
FAA Moves Toward Treating Drones and Planes as Equals - szczys
https://hackaday.com/2018/10/08/will-drones-and-planes-be-treated-as-equals-by-faa/
======
madrox
When I started my first coding job, I once made the joke that "testing is
hard. I'll just push the code to production and see what happens." An old,
crusty engineer just looked at me and said, "you're the kind of person that
gets people killed."

I feel like 99% of the engineers who comment on HN don't work in fields where
their technology could kill someone if it messes up. If an error meant
someone's death, you'd probably think a little harder for committing. That's
why I'm not taking anyone who calls this "draconian" or derisively "risk
averse" seriously.

Being a safety-first industry is not a punch line. Life is stochastic, not
deterministic, and the FAA exists to add as many 9s to the likelihood of
success as possible. Sorry your fun is ruined, but when I fly in a plane I
don't want to be worrying if some hobbyist with more money than accountability
will put my life at risk because they wanted to make a cool video to put on
YouTube.

~~~
syshum
Explain to me how my flying a 4 pound drone at a height of 100 ft to take a
photo of my home is putting someones life in danger to the point where the FAA
should require me to register my activity and pass a license program?

Edit:

"my kid are playing in our backyard. Do I have the right of privacy?": No you
do not have a Right to privacy, I can put a camera on my roof or pole and
record your backyard if I wanted and there is nothing legally you could do
about it

Drones falling from the sky: General liability laws would apply no different
than if I am mowing my lawn and a rock flys out and hits you, or if I am play
yard Darts and I toss one over your fence which injures you.

I can not prove it is safe: That is not how a free society works, the burden
is not on me to prove my actions are safe, the burden is on YOU to prove that
my actions have a more likely than not probability of causing physical harm to
others or their property

Other Air Traffic Hitting a Wing: Why are they below 400ft, or the less than
100 ft I would fly but still be under the FAA Regulations, My entire point is
that under 100ft should not be under the FAA at all,

~~~
NikolaNovak
1\. If you don't understand how you flying 4pound drone at 100ft is putting
somebody's life in danger, you absolutely under no circumstances should own or
use a drone of any kind. Sorry if that sounds personal or insulting, but I'll
stand by that statement.

2\. I have a Mavic Air plus a few smaller drones. I'm extremely aware that I
can push this thing to 65km/h and do some solid damage, either maliciously,
but much much more likely carelessly

3\. I have lent several drones to several intelligent, typically safe friends,
either under my supervision or alone in a field. Universally they pushed them
too hard too fast and lost control quickly. [I don't care if you're going to
say "but that's not me". a) Every one of my friends said that, and b) how is
anybody else to trust that _your_ claim specifically is truthful? Prove it.]

4\. The more intelligent the drone, unfortunately the more likely the person
is to underestimate its danger because "these things fly themselves" and "it
has collision avoidance". My nerd friends have started using them like Tesla's
autopilot - perfectly safe and awesome until the very moment it isn't, at
which point it's too late if you don't have your hands actively on controls.

So as much as it'll HUUUUUGELY inconvenience me, I fully understand that if I
need to register and license my car, motorcycle, boat, plane, etc... I need to
register and license my other fast-moving piece of dangerous machinery.

~~~
yellowapple
"if I need to register and license my car, motorcycle, boat, plane, etc..."

I highly doubt you need to take an RC car to your DMV and get it registered.
You almost certainly don't have to do so even for some manned coneyances
(bicycles, electric bicycles in a growing number of jurisdictions, vehicles
never intended to be used on public roads, etc.).

Trying to compare a toy/hobbyist drone or RC plane to a full-blown car (let
alone aircraft) in terms of responsibility and registration requirements is
patently absurd.

~~~
sokoloff
> vehicles never intended to be used on public roads

Presumably you wouldn't have to register your drone if you never intended to
fly it in the _public airspace_. Indoors in your own facility? Have at it.

~~~
yellowapple
I think part of my concern is that this sort of regulation implies there's no
such thing as private airspace, which means that even something as relatively-
harmless as putting up a shed is a "danger" to aircraft and subject to FAA
regulations by this exact same logic. Oh, and if you want to fly a kite you
can, well, go fly a kite.

Realistically, trying to enforce control of airspace below 100ft over private
property is going to be a fool's errand at best. That's space that ought to be
fair game for unregistered aircraft (at that point I'd hardly call them
"aircraft" anyway).

~~~
abakker
There _IS_ private airspace indoors (it is why drone races typically happen in
warehouses or stadiums). Outdoors, there is no private airspace so much as
there is Class G airspace which is all airspace under 1200ft as long as you
are out of range of any landing strips/airports, or under 700AGL if you are
near certain larger airports. It is not legal to fly any manned aircraft in
class g unless either transiting through to land/takeoff, or if you have
clearance. However, it happens fairly often (just look at sightseeing
helicopters as an example). A common problem with drone hobbyists is that they
don't know anything about commercial airspace. Much of the concern has been
about flying near airports where transiting low-altitude space is necessary.
If drone operators had been assiduous in avoiding those areas (as RC aircraft
operators have been) then this would be less of a concern.

I agree though, that there is very little possibility of enforcing low
altitude airspace rules, unless they force some kind of software/transponder
system into use. even then, the home-built drones are just too easy to make to
guarantee it.

------
anon4lol
Disclaimer: I'm a licensed private pilot and have a registered drone.

I can sum this up simply: jerks ruin everything. Drones were unregulated and
would remain so, except for people being jerks.

Pilots have areas they can't fly below a certain altitude because the noise
would rile up wildlife, like flocks of birds; jerk drone pilots, oblivious to
this, started zipping through those areas and national parks, scaring up the
wildlife (and annoying people), which led to them being banned around national
monuments and parks.

Drones have also interfered with commercial approaches at airports in Class B
airports so they became banned around airports, unless permission is granted
from the airport. The FAA came out with regs requiring you to register, and
you had to make sure you acknowledged that you had to be permission to fly in
class B airport, from the airport. Simply stated, it was so that if you were
an jerk and your drone crashed, or you injured anyone on the ground they could
find you. Seems reasonable to me.

The new regs are just an incremental update. Many flights operate on VFR
(Visual Flight Rules), which is basically "see and avoid." Most commercial
flights operate in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) where air traffic control
system guarantees you separation from other aircraft. Of course, they can't
see small drones on radar, so they can't vector you around them or talk to the
drone operator. There was a case where a black hawk was struck by a drone last
year, requiring an emergency landing. The NTSB ultimately found the guy
through the manufacturers serial number, because he his drone never returned.

There have been many, many bad actors using drones to harass neighbors, spy on
women, and it's getting ridiculous. When a licensed pilot has an accident,
they know the NTSB and FAA will investigate. You file a safety report and own
up to any mistakes, or it will be very bad. The NTSB is very thorough and is
primarily interested in keeping future accidents from happening. However,
drone pilots run away abandoning their hardware.

I think the next iteration will be drones required to have transponders, so
air traffic control can see them, and a pilot who has TCAS can see them also.
This just means they will be become more expensive, and over time, hopefully
transponders and ancillary avionics will become cheaper on aircraft as these
companies push into general aviation.

~~~
specialp
The class B restriction is draconian and unnecessary. I live about 4 miles
from an airport (Class B). The B zone is 5miles. There has never been an
aircraft I have ever seen 400ft over my house, and if they were making a 4
mile <400 ft approach they would have a hell of a lot more to worry about than
drones when coming in. (Engine failure with seconds of glide ratio, birds,
objects). The "inverted wedding cake" of airspace needs to exclude below 400ft
AGL besides areas very close to the airport. You as a pilot must know that
besides when you are making your final approach or taking off you are well
above 400ft for safety reasons other than unaccounted for aircraft.

~~~
danaliv
You can’t just barge into a system that’s being used to safely transport human
beings in a high-risk environment and expect to be allowed to do whatever you
want with no forethought, planning, or coordination with other users. The
system as it exists protects people from violent and catastrophic death. It
would be patently insane to start making big changes to it without thinking
very hard about the impact of those changes.

Is it strictly necessary to protect airspace around major airports all the way
to the surface for five miles? Probably not. But we have designed a hugely
complex, life-critical system around that and many other assumptions, and we
can’t just go changing things willy-nilly. This is aviation, not computing. We
do not “move fast and break things.” The consequences of getting this wrong
aren’t just tweaking some syntax and trying again. The consequences are
destruction, death and bereavement.

I’m sure we’ll eventually get to a point where drones are more readily
integrated into the system. For now, humans have the priority. And if that
means you have to fill out a little web form while the people charged with
maintaining the system work through _all_ the implications, I don’t think
that’s too much to ask.

~~~
specialp
I didn't say we should just barge in and make things unsafe. I am saying that
we should have a discussion about whether it is needed or not to have <400ft
AGL 4.5 miles outside an airport controlled as it is probably unnecessary. The
corollary to Silicon Valley startups isn't valid. I wasn't advocating flying
craft there anyway and if there's a crash well we'll pivot to a new model.

An example is the FAA has sections of uncontrolled space up to 1000 ft over
the Hudson river in NYC, which is in the busiest airspace in the USA in the
most densely populated area, dead center in the space of 3 of the largest
airports in the world. They decided that in the interest of sightseeing
aircraft that they would give an area for this despite midair collisions (one
recently), and an actual plane landing in the Hudson once through this space.
The area 400ft AGL around airports several miles out is much less treacherous
than this and perhaps a discussion should be had to see if it can be given in
the interest of drone pilots.

~~~
handedness
> I am saying that we should have a discussion

Just a tip, but discussions don't usually start with calling the existing,
time-proven system "draconian and unnecessary." Air traffic rules exist mostly
to keep people alive. If that interferes with your hobby, that's unfortunate,
but the priority should be maintaining the safety levels while accommodating
the hobby as much as reasonably possible, not establishing some kind of
equality between manned flight and hobbyists.

It's also worth noting that R/C pilots had a high enough barrier to entry that
they generally policed themselves pretty well. Now that anyone can buy and
operate something that can be hazardous to manned aircraft, things have
changed significantly. The system needs to account for that level of
inexperience and disregard.

> If people die well we'll pivot to a new model.

I reworded that to better reflect reality.

Current airspace requirements–politically-motivated and misguided tho they may
be at times–are mostly written in blood. You'll find most aviators have a
healthy appetite for the risk of aviation, but at the same time generally
won't be interested in taking a "let's tinker with it and pivot after people
die" approach.

~~~
corndoge
You misinterpreted parent in the second section, quotations around sentence
subject for clarity:

>I wasn't advocating "flying craft there anyway and if there's a crash well
we'll pivot to a new model".

------
someguydave
Anti-drone policies are good for pilots and manned aircraft operators. The
bootleggers-and-baptists theory of political incentives would predict that the
agency in charge of manned pilot licensing would find morally positive reasons
for banning UAVs. They don’t mention the fact that unmanned aviation could be
an existential threat to large sectors of manned aviation, and therefore their
political influence.

Nor do they mention the enormous costs imposed on society because they have
banned potentially cheaper or more effective means to productive ends.

~~~
ticviking
O.o Most aircraft are highly automated, with humans running checklist programs
as the backup system. I doubt that "banning automation" is the motive here as
much as, "preventing interference with already functioning automation"

~~~
someguydave
The FAA’s actions admit that interpretation, but fail to exclude the other.

------
mrfusion
I hope these regulations will finally address bird ownership. Anyone can walk
into a pet shop and buy one with no Id. And if one of those birds escapes from
a careless owner it could easily hit a plane or ambulance!

~~~
superkuh
Hah! You joke (?) but this is a very real and valid point. They offer equal
danger.

The reason the FAA is getting support for making these changes in radio
controlled craft is because they give individuals powers they didn't have
before. No government wants that.

There hasn't been a single example of a radio controlled craft causing harm to
people on commercial flights or the like.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Yes, let’s wait until an idiot with a drone brings down an airliner killing
hundreds of people before even _considering_ common sense regulations.

~~~
superkuh
Alright. I'll take you seriously as soon as you agree it implies a need for
pet bird licenses, passing exams to own a bird with ID required, and pet bird
operating zones for the same reason.

~~~
cr1895
>I'll take you seriously as soon as you agree it implies a need for pet bird
licenses, passing exams to own a bird with ID required, and pet bird operating
zones for the same reason.

Where are these user-controlled, remotely-operated birds you speak of?

~~~
Dylan16807
User-controlled/remotely-operated only makes things safer than completely
uncontrolled. Unless you're making an argument about terrorists?

In your rush to point out a difference between drones and birds, you managed
to pick one where drones have the advantage.

~~~
superkuh
I couldn't agree more.

------
adamur
Curious to see where this puts first person view (FPV) flying. I very much
enjoy watching this sport grow, but with these new regulations the operator
would have to be in line sight at all times.

~~~
snuxoll
Maintaining VLOS was already a requirement for section 336 pilots, nothing has
changed. There was one way around this which was to have dedicated spotters
that kept line of sight on the UAS, I'm curious if the FAA will continue to
allow this.

------
proctor
Here's the opinion of an engineer who is also a drone and fixed wing flyer,
Bruce Simpson of the x-jet youtube channel:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjJFnVzZzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjJFnVzZzY)

He thinks that larger organizations such as amazon want the airspace and are
lobbying for it.

------
mrfusion
when cars were first coming into use pennsylvania passed a law which would
require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance
encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2)
"immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble the automobile", and
(3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until
equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.

In the UK self-propelled vehicles had to be led by a pedestrian waving a red
flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws)

------
sctb
Post on the FAA site:
[https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=91844](https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=91844).

------
escherplex
You can download the final HR302 in .pdf here:

[https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-115hr302enr.p...](https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-115hr302enr.pdf)

(utilities that remove signature panel and permissions which restrict cropping
or bookmarking can be used without corrupting document for editing)

Some salient points:

§ 44809 /a/7: The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety
test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be
made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request

§ 44809 /c/7: Persons operating unmanned aircraft [in controlled areas, eg,
near airports] shall make the location of the fixed site known to the
Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure
with the air traffic control facility.

Plus authorization of local micromanagement by 'State, local, and Tribal
governments' which can submit applications

Sec. 351:

\- prohibiting operations in connection with community or sporting events that
do not remain in one place (for example, parades and running events).

\- prohibiting flight during specified morning and evening rush hours or only
permitting flight during specified hours such as daylight hours, sufficient to
ensure

Didn't see any age restrictions on a cursory scan. Rather than setting up a
new testing bureaucracy, don't see couldn't they use the existing amateur
radio VE pool? Just use General or Extra who already passed the new FAA test.

------
carapace
Just this very evening somebody was flying a big drone all over my
neighborhood, on and off again for about an hour or two. It just pisses me
off:

No identifying marks. No way to tell who the owner is, nor who's piloting it.

Invasion of privacy. Some unknown person can see into my yard and windows.

Hazard. This is a dense neighborhood. If anything goes wrong with that drone
it's going to crash on someone's property or head. This thing was way up in
the air and large enough to be seen from quite a distance, maybe 500 meters.

I don't see any way around it. Drones require strict regulation.

I think technology is going to force us to adopt a totalist system (and our
humanity will force us to make it humane.) "Star Trek or North Korea" in the
limit.

~~~
prawn
Above 500 metres, in many countries I imagine it would be against a regulation
already, or have a particular permit. In Australia, the limit is 120 metres;
similar in the US. If it was big enough to be visible at 500 metres, it was
likely enterprise level and could've had battery redundancy and parachute-type
safety systems. They would've been insured which covers property damage which
is the dominant risk by area. Anywhere near that altitude and you would have
no chance of seeing a prosumer drone or probably hearing it. At 120 metres,
you probably couldn't see or hear my drone against the background noise of
suburbia.

Someone can see into your yard looking over the fence. Or from a helicopter or
commercial plane taking off or landing. No one wants to see into your yard. If
the drone is half a kilometre away, they're not looking through the window at
you in the shower.

If there's a drone of that size in the burbs, it's usually taking real estate
photos of one property from various angles and they're already under
regulation, licensed, insured, etc. They'll often make sure they're hovering
above a roof to minimise risk if it falls, etc.

(I operate as a hobby and occasionally commercially under a sub-2kg
classification in Australia: [https://serio.com.au/](https://serio.com.au/) It
requires registration and a few other things, but not the $xk in formal
licensing. I typically fly in regional areas because there are fewer risks,
fewer people to aggravate, and more interesting subject matter.)

~~~
carapace
> Above 500 metres, in many countries I imagine it would be against a
> regulation already, or have a particular permit. In Australia, the limit is
> 120 metres; similar in the US. If it was big enough to be visible at 500
> metres, it was likely enterprise level and could've had battery redundancy
> and parachute-type safety systems. They would've been insured which covers
> property damage which is the dominant risk by area. Anywhere near that
> altitude and you would have no chance of seeing a prosumer drone or probably
> hearing it. At 120 metres, you probably couldn't see or hear my drone
> against the background noise of suburbia.

Those are all good points, but they also all miss my main point: _How can I
know?_

I could see it and hear it and I roughly estimate it was two or three blocks
away. (It sounded like a weed-whacker, but something about the sound nagged at
me. Then I saw it from my desk through the open back door (it was a very warm
day.) They seemed to keep landing it and then taking off again, maybe to swap
batteries?)

In this situation, what can I do to know if it's a legit user or just one of
my neighbors being a jackass? Can I call the police? What could they do about
it?

> Someone can see into your yard looking over the fence.

No they can't. The hedges are two stories high, for a reason.

> Or from a helicopter

People don't joyride helicopters over this area.

> or commercial plane taking off or landing.

No nearby airstrips.

> No one wants to see into your yard.

You don't know that.

> If the drone is half a kilometre away, they're not looking through the
> window at you in the shower.

Again, you don't know that. We don't know what the drone is carrying and
that's my main point.

(Good luck to anyone who sees me in the shower though! The sight would be it's
own punishment.)

And anyway, it's my weed plants I don't want neighbors to see. Last thing I
need is some adventurous idiot hopping the fence to snatch my hairy, stinky,
glittering nuggets right at harvest time!

> If there's a drone of that size in the burbs, it's usually taking real
> estate photos of one property from various angles and they're already under
> regulation, licensed, insured, etc. They'll often make sure they're hovering
> above a roof to minimise risk if it falls, etc.

Again, I'm not saying we should ban legit users (commercial or hobbyist), I'm
saying that there has to be some way to deal with the new technology when
people are doing stupid stuff with it. These guys were just flying around all
over a dense residential neighborhood. It might have been legit surveying or
something, or it might have been some dude playing with his flying go-pro. How
can I tell? What can I do about it if it's the latter?

> (I operate as a hobby and occasionally commercially under a sub-2kg
> classification in Australia: [https://serio.com.au/](https://serio.com.au/)
> It requires registration and a few other things, but not the $xk in formal
> licensing. I typically fly in regional areas because there are fewer risks,
> fewer people to aggravate, and more interesting subject matter.)

I used to launch model rockets. Not too often though, because my parents had
to drive me to a large field outside of town because it's illegal to do it in
town, and they didn't always have time. Such is life, eh?

~~~
prawn
Yes, they would've been swapping batteries every 20-30 minutes perhaps,
depending on manoeuvres.

I've had someone say "Drones are so creepy. Someone could photograph me
sunbaking nude in my backyard!" despite being the sort of person who would
never sunbake, never get nude in their backyard, and not be anyone that
someone would want to photograph nude in their backyard. It's a false drama.

People in this thread are talking about drones flying near airports and
hitting planes and you want to dob in a real estate photographer in case it's
a jackass (when it's probably a hobbyist taking photos of their suburb from a
unique angle with similar resolution to satellite photos all over Google
Maps). Even with a large format camera, from that distance, you're probably a
pixel.

I was photographing a near-empty beach the other month and accidentally caught
a guy nude getting changed beside his car after a morning swim at a public
beach. Even from absolutely nowhere near 500 metres, you could see 10 pixels
of skin tone and nothing more. I deleted the shot and kept editing the others
from that set.

If it's a jackass persistently buzzing your house, you watch where it lands
and say "Hey, I know it's a fun toy but it's driving my dog crazy. Can you
avoid the area on this side? Thanks man!" Call the cops for something serious.

If a drone crashes into your house or car, it has identifying information that
you will be able to use to pursue the pilot. "Oh, but what if it was bought
caaaash?"

I'm regularly baffled by the reaction to drones. I'm not talking about safety
concerns with aircraft, but things like someone standing there raging about a
drone that launched and then left the area while a jetski is audible for an
hour across an entire bay. National parks talk about the impact on wildlife
when, while driving a highway in Australia, you pass a roadkill from cars
literally every few metres.

I got a permit to fly in a national park the other month. I launched in the
car park and then for 99% of the flight, I would've been inaudible to anyone
there, hundreds of metres away from hiking routes. Even someone flying against
regulations in that spot (over the canyon) was only audible as background
noise for 5 minutes. Same day, 5 sightseeing choppers and planes circled over
for much longer and people just ignored them. People take issue with new
things.

------
inamberclad
I'm a pilot. We have a saying: that the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations)
are written in blood. It's very literal. The rulebook for manned flight is
comprised mostly of regulations enacted because someone died in a preventable
way and we are a deliberately safety-conscious culture.

Aviation has 115 years under its belt, and many of those are full of
fatalities. One of the issues I see with drones as an emerging industry is
that people seem unwilling to learn from our history. I've only been flying
for a few years and myself and most of my friends have near-miss stories with
other full size, fairly slow moving aircaft. How can we expect to see a drone
head-on where there's no relative motion?

Having the privileged of flying in the national airspace system means
shouldering the responsibility of keeping yourself, your passengers, and the
people around you safe. Knowing the airplane, weather, and terrain can keep
you and your passengers safe. To keep everyone else safe, you need to work
with the system so that we can manage increasingly congested areas around the
country.

TLDR: If drone companies and operators want to be treated like grownups,
they'll need to grow up.

~~~
nybble41
_> the privileged of flying in the national airspace system_

This is exactly the core of the problem. You've claimed the entire atmosphere
as your private domain, from the ground up. Territorial claims are founded on
_use_ ; you have no right to exclude others from airspace which is not part of
a routine flight corridor. Certainly nothing below 400' and not part of a
standard takeoff or approach glide path should be considered part of the
national airspace system or otherwise subject to FAA jurisdiction.

~~~
inamberclad
It's not private, it's a national resource. Every time you fly any airliner
you use this system. The reason the US airspace system is so expansive is that
it's necessary to allow the level of freedom afforded to private aircraft
(think Piper, not Gulfstream) while maintaining safety and coverage as top
priorities.

However, you're correct that most airspace below 400 feet AGL shouldn't be
considered part of the system. Generally, that's not considered navigable
unless it's being used takeoff and landing.

~~~
nybble41
_> It's not private, it's a national resource._

If you're setting rules for how something can be used then you're treating it
as your private property. Even if you happen to be the U.S. government. So-
called "public property" is nothing more or less than property the government
has claimed for its own exclusive (i.e. _private_ ) use.

 _> Every time you fly any airliner you use this system._

Obviously. That's the same as saying "planes fly in the air". But commercial
flights follow defined routes between specific airports; they don't need to
claim the entire atmosphere for that, just the relatively tiny corridors they
routinely fly through.

 _> Generally, [below 400' AGL is] not considered navigable unless it's being
used takeoff and landing._

And yet here we are, with the FAA imposing onerous regulations on hobbyists
flying model aircraft too small to pose any realistic threat to anything well
below that altitude.

------
mips_avatar
The problem here isn't that the FAA is regulating, we do need rules of the
road for drones. The problem is up until this point they didn't have the legal
authority to do so. From 2010-2014 the FAA put out some draconian memos and
statements with scary insinuations that suggested they had the power to
regulate drones flying inside your house. These fear tactics required my
university to shut down flights of model aircraft, my competition team at an
aerial robotics competition couldn't compete from 2014 - 2017.

------
poof131
My 2 cents as an F-18 pilot turned software dev interested in the space:

They need to break apart rules for the true hobbyists, the model airplane
flyers: dedicated areas below certain altitudes. They also need to embrace
private property rights to a certain altitude. Who wants an Amazon Prime
distribution center doing 10,000 flights a day over their kids playing in the
backyard. [1]

Future BVR (and autonomous) drone operations between 200-400’ will eventually
more closely resemble IFR class-A than VFR airspace. [2] Routes need to be
defined. [3] Emergency landing areas need to be determined. [4] Comms
(network) out procedure need to be planned. [5] And more.

It will require significant local involvement. The FAA is going to make sure
accident information is shared so lessons can be learned. [6] Part-135 will
play a role. [7]

For manned aviation these things were implemented over a century with lessons
written in blood. [8] It’s going to happen quicker for drones and this is a
step in the right direction. People like this are helping to force the issue.
[9]

[1] [https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-
proposes...](https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes-law-
give-us-property-owners-airspace-rights-200ft/)

[2]
[https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=...](https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=42&sID=505&preview=true)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airway_(aviation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airway_\(aviation\))

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_landing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_landing)

[5]
[https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483...](https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483/Lost%20Com%20Graphic.pdf)

[6] [https://uavcoach.com/daniel-elwell-
interdrone-2018/](https://uavcoach.com/daniel-elwell-interdrone-2018/)

[7]
[https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/135_certification...](https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/135_certification/)

[8] [https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/why-do-
pe...](https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/why-do-people-say-
aviation-regulations-are-written-in-blood)

[9] [https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/3931613-drone-
crashe...](https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/3931613-drone-crashes-
inspecting-cracked-window-at-sinking-millennium-tower/)

------
chroma
The FAA sounds so risk averse. I bet if passenger planes were invented today,
the FAA would never allow them.

~~~
abakker
Risk aversion is why commercial flight is so safe, though.

~~~
chroma
Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed
countries.

Also, the FAA does grandfather in a lot of stuff. If the Cessna 172 was
invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers or get near
populated areas.

Lastly, I'm not sure if modern passenger jets would be allowed in the same way
if invented today. The FAA would probably restrict them within 100 miles of
urban areas. After all, what if people tried to crash them into buildings?

~~~
rlpb
> If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry
> passengers...

Why? Are you saying they'd ban all single engine aircraft from carrying
passengers? What about the SR22?

~~~
sokoloff
Don't let them know about the Experimental-Amateur Built category where
_anyone_ can build an airplane in their garage and a licensed pilot can go fly
it with very limited FAA oversight of the construction...

~~~
ryanwaggoner
It’s not like there are no rules to follow: [http://www.faa-aircraft-
certification.com/amateur-built-oper...](http://www.faa-aircraft-
certification.com/amateur-built-operating-limitations.html)

------
51Cards
I saw this video recently. Changed my mind on regulating drones.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-
xg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0)

~~~
51Cards
Really HN, Posting an informative video gets downvoted without a single
comment. The internet points are irrelevant but it is a sad sign on commentary
here.

------
mrfusion
Here come all the comments that are strangely pro regulation.

~~~
jessaustin
It's amazing, isn't it?

~~~
petermcneeley
Totally! Its like im reading comments from some alternative reality HN. Drone
deliveries could transform the world in a more significant way than even
smartphones. Can you imagine the number of lives that could be saved by just
reducing vehicle accidents?

------
wolfgke
Just a consideration: instead of regulating drones more, we could also
regulate planes less to make them more equal.

~~~
jakeinspace
Truly some sage advice, I say bring on the unlicensed pilots.

~~~
kmnt
ultralights can already be piloted without a license or registration. Its an
amazing degree of freedom that most don't realize they have.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Ultralights have very strict restrictions and rules where they can be
operated, to limit the risk to others.

14 CFR 103.15: "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested
area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons."

Also, you don’t need a license, but trying to fly without sufficient and
proper training is likely to get you killed. These aren’t bicycles.

