Highly anticipated federal rules on commercial drones are expected to require operators to have a license and limit flights to daylight hours, below 400 feet and within sight of the person at the controls, according to people familiar with the rule-making process.
The drone industry has awaited commercial rules for about six years, hoping the rules would pave the way for widespread drone use in industries such as farming, filmmaking and construction. Current FAA policy allows recreational drone flights in the U.S. but essentially bars drones from commercial use.
While the FAA wants to open the skies to unmanned commercial flights, the expected rules are more restrictive than drone supporters sought and wouldn’t address privacy concerns over the use of drones, people familiar with the matter said.
The agency also plans to group all drones weighing less than 55 pounds under one set of rules. That would dash hopes for looser rules on the smallest drones, such as the 2.8-pound Phantom line of camera-equipped, four-rotor helicopters made by China’s SZ DJI Technology Co. Similar-sized devices are seen as the most commercially viable drones and have surged in popularity in the last two years.
Small-drone supporters say such models are less risky to people and structures than heavier drones like Boeing Co. ’s ScanEagle, a gas-powered, 40-pound aircraft with a 10-foot wingspan that can stay aloft for more than 24 hours. ConocoPhillips Co. uses the ScanEagle to gather data on Arctic ice pack and whale migrations.
In addition, pilot certifications likely to be proposed by the FAA would typically require dozens of hours flying manned aircraft, according to people familiar with the rule-making discussions. Drone proponents have resisted requiring traditional pilot training for drone operators.
FAA officials expect to announce proposed rules by year-end. The proposal will kick off a public comment period that is likely to flood the agency with feedback. It could take one or two years to issue final rules.
In a statement, the FAA said it is working to “integrate unmanned aircraft into the busiest, most complex airspace system in the world—and to do so while we maintain our mission—protecting the safety of the American people in the air and on the ground. That is why we are taking a staged approach to the integration of these new airspace users.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing the current FAA proposal and seeking comments from other parts of the government, including the Pentagon and law-enforcement agencies. Last-minute objections could change some specifics and delay release of the proposed rules.
The agency has said it is moving carefully on drone rules out of concern for potential collisions with other aircraft and injury to people and structures on the ground.
Airline pilots and aircraft owners have supported the cautious approach. But some drone-industry officials predict a loud backlash to the proposal.
“I feel like there’s a colossal mess coming,” said Michael Drobac, executive director of the Small UAV Coalition, an advocacy group for drone makers and innovators, includingGoogle Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. The rule is going to be “so divorced from the technology and the aspirations of this industry…that we’re going to see a loud rejection.”
Unmanned aircraft have proliferated in U.S. skies as technology makes them smaller, cheaper, more powerful and easier to fly. While the FAA has helped build unparalleled safety into passenger air-travel with strict manufacturing and operating rules, the system didn’t foresee thousands of small aircraft buzzing around at low altitude.
The FAA’s current policy allows commercial drone flights only with case-by-case approval. Officials have authorized just a handful of companies so far.
Still, thousands of entrepreneurs are believed to be flying the devices without FAA clearance, making it hard for those operators to get insurance.
Some government and aviation-industry officials are worried about surging use without meaningful oversight. Pilots are increasingly reporting midair drone sightings, including three near John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York last week.
Drone proponents say the U.S.’s regulatory approach is less accommodating than in other countries. This month, Canada plans to issue blanket approval for all commercial operations that use drones weighing less than 4.4 pounds as long as they comply with certain safety standards, such as altitude limits and no-fly zones around airports.
The FAA must “properly balance regulatory restrictions and the safety risks posed by” various sizes of unmanned aircraft, said Ted Ellett, a former FAA chief counsel who now is a partner at law firm Hogan Lovells US LLP. Mr. Ellett said a “one-size-fits-all” approach “will create yet another unnecessary and costly impediment.”Gretchen West, former executive vice president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the nation’s biggest drone-lobbying group, said large, powerful drones like those used by the military got more attention when the FAA began working on the rules.
Since then, much of the growth has shifted to smaller drones. The expected rules are “going to be very restrictive for small systems,” she added.
Jesse Kallman, head of regulatory affairs for drone-software firm Airware, said requiring commercial drone pilots to have cockpit training “will end up excluding someone who has hundreds of hours of experience on an unmanned aircraft in favor of a pilot who understands how to operate a Cessna but not an unmanned aircraft.”
In exemptions granted to six filmmaking companies to use drones on film sets earlier this year, the FAA required operators to have private-pilot licenses.
The FAA’s draft rule is expected to require lower-level pilot certifications requiring fewer flight hours, according to people familiar with the matter.
One former FAA official said the agency is concerned that statutes bar it from authorizing commercial aircraft operations that don’t have a certified pilot.
The agency is drafting language asking Congress for greater flexibility, this person said.
The planned 400-foot flying limit within the operator’s sight largely follows the FAA’s current rules for recreational uses of drones. Those rules are based partly on voluntary guidelines for model aircraft published by the agency in 1981.
Drone proponents say the FAA is relying on decades-old regulations that don’t account for advancements in technology. Many drone pilots use “first-person view” technology allowing them to rely on real-time footage from a drone’s camera broadcast to their controller or headwear that resembles virtual-reality visors. Users can add infrared and other sensors for night or low-visibility missions.
The FAA’s expected requirement for daylight flights within the operator’s sight would essentially prohibit many commercial applications, such as pipeline inspections and crop monitoring on large farms.
The FAA is awaiting data from a number of test sites before proposing regulations affecting drones that weigh more than 55 pounds. That process is expected to take at least several years. Until then, many states and local governments are likely to establish their own standards.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Full size Aerial Photography in the UK has not been altogether without incidence. We had jet fighters having mid air collisions with Cessnas and a few low flyers who managed controlled flight into terrain. It took about twenty five years before any realistic enforcement came in with the AOC affecting commercial AP flights. It was a case of just don't say it's commercial and save yourself about 30 K per year. The CAA saw AP as a grey area and even went so far as to produce a small guide showing how to avoid being classed as commercial. The last few years have seen some tighter rules for flying clubs who simply got around the system by calling it a trail lesson. What it all boils down to is the fact that General Aviation is being supported by the Airlines so it is bad economy to get involved with something this trivial. The airlines object to funding GA in a word. Unless they can fart about with pieces of paper that have a large fee attached to them, it becomes a problem they just don't want because most civil servants can have a much easier life when they simply say no to everything. Only when it is a matter of National Security does someone get really interested. Maybe we should be trying to legalise a much broader and less commercial aspect that contains flight within a tighter and more controlled environment with tiered system of operators working within the auspices of local police who would make the final judgement on how and where. In Cyprus we have they army running that show.
I love to see the glass half full!
That's interesting the UAPO better start changing the paperwork, that might take a while.
The Sky is falling - - Still.
No surprise here, regardless of veracity, the FAA has yet to behave in a remotely reasonable fashion.
Reacting to the blunder of the moment seems to just feed the frenzy and doesn't do much to help.
What would help is if "we" as a group could start coming up with some reasonable ideas to put forward.
Possibly based at least in part on some of the more enlightened "rules", plans and acceptable practices already put in place in many countries.
In the US we seem to have gotten a Big Brother response from our rule makers which seems determined to basically ban reasonable civilian "drone" use.
It seems unlikely that this stance will persist no matter how many back room deals are made.
In the rest of the world at least some countries are embracing reasonable and enlightened practices which will allow the true value of civilian drone use to be obvious to all.
The days when you could control dissemination of information are past.
And when the public sees how complicit their own government and in particular the FAA have been in cheating them out of those benefits, their Draconian policies are not likely to stand for long.
Lack of rules is one thing, but when the rules and regulations aren't making sense, people find ways to work around them. http://hosted2.ap.org/OHWIN/8494b6914ff248458c760d14dcaee4e5/Articl...
+1 Doug
@Jake Stew,
Please clarify how you came up with your statement ".........trying to take the 500 feet of private airspace ....."?
I believe that statement is incorrect in that a private owner do not own the sky's above his property, only the space that is considered reasonable.
No one owns airspace up to 500 feet, they do however "...owns only so much airspace above their property as that may reasonable use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of airspace above the property."
The 500 feet limit (in rural areas) is for safety of flight in case a pilot has an emergency and needs to be able to land safely using the remaining height to do so. The minimum altitude in congested areas is 1000 feet minimum.
The FAA has the sole authority over all airspace, exclusively determini....
That's not really a scoop, they have said several times all the requirements of the 333 exemptions plus ASTM F-38s standards (military grade manuals) will be required. The cost of those manuals will make getting a PPL look like chicken feed. Lets hope I am wrong the Hollywood approval might be a glimmer of hope on that front.
The biggest issue now is that the current leaders of the FAA UAS office are leaving. One soon at the beginning of December and the other in January. This may reset the clock on the small rule NPRM (again)
Lets not forget they pulled down AC 91-57 by accident in October its plainly on the cards. Outlets that keep refering to it are mistaken, the language of HR658 is key now. The RC/Unmanned community in the USA should have been paying more attention. All the jumping up and down and its my right is coming home to roost.
I always consider Simon Dale in the UK who set up an organisation to defend FPV, it started with big restrictions but slowly heights and distance are expanding. He has done an excellent job of moving things forward sensibly.
I've gone on a rant haven't I
Best stop and make room for others. Would the US based membership being inducted into the small UAV Coalition make a difference or even be possible I wonder. Do members here need to stand behind one of the efforts?
Oh and sUAS News knew about the SFAR 107 meeting earlier this month
Looks like an inter-agency 107 meeting was held in D.C.
Here is the reading of the tea leaves
No Class A or B
500 AGL
Under 55lbs
Private Pilot Ground School (Knowledge test)
Some sort of certificate
N #
Look to the 333 Exemption requirements
Expecting 100,000 comments
None of this is confirmed and the information is from several sources!
(For those new to the scene Patrick spoke of SFAR 107 back 2010)
Something that I could actually do commercially with my private pilot certificate! That's one plus I suppose. Although, a huge minus for those without one.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next