
DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems - aioprisan
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=20515
======
Rebelgecko
Glad to see these new regulations... the Section 333 exemption process is/was
a huge pain, and these rules also seem much more reasonable (mainly, you don't
need to get a "real" pilot's license, just a remote pilot certificate, which
will presumably be much more relevant for UAV operators). I think it's
interesting that you have to report any incident with more than $500 of
damage. Is the FAA going to investigate every time someone flies a Phantom
into a tree?

Quick edit: I'll leave my last two sentences there for posterity, but turns
out you only need to report if there's $500 of damage, _excluding damage to
the UAS_

~~~
an_account_name
Trees are expensive.

~~~
aioprisan
Interesting enough, you should be able to see tree details in GIS:
[http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html](http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html)
[https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforest...](https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforestry/treeinventory)
and technically the city own those planted trees, so you could be doing damage
to city property.

------
ggreer
These rules remind me of the red flag laws[1] in the early days of cars.
They're needlessly restrictive, and they block billions of dollars in economic
productivity.

More importantly, these rules are going to cause more harm than they prevent.
Let me explain.

Today, we use ground vehicles to transport stuff. When people click "buy now"
on Amazon, it results in multi-ton metal boxes speeding through neighborhoods.
When vehicles and pedestrians exist in close proximity, people get hurt. Every
day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being hit by
cars. Around a dozen die.[2] Even if drones are every bit as dangerous as
fearmongers say, they're not _that_ bad. The more that drones substitute for
ground vehicles, the safer we'll be.

Unfortunately, the FAA is optimizing for "minimum number of people harmed by
drones" and not "minimum number of people harmed".

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws)

2\. 2013 CDS statistics:
[https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/](https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/)

~~~
tzs
> Every day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being
> hit by cars. Around a dozen die.

How many of those are killed by package delivery vehicles?

~~~
ggreer
I tried to find those stats when I was writing my comment, but I had to settle
for overall info. Unless delivery vehicles are incredibly safe compared to
vehicles overall, my point stands. To cause comparable harm, drones would have
to be deadlier than the most pessimistic projections.

Also, drones can substitute for more than just delivery vehicles. They could
replace most car trips involving moving things (as opposed to moving people).
Instead of driving to the Apple store, a drone could pick up your broken
laptop and return it when it's fixed. A drone could pick up and return your
dry cleaning. Drones could deliver groceries. Etc. The end result is fewer car
trips and fewer people maimed or killed.

------
mgrennan
"Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria
specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95."

Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or
recreational use;"

So these are rules for people doing chimerical work like "property assessment"
or outdoor photography. Not your hobby flyer / AMA member.

~~~
wlesieutre
Where does "with a couple seconds of highlights posted on a monetized YouTube
channel" fall in that? No longer a hobby?

~~~
walrus01
The FAA has in the past sent demand letters and attempted to subpoena
documents related to payments from youtube videos.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-
gun...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun-drone-
flamethrower-drone-argues-faa-cant-regulate-him/)

~~~
aioprisan
The context of the request was to figure out if the stunt of firing a gun that
was attached to an UAS was done with the purpose of gaining notoriety and
money, and if it was in the public's interest, as it could cause harm to the
public. The FAA won, drones are aircraft, and the FAA regulates all aircraft.
But broadly, this was a case about public safety, not about revenue from
YouTube hits: "On the broader question of the legality of arming a drone, the
law prohibits recklessly endangering the public when flying an aircraft."

~~~
walrus01
not gun or flamethrower related: [http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-
dont-post-drone-vi...](http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-dont-post-
drone-videos-on-youtube/)

------
Animats
This is quite reasonable. The Academy of Model Aeronautics won their battle to
have recreational use regulated under existing model aircraft regulations. The
FAA rules apply to commercial use.

A key item is "Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the
required ATC permission. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without
ATC permission." (Here's the US airspace classification.[1])

Most US airspace near the ground is class G. So, as a practical matter, almost
all farmers and ranchers will be able to use drones with few restrictions.

Classes B, C, and D are around airports and go all the way down to the ground.
They're controlled by FAA control towers with radar. To do anything in the air
in B, C, and D airspace, you have to be visible to ATC and in communication
with them. This now applies to drones, too. There are now ADS-B transponders
for drones; the smallest weighs 20 grams.[2] This makes your drone visible and
identifiable to air traffic control. If you're taking real estate photos or
shooting a movie in a big city, you need to be visible to ATC and talking to
them. ATC towers have published phone numbers.

The hardest place to operate is New York City. City policy can be summed up as
"No way". NYC assumes that anything unauthorized flying over the city is a
terrorist attack, and ATC will not grant permission. Some bozo crashed a small
drone into the Empire State Building early this year.[3] He was arrested and
charged with reckless endangerment.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_\(United_States\))
[2]
[http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/](http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/)
[3] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-
video...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-videos-
script-an-arrest-for-flying-a-drone.html)

~~~
pj_mukh
Most FAA "guidance" books suggest staying 50-100ft away from buildings. This
is difficult to maintain in Manhattan. Though the police are jerks about
people flying for personal photography in the middle of central park as well
:(.

Hopefully, as the technology evolves, so will people's comfort level in
allowing for flight near buildings. Collision avoidance systems are slowly
getting baked into drones

~~~
commandar
Isn't all of Manhattan too close to an airport anyway? I haven't had a chance
to look at the updated regulations yet.

~~~
Animats
Suprisingly, no. Parts of lower Manhattan are just far enough from LGA and JFK
to be outside their class B airspace at ground level. The Freedom Tower is
outside class B. There are lots of other special restrictions near NYC,
though. Right now, there are two temporary flight restriction areas due to
baseball games. There's a restriction on flying over the East River. There are
special traffic rules for flying around the Statue of Liberty. There are
special rules for helicopters. It's one of the world's busiest airspaces; you
have to expect traffic control.

------
slantaclaus
Training to get my sport pilot license and just got out of a flight lesson on
a Light Sport Aircraft (Cessna 162 Skycatcher). My instructor was telling me
about drone pilots in the Augusta, GA area training on the aircraft to meet
FAA requirements. Getting an SPL is easier than a PPL so a lot of drone pilots
are going this route. Looks like they might not have to now anymore though

------
drabiega
As someone with only cursory knowledge of the area, it seems like the
requirement to keep the drone within line of sight would be pretty crippling.
Is this just me? I guess this makes drone based camerawork feasible for
film/sporting events, but it seems like it kills any sort of delivery or
remote sensing applications.

~~~
chrischen
Launch it from the top of a skyscraper!

~~~
aioprisan
The regulations do stipulate that you get 400 feet from the launch point as
well, so if you launch from 1000ft building, you get to go to 1400ft

~~~
tomswartz07
Technically, it's 400' from the tallest surrounding object.

So, yes; you can technically fly to 1400ft near a 1000ft building.

------
jonnycowboy
Interesting that most of the requirements listed can be waived, including
presumably the line of sight requirement (ie: for drone delivery): • Most of
the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates
that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a
certificate of waiver.

~~~
aioprisan
They also do not explain or reference what it would take to get such a
certificate of waiver. It's very likely that someone like myself cannot ever
get one, but perhaps Amazon could? What if I'm a small startup, can I get the
same treatment that Amazon could?

------
russell_h
What is the status of autonomous flight? Is it allowed, as long as the
aircraft is within line of sight of an operator who could take over?

~~~
aioprisan
There are no rules around that, the only rules that apply are line of sight
and the ability to control it the entire time. Technically, even parking by
drone assist technology, where the drone itself can go back to the launch spot
and start lowering itself to the ground requires you to be in control and able
to abort. I was in a situation where even though I specified a return altitude
of 50ft, the drone went straight instead when parking, which would have caused
it to crash in a tree. In other words, the pilot needs to be able to control
it at all times, but does not explicitly have to actively control it at all
times. Who knows how long specific language around passive/active assist
requirements are baked in.

------
6stringmerc
> _The new rule, which takes effect in late August, offers safety regulations
> for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are
> conducting non-hobbyist operations._

This makes sense to me - the FAA being concerned with, well, basically
commerically-oriented UAV flights and using their authority to establish
parameters. Hopefully this is a helpful step to start integrating more flights
and more interest in the field with trying to minimize ignorance that could be
somewhat dangerous.

> _The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other
> operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on
> the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation._

Sounds like this could get a waiver if the group is established and has the
right safety record / resources. That's pretty neat. As a concert / festival /
event attendee the last thing I'd want as a souvenir is a mangled noggin or
appendage from an improperly or irresponsibly piloted UAV with a camera on it
coming down on me.

Also, while the licensing parameters might seem a bit overbearing to some, I
kind of think they rather reflect just how utterly terrible the testing and
credentialing process is for automobile drivers in the US.

> _Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least
> 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or
> be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a
> remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial
> aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or
> have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under
> the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the
> previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by
> the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote
> pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate._

To me it's not that the UAV license is too much, but that consumers in the US
are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play
with big machines.

~~~
MawNicker
American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be
contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to
go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary
and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.

~~~
6stringmerc
Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty
relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose
enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets
back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we
share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used
with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of
regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to
be the case.

~~~
MawNicker
> I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if
> used improperly - to justify regulatory burden

I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It
may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit
weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The
resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly
agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far
more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the
conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize
these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.

------
aioprisan
A good step in the right direction. I wonder who/what it would take to get a
waver from these regulations. As a drone pilot myself, it's good to see
training requirements and background checks, and hope they will do more to
clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have.

The one part that I found very interesting is 'First-person view camera cannot
satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is
satisfied in other ways,' opening the door for some wiggle room on how the
line of sight and see-and-avoid rules get applied.

~~~
ghaff
>hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people
can have.

I suspect that the FAA would not see that as part of their mandate. They're
primarily concerned with aviation safety in this context.

~~~
aioprisan
"The FAA also will educate all commercial drone pilots on privacy during their
pilot certification process; and will issue new guidance to local and state
governments on drone privacy issues." So it looks like the local laws may be
part of the actual test itself and issue guidance to local and state
governments, although it's very vaguely written.

------
aioprisan
"No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely
populated area" seems to suggest that I could do that for personal usage, but
not for commercial usage: "Transportation of property for compensation or hire
allowed provided that [...] the flight is conducted within visual line of
sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft"

------
coroutines
As an aside:

I'm really hoping as drones become mainstream people will be made aware of
their right to privacy and where they have it. I spend a fair amount of time
watching clips of ignorant people attacking cameramen and drone operators in
public.

This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in
it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.

~~~
bsder
> This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in
> it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.

Just because something is _legal_ doesn't mean it is socially _acceptable_.

Drones are normally really loud and annoying. In addition, the sound tends to
radiate because it's above the things that would absorb the sound. If I'm out
to enjoy some quiet on a trail, and I've got a gaggle of "Drunk Go-Pro Drone
Bros", I'm going to be upset, and I'm going to have words with them (been
there, done that).

The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem
to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.

~~~
slm_HN
>The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem
to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.

Charming. Let's all try to solve problems by being kindergarten bullies.

This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the
WWF for role models.

~~~
bsder
> This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but
> the WWF for role models.

And the reason why we have regressed to needing to threaten someone physically
is because an entire generation has been raised to believe that they are
"special little flowers" who don't have to pay attention to the fact that what
they do has an impact on other people.

While, yes, it is technically illegal to shoot a drone out of the sky over
your own property, there is a reason why nobody has been willing to push the
point in court.

~~~
coroutines
Are you one of those 'special little flowers' ignoring the impact you might
have on others? - the physical impact that follows threatening violence?

Seriously wtf.

------
charlesacknin
Small tangent here. I'm getting a project started in the UAV space -- a new
form of transportation. I'm putting a team together. Ping me if you're
interested in learning more (username at gmail).

