

Where you can and can't fly a drone - jakobsbiz
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30387107

======
matthewmcg
This article states that "the Federal Aviation Authority bans the flying of
unmanned aircraft, including hobby drones, above 400ft."

This is incorrect. The 400ft "limit" is a guideline for safe separation from
manned aircraft (which are generally restricted from operating below 500ft).

It is true that the Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating
Standards (June 9, 1981) restricts operation above 400 feet, but this is
document is explicitly non-binding and has never been given the force of law.
A hard 400' limit was considered and rejected in both the FAA Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 and the FAA's pending Interpretation of the Special
Rule for Model Aircraft.

If you are interested in the details of pending U.S. legislation, I suggest
following the Academy of Model Aeronautics' Government Relations blog:
[http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/](http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/)

------
sean-duffy
> Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones have long crossed over from just
> being used in the military and specialist commercial sphere.

That's an interesting perspective, because I'd say if anything they've passed
from the enthusiast and hobbyist sphere into the commercial/military one.

~~~
arethuza
Where do you draw the line though - there have been military remotely operated
or autonomous vehicles (munitions, reconnaissance drones, targets) since at
least WW2.

Edit: I guess it all depends on the definition of "drone"...

------
rikkus
I haven't checked the exact circumstances of the 'drone' being near a
aeroplane, but if it was more than 50m away from the 'vehicle' at all times,
it would appear that what happened was not forbidden.

I think that even if nothing against the CAA rules happened, they should
probably be tightened to give a large perimeter around airports.

The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a
likely common use - looking where you can't see. That's a bit of a shame for
those wishing to get excellent photos or video of landscape features,
buildings, etc. I can see why it would make the CAA nervous, but a real time
video feed to the operator is surely close enough to 'line of sight' or making
it more like a manned aircraft?

~~~
votingprawn
> I haven't checked the exact circumstances of the 'drone' being near a
> aeroplane, but if it was more than 50m away from the 'vehicle' at all times,
> it would appear that what happened was not forbidden.

Even if they hadn't been operating beyond the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS)
conditions (they were apparently at 700ft, CAA accepts VLOS to be below
400ft), I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft was in breach of other rules,
such as operating an FPV/Surveillance aircraft over a congested area, or
within an aerodrome traffic zone.

> The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a
> likely common use - looking where you can't see.

I think you'd be surprised at how much of a "non-issue" this is (excuse the
awkward grammar). UAVs are my profession and I do a lot of surveillance and
data acquisition work, and I can't remember ever _needing_ to fly out of VLOS.
Real time video feeds give you a great view of what is going on in front of
the camera, but not of what is happening around the aircraft. As advanced as
UAVs have become they are not infallible and, as unlikely as it may seem, you
should be prepared for your flying blender to fall out of the sky at any
moment.

We were operating just a few days ago and the crew list was: pilot, pilot's
spotter/assistant, payload operator, and three spotters. This may seem like
overkill but a 7kg object falling from 50m can do some serious damage, and
that is assuming the blades stop spinning on the way down.

------
ibz
You can fly them anywhere if you're the US.

~~~
aerocapture
Actually, you can't ([https://www.faa.gov/uas/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/)).

And I think this simple ignorance illustrates the looming problem for the UAV
community. As a commercial pilot and experimental aircraft owner, I can tell
you that if the UAV community does not start to self-police these types of
excursions, either by education or with software solutions (like the GPS-
limiter mentioned in the article), then the regulating bodies will do it for
them.

Most HN readers would agree that there is huge potential for UAV technology,
but one needs only to look at the glacial progress of certified aviation
technology in both the US and Europe to see that over-regulation can and does
stifle innovation.

For readers familiar with the differing regulations in the US for experimental
category amateur-built aircraft vs. certified light aircraft, you've seen the
wide gap between what is possible to do with technology and what is legal to
certify. In most cases, an aircraft built in your garage is far superior in
display and sensor technology than your average certified airplane. This trend
has only recently started to self-correct.

The point is, US organizations such as the EAA and AOPA do a tremendous amount
of work to educate their members and to lobby Congress to ensure that what
limited freedoms we have are maintained. I think the UAV community needs
something similar or their industry will get regulated to death -- especially
after the first drone gets ingested into a jet engine.

~~~
zobzu
there's no such thing as "UAV community" in this case. the vast majority of
stupid flights are made by the general public getting a "drone" in some shop
and flying it in "funny locations" such as airports.

These have no idea what they're doing and do not participate to
forums/communities/etc thus are difficult to regulate.

Blaming it on the UAV community is actually also being ignorant. The actual
community is literally spammed by posts about flying safe/where to fly/etc.

I think that a decent analogy to these drone pilots are laser-pointer owners
pointing at airplanes. That's totally retarded, doesn't achieve anything
exciting - it only risk other ppl's life with low chance of getting caught.
Just like drones attempting to "film" 747's landing and the like.

~~~
EGreg
Why don't manufacturers simply provide a manual saying WHERE you can fly? Or a
prominent link on the packaging? Instead of spamming "the community".

~~~
andygates
Because it's unclear and it's a moving target and it's a localisation
challenge.

------
thomasfromcdnjs
We've been collecting data through quotes we receive on
[https://dronehire.org](https://dronehire.org) and eventually going put out an
interactive map of commercial drone activity. We've been around for a while
now and can tell you that commercial drone activity is increasing rapidly.

------
BillinghamJ
Why does the presence of a camera change the rules for distance? The article
says that CAA is only making safety rules, not anything relating to privacy.

~~~
4ndr3vv
Think the implication is that a drone with a camera is being flown FPV (ie
with live video feed to the pilot), rather than being a movie camera that
records for playback later.

As such, you don't need to stipulate that there is a line of sight as you fly
using the camera / video feed.

Edit: whoops. i read that 150m part _completely_ wrong, cheers vp

~~~
votingprawn
Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) flown under FPV are defined under a separate
exemption from Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft (SUSA), although the rules
broadly overlap. Additionally for FPV the CAA mandate you must have a
competent observer who can maintain unaided visual line of sight with the
aircraft at all times.

I suspect their 150m surveillance rule is part privacy, and part a belief that
if you're trying to film something/somebody with a camera you pose a higher
risk than if you're just flying past them.

------
fit2rule
The mass media are just champfing at the bit to write the story "Drone brings
down Airliner" at some point on the horizon. The predictability of an event is
directly proportional to the # of humans who are involved in the telling of
that events' story. So, one of these days, we're going to see a damaged
airliner, and the real facet of this current event is that we - who choose to
use this technology - must be prepared for the eventuality that the story-
tellers stories become reality.

~~~
kenrikm
Sadly it's likely to be a Phantom that gets ingested into a jet engine first.
The low barrier to entry means you have more people who don't understand the
rules/safety implications flying them.

~~~
fit2rule
It is the RC FlyingThings' own long-September.

