
FAA Proposes Nearly $2M Fine Against Drone Operator - anigbrowl
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/faa-proposes-million-fine-drone-operator-34283235
======
paulmd
In general it's fantastic that the FAA is finally loosening up on drone
regulation. Overall the technology has huge potential and is pretty safe to
operate in most places if done responsibly.

Class B airspace is not one of those places. FOD can very easily take down an
aircraft. These guys are going to get the book thrown at them, and they
deserve it. It's very much in our best interest as a tech community to weed
out people who act with such disregard. If there's an appearance that we
aren't responsible enough for this, there _will_ be a backlash and we will
have a much, much shorter leash.

It's probably going to be a tension that we see repeated as we explore drone
tech, since Class B airspace is often located near large cities that would be
good target markets for drone-based businesses.

Even if the FAA grants the low-altitude airspace to drone traffic there will
still be problems. The larger, faster high-altitude drone corridors with the
most dangerous traffic would be placed the closest to other air traffic.
Having better guidance, transponders, and collision avoidance is a start, but
nowhere near sufficient. They still won't be responding to ATC guidance and
commands. I imagine we'll probably see a tiered exclusion zone around airports
for this reason.

~~~
facetube
Yeah, from what I hear Class Bravo airspace is one of those areas that you can
flying toward in a Cessna 172, ask to enter, and be pretty much told "no
thanks, not right now". (N.B. Not a pilot, you're all safe).

~~~
cpncrunch
You can definitely fly in class B in a Cessna. There have been articles on
AOPA about this, e.g.:

[http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2013/June/feature-
li...](http://flighttraining.aopa.org/magazine/2013/June/feature-little-
fish.html)

Barry Schiff even wrote an article about flying into LAX in a 172:

[http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-
News/2014/July/Pilot/...](http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-
News/2014/July/Pilot/proficient)

I sometimes fly from YYJ (class C) and they're quite adept at fitting the
Cessnas in between the 737s and dash-8s. There's no low-level class B here in
Canada (only above 12500ft), but the Vancouver class C terminal zone is
probably equivalent to the class B around SFO.

~~~
facetube
Interesting, thanks for the links.

------
code4tee
The issue I see from looking at the photos on the site is that they were
flying in airspace that's frequently occupied by 'real' air traffic and were
blatantly violating the rules about where/when you can fly these things. The
FAA told them to stop and they kept going anyway. Those rules aren't just
bureaucratic fluff, but are there because there are real people flying real
airplanes/helicopters in those areas.

I'm all for the whole "let's just ignore the rules and be disruptive" attitude
that some new companies take these days, but you can't just go flying these
things into airspace that's been designated for legit air traffic and expect
to not get the book thrown at you. Heck they were doing this over NYC, they're
lucky the Feds didn't decide to go all ballistic with the "we're going to
treat you like a terrorist" stuff.

~~~
paulcole
_I 'm all for the whole "let's just ignore the rules and be disruptive"
attitude that some new companies take these days, but you can't just go
driving these things into roads that've been designated for legit taxi traffic
and expect to not get the book thrown at you. Heck they were doing this in
NYC._

~~~
wheaties
Uber driving people around will not endanger lives. Drones in class B airspace
will.

~~~
thaumasiotes
What's the danger from drones? How do our current aircraft handle birds?

~~~
uberdog
The birds are slaughtered.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/nyregion/13geese.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/nyregion/13geese.html)

~~~
thaumasiotes
That sounds more like a danger to the drone than a danger to the plane.

------
Encosia
Drones are the new UFO.

If a pilot or passenger sees a bird, balloon, or odd reflection these days,
it's a "drone". Be skeptical about the recent uptick in fear mongering about
the number of drone sightings in the vicinity of airports and airplanes.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in small, four-seater airplanes
and also owns a popular quadcopter model, I always feel compelled to add some
color to these threads about drones.

When I'm flying my quadcopter, it's extremely difficult to spot once I've lost
continuous sight of it. Look away for a second, and you're staring at an empty
sky. Even when it's just a couple hundred feet away and you know exactly where
to look, the thing is nearly invisible in the air.

Sitting in the passenger seat of a Cirrus or Cessna, I've always been
surprised by how difficult it is to spot nearby aircraft. Whole planes, orders
of magnitude larger than a consumer drone, are much harder to spot than you'd
expect. Even when ATC alerts us where the traffic is, you rarely pick it up
visually until _much_ later than you'd anticipate.

Maybe more importantly, many modern drones have geofencing that prevents them
from flying into the restricted airspace around airports.

Combining my experience in both situations with the geofencing around
restricted airspace, I find it incredibly hard to believe that folks are
honestly spotting consumer quadcopters from airplanes in this quantity. It's
just not credible at all if you've spent much time around either or both
hobbies.

~~~
omegant
Well think again, as a commercial pilot with 16 years of experience I can tell
you that sometimes you can even see what type of bird you crossed. And it has
to be quite close to be a problem to you, so pilots are reporting drones that
could be ingested in to the engine and create a fire in short final. Not all
reports are accurate, that's true. But most of us don't go reporting ufos
these days...

~~~
Encosia
With all due respect to your experience, digging into the details of the FAA's
data on these supposed drone encounters is telling:
[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/drones-are-the-new-
ufos](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/drones-are-the-new-ufos)

For example, this is a report from this year that the FAA categorized as a
drone encounter here in my hometown of Atlanta:

> A VFR aircraft receiving ATC service reported passing an object approx 500ft
> below him at 095. The pilot described the object as round circular, red in
> color, and reported it could have been a drone or a balloon. A80 ATC did not
> observe any targets on radar in the vicinity of N7745.

A drone or a balloon? Might as well just chalk it up to swamp gas at that
point.

Having been in aircraft looking out and having watched from the ground as my
own quadcopter disappeared into the sky _significantly_ closer than 500ft
away, I find it extremely challenging to see most reports like that as
credible. Yet, the FAA has no qualms with aggregating this junk data into a
scary story to sway public opinion. Disappointing.

I'm curious. Have you personally, definitively witnessed a consumer drone in
restricted airspace during approach?

~~~
omegant
Well fair enough, I was talking about commercial pilots reports in final
approach or take off. I guess that VFR flights are going to be less precise,
also VFR flights are more probable to flight themselves in to a zone where
drones can be flown legally. They are going to be sharing airspace much more
than drones and airliners.

I haven't seen a drone yet, I do have like 12 or so laser reports under my
belt. They are annoying (mostly kids being "funny") but not that dangerous,
it's impossible for a person to track perfectly the cockpit at the speed and
distance we are traveling for them, so you only get to see a short red or
green flash and the laser beam moving around.

I eventually expect to have some air-miss with drones from dumb plane spotters
or a guy that's taking some video from above without realizing that he is in a
final approach zone. Not a big worry right now for me, my friends or other
pilots I fly with.

But take into account that just a drone strike in an engine can cost more than
1 million dollars in repairs, or up to 5 or 6 of an entire engine depending on
the damage. Plus the losses and delays caused by the plane being grounded for
some days. Also although much more unprovable, it can lead to a crash or at
least a runway excursion while landing, or total hull loss once stopped on the
ground and with passengers evacuated, due to an unextinguished engine fire.

~~~
Encosia
Don't get me wrong. I don't in any way condone people flying drones in
restricted airspace. There are _so_ many other (safe) places to fly that it
makes no sense to endanger people and/or property by flying in dangerous
areas.

I don't even question that these encounters are happening occasionally,
because there are always reckless morons out there to ruin things like this
for everyone, but I do question the credibility of this recent hysteria around
drones.

Speaking of the laser pointers, I got zapped in the eye with a green laser
pointer at night once while sitting in the passenger seat. I happened to be
leaning over and looking down at the ground right when they were targeting us.
The intensity was much greater than I would have expected a few thousand feet
up. It wasn't quite blinding, but super disorienting for a few seconds. Hard
to believe that anyone would think it's okay to do that.

------
quux
Speaking as a pilot who flies within the NY Class B airspace at low altitude
from time to time...

Good

------
tdees40
Nothing to see here, the FAA is doing exactly what it ought to.

------
pj_mukh
No doubt the company did stupid shit, but the FAA can't actually fine someone
for that much money ([http://1.usa.gov/1QXnT3U](http://1.usa.gov/1QXnT3U)) or
try to ban youtube videos ([http://bit.ly/1Bzvaki](http://bit.ly/1Bzvaki)).
The FAA should really just focus on meeting their deadlines on figuring out
sensible legislation
([http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2492506,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2492506,00.asp))

~~~
LesZedCB
The first link does say "before 2003"

~~~
pj_mukh
True. I wonder if that's changed. Either way, they could still go through DOJ
to sue for more
([https://twitter.com/dronelaws/status/651474756554858496](https://twitter.com/dronelaws/status/651474756554858496))

Point being, this will just dissuade people from trying anything new in the
space, when sensible legislation should be setup to stop people from trying
"stupid" things in this space. The existence of sensible legislation seems to
be lost in this media fervor.

------
6stringmerc
Though I don't assert they're analogous danger risks, I wonder if eventually
unsanctioned drone operations in certain airspace will carry with it charges
akin to those who shine lasers at pilots in airplanes.

~~~
quux
They should. If anything they're more dangerous.

Imagine driving your car at 150mph (or higher) and having a bystander throw
one of these drones into your windshield.

------
idanman
For the people here who say that the drones can't take down an airliner or a
small Cessna how many lives are you willing to bet on it? The live of two
people typical of a Cessna 172, the lives of a few hundred passengers in a
Boeing 777? What we are forgetting is the human factors here too. It is not
just a collision that might damage an engine, a wing, or a tail section. It is
also the distraction the pilot now has to deal with very close to the ground.
Now instead of paying attention to the landing and other aircraft the pilot
has to figure out what was that noise that just collided with it. Especially
under instrument meteorological conditions. In fact, FAA has regulations for
airlines to have a sterile cockpit (100% concentration on the landing and no
outside distractions) due to accidents that have happened and loss of life
while pilots were distracted with other things even higher than the 400 ft.

------
on_
edit: In summary/TL;DR SkyPan was explicitly allowed to operate a 55lb drone
commercially if they stayed at an altitude less than 400ft, the drone would
fly home after a lost connection for safety, they were more than 500ft from
people, and were 5 nautical miles from an airport UNLESS THEY HAD WRITTEN
CONSENT from air traffic control authority.

The FAA has only issued 333a exeptions for commercial drone use to ~399 firms,
one of which is SkyPan. Exemptions are case by case. They give these FAQs[1]
on their site breaking down what that permit is.

Here are some excerpts from the SKYPAN exemption. These are issued as letters
if you see the link[2] below and are evaluated on the case by case basis,
following are relevant intersting excerpts specific to skypan[3]:

ESTABLISHED PRECEDENCE

====================================

> FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA)
> with the specifica tions described by the petition er and carrying no
> passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of signi ficantly greater
> proporti ons, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gi ves the FAA
> good cause to find th at the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in
> the public interest.

TYPE OF VEHICLE

====================================

This is the operating drone Specs:

> Operations authorized by this grant of ex emption are limited to the Align T
> Rex 700E F3C when weighing less than 55 pounds in cluding payload.

GENERAL RULES (speed, altitude, oversite)

====================================

> may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

> The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground
> level

> All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated
> within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PI C and VO at all times. [I
> think PIC is person in control]

OPERATING AROUND AIRPORTS (SkyPan)

====================================

The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s of an airport reference point
(ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facil ity Directory (AFD) or for
airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the ai rport symbol as denoted
on the current FAA- published aeronautical chart, unless a lett er of
agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by
a COA issued to the exemption holder.

OPERATIONS AROUND CITIES (SkyPan)

====================================

All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all
nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: a.
Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently pr otect nonparticipating
persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator
must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a
situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are
within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a
manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and b. The
owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or struct ures has granted
permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety
assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined
that it does not present an undue hazard.

SOURCES

======================================

[0][https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333...](https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333_authorizations/)

[1][https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333...](https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333_faqs/#q1)

[2][https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333...](https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333_authorizations/media/skypan_international_11352.pdf)

[3]In the letter the decision is based on other proposals, so some of these
rules are possibly boilerplate. However, as an exemption, when I say
"specific", I mean these are grants, so these are rules and allocations the
entity (skypan here) must follow, not neccessarily applicable to other
providers.

------
astaroth360
I just hope we don't all end up in that Audi commercial stuck in an office
building, heh.

But seriously, I'm glad to see the FAA is paying attention to drones.

------
Dylan16807
Wait, all the way to the _ground_ within five miles of an airport? A drone
hovering four feet above your driveway is illegal in those areas?

~~~
mcpherrinm
Yeah. No drones/RC aircraft/large kites/balloons within 5 miles of a major
airport without contacting Air Traffic Control

Is somebody going to come after you for the drone toy you got at Target for
$30, flying 5 feet off the ground? Probably not -- The FAA doesn't regulate
throwing basketballs in the air either. Is it illegal? Probably! I wonder what
ATC would say if you asked permission to fly your drone under 25 feet in your
yard ;)

------
paul9290
Fines? They should be held criminally liable if they were told repeatedly that
their drone activity was endangering lives!

------
fineIllregister
How did they know the drones belonged to SkyPan?

------
ill0gicity
"We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must
understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations."

tl;dr: We're safe because our rules are convoluted and scare people away.

~~~
rcthompson
I'm pretty happy that there's a lot of rules preventing me and plummeting to
my death when I fly on an airplane.

