FAA rules on commercial drones

[jyl]

What rules would you establish for commercial drones, if you were FAA?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/faas-proposed-drone-rules-to-impose-heavy-limits-on-commercial-use/

The rules that FAA is apparently preparing to issue seem excessive to me. Why should a drone below 400 ft altitude be operated by a licensed pilot? Besides creating employment for pilots.

[M.D. Holloway]

Drones illegal?

[Hugh R]

We already have approval to use drones in the movie industry. Yeah, we're special. As far as commercial pilots, it was a political decision to "push" it through with rule making. If I remember, I'll post more on this tomorrow.

Interestingly, Disney Studios/ABC is for it, but the theme parks are very much against it. BTW, the Disney theme parks are the only ones in the USA with FAA "no fly zones".

[Bill Douglas]

Next it will be drones that arn't actually drones. "No they are just remote control helicopters like kids get for Christmas - yeah sure it's got a camera and capabil of small arms fire..."

[wdfifteen]

I don't know why that URL doesn't show up as a link in the OP. Here it is.

FAA

"The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to impose strict limits on the commercial use of drones, requiring flights to occur within daylight hours, rise no higher than 400 feet above the ground, and to remain within the sight of the person controlling the drone..."

I don't have a problem with this. Maybe night flights should be allowed, but the height and sight line requirements make sense. I would include a provision mandating a strobe or other visibility enhancement on the drone itself.

"Commercial drone operators would be required to have a license and be trained to fly manned aircraft, even though drones are operated remotely."

This makes absolutely no sense. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this?

"The FAA's proposal would also "group all drones weighing less than 55 pounds under one set of rules." Again, makes no sense. There is a huge difference between a 1 pound overgrown toy and a 55 pound commercial drone.

I can see requiring a license to operate a commercial drone weighing over a specific weight, and I can see restricting where "recreational" drones can operate. I didn't see anything about these sensible rules in the proposal.

[nostatic]

This will impact our work quite a bit. We are doing photogrammetry research with them and so far have been able to fly mostly unfettered, though we're doing battle with LA Fire about flying over USC campus.

Right now it is the wild west, but the proposed regs are way too strict. There needs to be some middle ground.

[Seahawk]

I do this for a living and have been involved with unmanned systems for over 10 years.

This website is owned and managed by a friend of mine: sUAS News | Small Unmanned Aircraft System industry news for professionals Lots of good information there.

I could go on and on about the FAA, but that would be counter productive. Suffice to say that in the 10 plus years I have been working with them to craft reasonable flight rules and regulations for commercial UAS operators below 400ft the FAA has made zero, as in nada, progress.

I have spent tortuous days and weeks with them using their risk management processes and it all comes down to bureaucratic fear and bumbling, an inability to simply take what has been done in the military and by civilian operators and start the process of defining rules and regulation for flight in the national airpace, sense and avoid and file and fly.

The commercial opportunities are limitless.

Here is a teaser video we are putting together for the company I am partnered with:

[KNS]

Originally Posted by jyl

What rules would you establish for commercial drones, if you were FAA?

FAA

The rules that FAA is apparently preparing to issue seem excessive to me. Why should a drone below 400 ft altitude be operated by a licensed pilot? Besides creating employment for pilots.

I'm a commercial helicopter pilot. It is not unusual for us to fly over populated areas at 300 to 500 ft above the ground. Needless to say many of us are not thrilled about the increase in UAS currently taking place. Don't get me wrong, I find their capabilities interesting but a collision could easily bring down a helicopter.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by KNS

I find their capabilities interesting but a collision could easily bring down a helicopter.

Any more dangerous than a bird strike?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by KNS

I'm a commercial helicopter pilot. It is not unusual for us to fly over populated areas at 300 to 500 ft above the ground. Needless to say many of us are not thrilled about the increase in UAS currently taking place. Don't get me wrong, I find their capabilities interesting but a collision could easily bring down a helicopter.

I understand. How would having a licensed fixed wing pilot operating the drone, as opposed to a licensed drone operator, help you?

[KNS]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

Any more dangerous than a bird strike?

I've had a few bird strikes over the years, (luckily none with any significant damage). A small enough bird will usually just glance off (they're soft) and make a bit of a mess, even on a main rotor blade. Haven't had any bird strikes on tail rotor blades, thankfully. As you know, a large bird could do much more damage and have brought down helicopters. Phi lost an S-76 with all on board several years ago.

Most birds, if they see the aircraft coming, will dive out of the way (I've seen this plenty of times), they have their own sense of self preservation. I don't know if drones have a similar "evasive action" yet.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

I understand. How would having a licensed fixed wing pilot operating the drone, as opposed to a licensed drone operator, help you?

It might help, it might not. A pilot at least might have an innate sense of where other aircraft might be operating.

My reply was really aimed at the height (400' above the ground) at which drones may be operating. That's right smack-dab at the altitude you'll find a lot of helicopters.

[cashflyer]

Kurt - there's nothing really new about that altitude. It has for a long time been established at 400' agl. That is the AMA rule, and that is the rule published in AC 91-57 back in 1981. The only change I see is that it moves the rule from being advisory in nature to being regulatory in nature.

Also, 400' is the ceiling for flying without a license. As I understand it, drones will be allowed to fly higher, but only when piloted by a FAA licensed commercial pilot. Do I think that will help? Not really. There are other NORDO aircraft operating in Class G airspace, but they are easier to spot than a little UAV quadcopter. And the UAV POV vision is limited to looking forward. No head swivel watching for traffic.

Maybe this is what the FAA wants. After a few midair collisions, the public outcry will let them regulate the drones much more stringently.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by KNS

It might help, it might not. A pilot at least might have an innate sense of where other aircraft might be operating.

My reply was really aimed at the height (400' above the ground) at which drones may be operating. That's right smack-dab at the altitude you'll find a lot of helicopters.

The key is that the UAS will be within line of sight, generally operating in a fixed area on auto-pilot, a hugely accurate auto-pilot flying a per-programmed route. The rules also require an observer in addition to the pilot.

I guaranteed you they'll hear you (99% of the current commercial fixed and rotary wing UAS are electric) and will take control of the UAS and react accordingly.

The helo's (I am a helicopter pilot) need to stay at 500agl and above. Problem solved.

I managed all Navy and Marine Corps UAS for five years at the height of the WOT. UAS and manned aircraft flew hundreds of thousands of hours in the same airspace with two incidents, neither fatal.

I would be much more worried about Joe Cessna who flyies 10 hours a month than I would be about small UAS making a living at 400agl and below. The statistics prove it.

[GH85Carrera]

The FAA has a lot to consider. One of the events that freaked them out was someone flying a UAV or drone at a political rally above a large crowd. Then the UAV dropped down and landed at the feet of the politician speaking. It would be easy for a terrorist to put a large bomb on the UAV and make a deadly weapon.

One reason they want a commercial licensed pilot to be the operator is safety of everyone.

Anyone can go get a survey grade GPS and do a survey but only a licensed surveyor is allowed to do it commercially. Same for an electrician, or a plumber. There is a legitimate tangible reason a license is needed to be a pharmacist or a pilot. Anyone on the board can glue PVC pipe together and play plumber. That does not mean they can do it is a safe a proper way.

The vast majority of the people driving a car do it at the minimum level of competence and kill themselves and others on a daily basis in a simple car. Put them behind the joystick of a UAV and we will see a lot of injuries and deaths.

[911_Dude]

^^^
I can understand what you are saying, but what does getting a pilot license have to do with making the safest UAV pilot? Especially when any kid can master a quadcopter in an hour. I think much more fitting would be a ground school and test so a "pilot" knows the rules. Then some basic quad copter flight test. There is very little correlation with flying UAVs and real planes. Why the UASF spends the money to send a guy through pilot training only to go to a UAV squadron is beyond me, as well as why someone would have to shell out thousands to get a pilot rating he doesnt need.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

The key is that the UAS will be within line of sight, generally operating in a fixed area on auto-pilot, a hugely accurate auto-pilot flying a per-programmed route. The rules also require an observer in addition to the pilot.

I guaranteed you they'll hear you (99% of the current commercial fixed and rotary wing UAS are electric) and will take control of the UAS and react accordingly.

The helo's (I am a helicopter pilot) need to stay at 500agl and above. Problem solved.

I managed all Navy and Marine Corps UAS for five years at the height of the WOT. UAS and manned aircraft flew hundreds of thousands of hours in the same airspace with two incidents, neither fatal.

I would be much more worried about Joe Cessna who flyies 10 hours a month than I would be about small UAS making a living at 400agl and below. The statistics prove it.

Of all the commercial operators I've worked for, nearly all of them have 300' AGL written as a minimum altitude outlined in their Operations Specifications.

Do I go flying around at 300 ft? No, not necessarily. But every time we land off airport (scene calls), which is often, we descend below 300'. This may be in a residential or suburban environment. This might be an area where we would encounter a UAV with no prior notification of it being in the area.

You'll have to get all the commercial helicopter operators to reexamine their Ops Specs so everyone can play together.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

The helo's (I am a helicopter pilot) need to stay at 500agl and above. Problem solved.

So, you propose to change the helicopter flight operating rules to accommodate UAVs?

[KNS]

Originally Posted by 911_Dude

^^^
I can understand what you are saying, but what does getting a pilot license have to do with making the safest UAV pilot? Especially when any kid can master a quadcopter in an hour. I think much more fitting would be a ground school and test so a "pilot" knows the rules. Then some basic quad copter flight test. There is very little correlation with flying UAVs and real planes. Why the UASF spends the money to send a guy through pilot training only to go to a UAV squadron is beyond me, as well as why someone would have to shell out thousands to get a pilot rating he doesnt need.

The USAF doesn't spend thousands on pilot training for a newly minted aviator to be a UAV pilot. The majority of them are usually veteran pilots who've been flying for many years and transferred to UAV flying.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by 911_Dude

^^^
I can understand what you are saying, but what does getting a pilot license have to do with making the safest UAV pilot? Especially when any kid can master a quadcopter in an hour. I think much more fitting would be a ground school and test so a "pilot" knows the rules. Then some basic quad copter flight test. There is very little correlation with flying UAVs and real planes. Why the UASF spends the money to send a guy through pilot training only to go to a UAV squadron is beyond me, as well as why someone would have to shell out thousands to get a pilot rating he doesnt need.

If someone is operating a UAV as a commercial service that means a business by default. How will anyone insure that UAV? If Joe Blow civilian goes to the big boy store and orders a multiple POUND UAV and starts flying real estate or anything at all FOR MONEY, what happens when the UAV smashes into some kids head or right through a windshield of a car or truck. It will happen AGAIN and several people have been injured and at least one death is reported.

If you hired him or did the UAV flight yourself and a property loss or injury occurs, who pays? Part of running any business is insurance. We have clients that insist on 5 million of coverage for us to put a very experienced pilot in a real airplane with real inspections and all the legal licenses just to fly over their site at 2,000 feet. We have been flying commercially since 1947 with not one single incident of any sort. We have to play by the rules. Why should a UAV just get to make up the rules as they go?

There HAS to be some rules and laws. Coming up with fair and equitable rules is the tough part.