAA is now reclassifying drones as aircraft. They are demanding to regulate them, but not offering any kind of service to the public, which is the only reason we have an FAA.
The FAA's attitude always seems to be that they own the sky and are letting us use it. It's the other way around, WE own the sky, and we've hired the FAA to help us manage it.
Unmanned aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of any public or civil unmanned aircraft system that takes place between the time that the system is activated with the purpose of flight and the time that the system is deactivated at the conclusion of its mission, in which:
(1) Any person suffers death or serious injury; or
(2) The aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 300 pounds or greater and sustains substantial damage.
Preamble to current version of 830.2, Federal Register 2010-20864:
"Further, the NTSB intends its inclusion of the phrase ‘‘public or civil’’ in the amended rule to exclude military UASs, model aircraft, and commercial spacecraft operating under FAA waivers."
In short, the NTSB is not interested in bent props on your Phantom, unless those props were bent in a collision with a civil aircraft, or inflicted serious injury on a person, in which case they will be very interested. Again, to avoid legal and/or regulatory reppercussions that could adversely affect our present access to airspace, we as a community need to be promoting constructive attitudes in our membership. Careless acts by only a couple of us could hurt us all.
@John No, I'm not talking about a collision with another aircraft. Since they are aircraft now, and the NTSB's mission is to investigate all aircraft accidents, including near misses. Since drones are aircraft now, we should call them next time someone bends a prop on his phantom.
A prop strike to the ground in full size aircraft is supposed to require an NTSB incident report.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next