

DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems - ghaff
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=18295

======
tomkinstinch
The proposed rules seem prudent and well-considered. I'm an amateur radio
operator, and there are similar licensure, testing, and regulatory
requirements in order to ensure the best use of a shared and finite resource.
Where radios have restrictions on frequency, aircraft have restrictions on
location, where transmitters are prohibited from causing interference,
aircraft are controled for safety. Where radio power is limited (to the the
minimum necessary for communication), aircraft use is limited to line-of-
sight. Most of the populace is unlikely to be an operator (of radio, or
aircraft) so it is important that those who are are respectful of everyone
else such that their use does not endanger or interfere with ordinary
activity.

Just as no one wants an unlicensed transmitter blocking the ability for a cell
phone to call 911, no one wants a quad copter falling on his or her head.

~~~
ghaff
I thought a while ago that ham radio regulations might be a useful conceptual
template and, as you say, that's what seems to be happening.

I imagine we'll see some pushback on the requirements for getting certified
(e.g. background check) but that's quibbling at the margins.

I also imagine that some won't like the prohibition on autonomous operation
outside line of sight. But that seems a reasonable restriction to me if we're
heading toward a spot where there are potentially lots of drones flying
around.

~~~
god_bless_texas
I heard some of the information that came out of the rule making committee
about this time last year. The FAA has the idea that they need to control this
as fast as possible, while doing what they can to slow the explosion so that
it remains under constant control.

Part of me wonders if the background check (TSA Screen) is just something to
weed out people who are on the fence about getting the certificate.

I do applaud some of what they're doing except for the weight classes they
have assigned. The 55 lb and under is a huge range. They are making safety
rules based on a contraption between the weight of a desktop computer or a
toaster. I'm not sure a toaster falling on your head from 500 feet would kill
you, but a computer falling from that height surely would.

~~~
justinv
Well, a tape measure that dropped 500feet killed a man[1], so I wouldn't be
too confident about something the size of a toaster not killing someone when
being dropped 500ft.

Granted a tape measure does weigh less than 2lb (~toaster), but anything
dropping from 500feet is still cause for concern.

[1][http://www.krmg.com/news/news/national/tape-measure-
dropped-...](http://www.krmg.com/news/news/national/tape-measure-
dropped-500-feet-building-kills-worke/nhzBg/)

~~~
wtallis
I wonder what the terminal velocity is for a drone that's lost power. It seems
like anything that's able to climb to and hover at 500 feet probably won't
drop quite like a brick unless things go wrong in a very particular way.

------
Animats
This looks reasonable. A 25Kg drone is a serious threat to aircraft, and,
reasonably enough, the FAA wants to make drone operators take a test and get a
license. UAVs in these classes have to be operated line of sight from the
ground operator and under 500 ft AGL, and only in class G (uncontrolled,
usually below 1200 feet) airspace.

There's a comment that "operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed
with the required ATC permission." What that basically means is no drones
anywhere near an airport, where class B, C, and D airspace goes all the way
down to the ground and a drone under 500 feet might be in the way.

"Near an airport" covers a lot of territory near major airports. See
"[http://skyvector.com/"](http://skyvector.com/"). Wide blue lines show
airspace boundaries. Where you see 100/SFC, that means the controlled area is
from 10,000 feet to the surface. Big chunks of metropolitan areas are thus no-
drone areas.

If you really need to operate a drone in controlled airspace, it's going to
require all the usual procedures for flying in controlled airspace - a flight
plan, radio contact with ATC, and probably a transponder so the controllers
can see the drone on radar. Sagetech has a 100 gram transponder for UAVs which
identifies a drone to ATC radar, just like larger aircraft. So when your drone
is taking pictures of a building, ATC can see that it's at 250 feet, sending
the ID they issued you with the flight plan, and nowhere near a runway
approach. They're in contact with you if they need you to move the drone. This
is a lot like helicopter operations in urban areas. This will cover the needs
of movie companies, bridge inspectors, and such.

There's a proposal for comment mentioned for a 2Kg "microUAV" class with less
regulation. That's useful, and will encourage toy manufacturers to stay below
that weight limit.

None of this allows flying drones beyond visual range. The FAA isn't taking on
that problem for now.

------
ghaff
I'm sure there will be a lot of back and forth on the rule specifics, but
seems like a reasonable first pass given the state of the technology.

The only thing that really strikes me as a bit problematic is "casual"
commercial use in which someone like a real estate agent uses a hobbyist-type
drone to do a little aerial photography. These rules seem a bit stringent for
something like that although the reality may be the rules for commercial use
just get ignored at these kind of margins.

\- An FAA UAS operator certificate will be required for commercial use. I
don't think the details of what this will entail have been worked out yet but
it explicitly will not have the same level of rigor as a pilot's license.

\- Requires the operator to maintain line of sight to the drone.

\- Can't fly over people not involved in the flight.

\- Certification isn't required for hobbyist use.

\- Considering a more flexible framework for drones under 4.4 pounds.

~~~
cornellwright
What about property owner permission? I feel like that's something really
important. Even if I'm not at my house I should still have a say if someone
wants to fly some 50 lb contraption over it.

~~~
leetrout
Well you don't own the airspace over your property. Based on existing
regulations that's class G and is open and uncontrolled (generally from the
ground to 1200' AGL)[0]

And if any of the regs in part 91 end up applying-

FAR 91.13 (a) just says aircraft have to be operated safely. "No person may
operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
life or property of another." So unless they were buzzing your house that
might be hard to prove.

The regs are loose around dropping items, too- FAR 91.15 [1]. They don't talk
about needing property owner permission or anything. Maybe you could twist
that in your defense since it is so loose- if something did fall from a UAV.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_%28United_States...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_%28United_States%29#Class_G)

[1]
[http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf...](http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/ad2ebda6370bb404852566cf0061287a!OpenDocument)

~~~
cmurf
FAR 91.119 [1] Proscribes what you describe. Flight below 1000' from the
highest obstacle within 2000' horizontal is disallowed in congested areas
(cities, towns, etc), and disallowed below 500' AGL in other than congested
areas. Clearly small UASs are going to be exempt from those parts akin to the
exemption for helicopters in subsection d. But there is no exemption for any
aircraft from subsection a, so I'm curious how commercial or hobbyists comply
with that.

[1]
[http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html](http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_91-119.html)

------
throwaway8598
> "This looks reasonable."

I'm a pilot, so familiar with FAA rules.

The first 3 bulletin points are reasonable, but the last 3 are onerous for UAS
operators. Not flying over people will mean not flying in cities, the point of
commercial operators like Amazon.

Also, the FAA likes to grant licences so that then they will have power to
revoke them at will. Fighting an FAA certificate revocation action is like
trying to get off a no-fly list.

~~~
Zikes
In a recent podcast by Adam Savage[1], an avid drone enthusiast, drones are
described as "cinder blocks with propellers attached" or something to that
effect. In one incident described in the podcast, Will describes a multiple-
redundant multirotor losing a single propeller and having the vibrations of
that cause a cascading failure of the other propellers, ultimately bringing
the machine down in an uncontrolled manner.

I think that as a blanket rule it is very appropriate to not allow amateur UAS
to fly directly overhead of people not aware that it is there. If a machine
should be built that is provably safe against such failures or demonstrates an
extreme tolerance to them, then special licensing could be dispensed.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RvHI79CyqQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RvHI79CyqQ)

------
dmckeon
Note especially that the proposal is for "non-recreational operations" \- FAA
tends to make a big differentiation between commercial and private
(recreational) activities. I read this proposal as being aimed at movie
production, utility (pipeline, powerline) inspection, and similar operations.

Another thing about the FAA - once they write rules, they are generally
reluctant to change them, so for anyone wanting to comment on the NPRM, sooner
is better than later.

------
aaronsnoswell
These rules are very similar to those already in place in Australia
([http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_1...](http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100374)).

------
cmurf
55lb going 100mph rapidly descending from 500' AGL. Hmm.

------
glabifrons
"The new rules would not apply to model aircraft." I think this is going to be
a problem... when does a model become a "small unmanned aircraft system" and
when does it not? It seems to me they're at least heavily overlapping, if not
synonymous.

Does it have to resemble an existing aircraft to be considered a "model
aircraft"? This could easily be open to interpretation of law enforcement. If
so, my brother had some "small unmanned aircraft systems" back in the '70s
(powered by 049 engines). They were most definitely "experimental designs" as
some of them looked nothing like any (manned) aircraft ever produced. This
proposal looks dangerously close to something that could make experimenting
with new aircraft designs an illegal activity, including those designed for
humor. Examples include flying lawnmowers, doghouses and witches. [0] How
would they classify my Dragonflies? [1] They certainly don't resemble any
manned flying contraption ever made, they barely resemble an actual dragonfly.
Would these fall under the "more flexible framework for “micro” UAS under 4.4
pounds"? If so, that's utterly absurd. If your answer is "it's a toy", I
agree, but then so are all of the quads and aircraft I've already mentioned.
It needs to have a very distinct line distinguishing a "model aircraft" from a
"small unmanned aircraft".

It doesn't even say "powered aircraft", so a large hand-launched remote
controlled glider could be illegal (yes, I know this is reaching a bit, just
trying to prove a point).

It's unclear to me if this will make illegal all of the automated fliers that
have been built (such as those suggested on old episodes of Hak5, programmed
to fly to a nearby building's roof, park for a period of time, then fly back,
etc.). I suspect it will, since it makes repeated references to the "operator"
and "line of sight", etc. I saw interviews with people (at DEFCON?) who had
created some very impressive auto-navigating (beyond autopilots) craft as
well. All of the machines produced with cameras and video feeds for remote
operation would suddenly be illegal to fly in the manner for which they were
designed. Among those would be a wonderfully implemented one with a full
cockpit view. [2]

"A small UAS may not fly over people" This is really vague... "directly over"
or just "kinda over" (what range)? Technically, if they're over 7 feet up,
they're "over people" so already in violation. This will make flying remote
control airplanes illegal in parks too... where will all the hobbyists be able
to go? You can't launch and land in a cornfield.

[0] [http://flyingthingz.com/](http://flyingthingz.com/) [1]
[http://www.wowwee.com/en/products/toys/flight/flytech/dragon...](http://www.wowwee.com/en/products/toys/flight/flytech/dragonfly)
[2] [http://hackaday.com/2014/06/18/rc-plane-flies-with-a-
cockpit...](http://hackaday.com/2014/06/18/rc-plane-flies-with-a-cockpit-
view/)

------
SlipperySlope
To me this is similar to old red flag laws requiring a motor vehicle to be
preceded by a person waving a red flag.

For fully autonomous vehicles, these US regulations appear to be a barrier.
How could merchants pursue autonomous drone delivery?

Perhaps some other jurisdictions, where entrepreneurs have more freedom to
innovate with this tech - will show the way.

~~~
ghaff
Seriously? There's nothing to keep companies from working to figure out what
the challenges/requirements/etc. are for doing home delivery at some point. I
also suspect it is quite a long way away and, in the meantime, I don't want to
see random companies going all move fast and break things with heavy objects
flying through the air above people and in controlled airspaces.

~~~
SlipperySlope
Venture capitalists and self funded R&D want rosy market projections.

Sadly, based on sentiment from USA residents, like yours I suppose, I predict
the USA is going to lead with military applications only for UAVs.

~~~
eropple
_> Venture capitalists and self funded R&D want rosy market projections._

I want people to not die because somebody "moved fast and broke something."

~~~
SlipperySlope
I wonder how many lives would be lost due to failing drones vs lives saved by
the timely delivery of medications/defribillators by waypoint-following
autonomous air vehicles.

The data will most certainly come either from US military usage or from
commercial usage outside the USA. Sad.

~~~
eropple
There's nothing stopping your hypothetical company from getting FAA permission
for a trial, even in an urban area. Yes, it requires one of those "lawyers",
and requires you to have more of a plan than just "eh fuck it, light it up,"
but those are features, not bugs. But nobody's going to be prevented from
doing even urban-scale testing _if they are actually taking it seriously_ and
involving the communities they wish to experiment within.

There's a reason these rules look so much like radio regulations: because
screwing it up hurts _everyone_ , so it behooves us not to screw up. Doing
dangerous things requires buy-in from more than just your shareholders. And
stop with the "oh, woe is us" stuff. It's shitty rhetoric and it doesn't work.

~~~
SlipperySlope
Well we are talking past each other.

I predict that timely delivery of life saving medications and medical devices
will first happen outside of the USA, in jurisdictions favoring UAV
innovation.

[http://www.uasvision.com/2015/02/10/japan-tests-drone-
delive...](http://www.uasvision.com/2015/02/10/japan-tests-drone-delivery-to-
islands/)

[http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0209/c98649-8847897.html](http://en.people.cn/n/2015/0209/c98649-8847897.html)

And I predict that the in the USA, the military will lead the way with regard
to autonomous air vehicle technology for delivery because not the FAA, nor
local equivalents, will constrain them where battles are happening.

[http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-
news/blog/intercept...](http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-
news/blog/intercepts/2015/01/02/darpa-drones-intercepts/21196989/)

