
Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge - dronehire
http://www.dronehire.org/blog/drone-operators-free-to-operate-commercially-in-us-airspace-rules-federal-judge
======
jccooper
It's not quite so big as the headline, but it's still good. Here's the scoop:

The FAA has long had rules for model aircraft, which would include many small
"drones", and under which you can personally operate them now. You're supposed
to stay low and away from stuff you could damage.

They also (as of fairly recently) have some rules for UAS (unmanned aerial
systems) that are more like the rules for real aircraft, and are working on
integrating them into real airspace. Thus a UAS requires a certificate and
permission to fly--but they're still working on how to do that, so you can't
get one yet. If you were to buy your own Predator you couldn't fly it, 'cause
it might run into an airliner. Fair enough.

However, they also declared that commercial use of an otherwise-model aircraft
turned it into a full UAS, which you currently cannot fly. So you could use a
quadrotor to take aerial photos--but you could not get paid for it.

This ruling, in a nice display of common sense, disposes of this last bit,
making operation of "model aircraft" the same regardless of intent. You still
have to fly safely, and in limited space, but now you can get paid for
quadrotor photography, as the FAA no longer has a basis to fine you. You still
cannot fly that Predator, though. Sorry.

But I'd be careful before making too much investment based on this decision.
At the very least, check into how the appeals process on a ruling like this
works; dunno how final it is. You'll also want to check carefully to make sure
your intended use can be performed safely by model aircraft; fully unmanned
systems probably aren't going to pass muster (unless perhaps your automated
avoidance system is really good).

~~~
guelo
What's the difference between model aircraft and UAS? Is it line of sight
flying?

~~~
001sky
Looks pretty grey

 _" There are already hobbyists that operate "drones" by any reasonable
definition. The term in the hobby is "FPV" (First Person View) - you install a
camera and a transmitter on your aircraft and pilot it from a first-person
perspective using a monitor on the ground. The radios on these operate by
line-of-sight, but the range is far beyond visual range. You can find plenty
of videos on Youtube just searching for "fpv radio control" or variations
thereof. Operation of these for recreational purposes is currently
unrestricted in the US. This may also change."_

[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=673706](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=673706)

~~~
toomuchtodo
I'm interested in controlled drones not by radio control, but with waypoints,
and telemetry provided over LTE. Further investigation required!

~~~
commandar
Very much possible. Ardupilot is one of the more full-featured open source
packages, but there are simpler autopilots out there as well. It's pretty
common practice to at the very least have a GPS based "return to launch"
system on long-range FPV craft as a failsafe for the connection to the ground
station being dropped.

[http://ardupilot.com/](http://ardupilot.com/)

~~~
bnzelener
We loooove ArduPilot. Using ArduPlane and ArduCopter (firmware versions of
ArduPilot) as the primary platform for our LTE-Telem box.

The current software for configuring ArduPilot boards has tremendous depth,
but I think the UI could use some work. Especially for non-hobbyist users.

------
skue
This appears to be the video that upset the FAA:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17)

And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying
through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high
as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently
moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA
Medical Center's heliport [though the video was being filmed for UVA].

[http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-
aga...](http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-
trappy/)

~~~
efuquen
Man, that looked rather dangerous and the pilot seemed to have a complete
disregard for potentially crashing into buildings and harming someone if that
thing fell to the ground or went through a window. If he was just meandering
around in what would have looked like a safe manner I wouldn't care as much,
but intentionally getting extremely close to buildings and doing acrobatics in
a populated area seems pretty reckless.

~~~
bnzelener
To my knowledge, "Trappy" (nickname of the pilot) is one of the best RC pilots
around. He flies for Team Blacksheep, and is a big figure in the drone
community for encouraging safety, education, and progressing the tech.

He's definitely known for pushing the envelope on reckless flight, but I get
the sense that he would take responsibility if something happened.

These flying wings (foam plane model) absorb a lot of force on impact. Even
with the GoPros and all radio equipment loaded on. Aside from causing
commotion, I think it's unlikely that you'd severely injure someone. Possible,
but unlikely. A quad-rotor heli falling out of the sky would really hurt,
though.

~~~
elliottkember
The issue is the example being set. Trappy is definitely one of the best, but
his videos don't demonstrate his hours of experience, or safety
considerations, to a novice pilot. The affordability of the machine plus some
examples of fancy flying are sure to put dangerous machines in the hands of
idiots, and that's best avoided. Remember - these things fly out of the box
with no training.

Trappy also has access to many more multicopter spares than the rest of us.
This may have something to do with his reckless flying!

~~~
bnzelener
Agreed.

------
SpacemanSpiff
So as a pilot of a manned aircraft what does this mean for the safety of my
flights? Do I need to start trying to avoid unlicensed, unlit, and unannounced
drone aircraft whenever I'm below 400ft AGL?

Edit: Thanks to everyone below for your thoughtful comments. My replies are as
follows: 1) Regarding model aircraft - I would argue that the low density of
these operations at the moment is what has prevented an incident between a
manned aircraft and model aircraft. Also the nature of radio control has
necessitated that the model aircraft generally be withing sight range of the
operator, and as such the operator is still able to avoid other aircraft to
some extent. This may not be the case for automated drones.

2) Regarding 400 ft AGL. How do I know that the drone operator won't
accidentally end up at 600ft+ AGL (for example), which happens to be at the
low end of a standard traffic pattern altitude (800ft)? As far as I know
there's no way to know what altitude your drone is above the ground except
possibly GPS which does not always give you an accurate MSL (or AGL) altitude.
Will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic
patterns? What if I want to exercise my privilege to operate below 500 ft. AGL
in unpopulated areas? I can think of a lot of cases where I've been below
400ft AGL during takeoff and landing while over densely populated areas.

My perception is that automated drones with no mechanism to avoid manned
aircraft at or near traffic pattern altitude at densely populated locations is
a big problem.

~~~
lutorm
I think you're pushing it a bit there. If you exercise your privilege to
operate below 500ft AGL, you'd better be _sure_ the area is unpopulated. Since
the unmanned aircraft are required to stay within LOS, one would argue that
the area there is not unpopulated and hence you are required to maintain 500ft
clearance.

As for "will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air
traffic patterns?", it seems unlikely that someone wouldn't notice the local
air traffic pattern if it includes aircraft at < 500ft AGL.

~~~
dchichkov
To operate below 500ft AGL the area _doesn 't have to be unpopulated_. As long
as it is not a _congested area_ (as in city center) and the pilot is stays 500
feet (distance) from any person, vehicle or structure that pilot is within
legal regulations to operate below 500ft AGL.

------
cryptoz
Okay, time to build drones full of atmosphere sensors! The weather forecast is
about to get a lot better....this is excellent news for crowdsourcing remote
data about the atmosphere. I've been pulling pressure measurements from
smartphones for a while, but a core problem is that a lot of weather develops
over areas of low smartphone density.

Sending out drone fleets will be a most excellent solution; they're reusable,
so you don't have to make 200M of them. They're connected and already carry
many required sensors. They're coming down in price and at the start of a
thriving commercial ecosystem. Can't wait to start building!

Edit: I wrote about this idea last year:
[http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/03/living-in-the-future-
star...](http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/03/living-in-the-future-startup-
ideas/)

~~~
jccooper
Unless you're collecting your data under 400 feet, this ruling isn't going to
enable such a system. Only "model aircraft" operation is involved.

~~~
cryptoz
Actually I'm exclusively interested in data under 400 feet! Surface-level
pressure observations are my target; recent research suggests that a dense
network of atmospheric pressure observations (taken on the surface) will
produce a significantly higher accuracy forecast. Smartphones work nicely for
this except for their lack of even geographical distribution.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Get in touch . I'm working on making a low cost sensor box from Raspberry Pi's
for wide dissemination; atmospheric/temp sensors, precision GPS receiver,
software defined radio for grabbing AIS and ADS-B data, etc, and then open
sourcing all of the collected data sets and the live streams.

I would love to integrate with Cumulonimbus! My email address is in my
profile.

~~~
jjsz
Cheaper than a cubesensor? Where can I subscribe?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Different market per se. Not cheaper; its made to help contribute to a sensor
fabric, less about your home environment.

------
roc
This reads more like the recent Net Neutrality decision than anything else.

It's less "Drones are free to operate commercially" and more "If the FAA wants
to regulate (commercial) drones separately for any other model aircraft, they
need to create explicit regulations that apply to them"

What seems explicitly ruled against, is selectively interpreting existing regs
as applying to an imprecise (and shifting) definition of "drone" _and_ trying
to use a "Policy Statement" as de facto law (by claiming a request for
voluntary compliance, but then suing for non-compliance), without following
the appropriate procedure or meeting all of the requirements of new
regulation.

------
vowelless
Here is the FAA UAS initiative [1]

In my experience (I don't deal with them directly, just an engineer), FAA is
bullish on UAVs, but is obviously very cautious.

This [2] is also a good read.

[1]
[http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/](http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/)

[2] "Integration of Civil UAS in National Airspace System":
[http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2...](http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2013.pdf)

------
kyrra
From a different article[0], it sounds like the guy being sued in this case
may have been operating the drone irresponsibly, which opens a window for
legislators to put laws in place that will gives the FAA power to regulate
drones:

> Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals,
> about 20 feet of a crowded street, and within approximately 100 feet of an
> active heliport at UVA, the FAA alleged. One person had to take "evasive
> measures" to avoid being struck by the aircraft, the agency said.

[0] [http://m.kspr.com/nationalnews/Drone-pilot-wins-case-
against...](http://m.kspr.com/nationalnews/Drone-pilot-wins-case-against-
FAA/21053270_24851746)

~~~
tensafefrogs
You can watch the video of the flight that triggered the lawsuit:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4)

Definitely some questionable flying in my opinion.

~~~
zobzu
yeah even for an experienced pilot, in fact, everyone knows - its not if you
crash, its when you crash. as a pedestrian i'd be pissed if the wing was
busing me at a couple of feet above my head. its reckless.

------
Qworg
IANAL, but can we get a reading of the actual decision?

As much as I'd like to take this on face value, dronehire.org may have a bias.

~~~
berberous
The article linked has a link to the actual decision:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-
Decision](http://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-Decision)

~~~
Qworg
Yes, but IANAL. There's a reading above by not a lawyer as well, which was
helpful.

------
MWil
Without a law that gets passed otherwise, this also opens up the floodgates to
full law enforcement use of drones in public/private airspace. If the sky's
open for for commercial use, it's automatically available for law enforcement
as well.

I had hopes that there would be some rules/regulations in place first...

edit: assuming the decision allowed use in populated areas, full disclosure
that I haven't had a chance to actually read it yet

~~~
MWil
edit: this was an administrative law judge's decision from the national
transportation safety board

aka not set in stone

------
biblio777
Let's stick with some facts (I'm a pilot and work closely with the FAA for my
dayjob so I know a bit about this space) ...

\- The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally
must stay at least 500 feet above the ground.

\- There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an
aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness
certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight
demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator
to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. ... The
FAA reviews and approves UAS operations over densely-populated areas on a
case-by-case basis.

\- In the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation, Congress told the FAA to come
up with a plan for 'safe integration' of UAS by September 30, 2015. Safe
integration will be incremental.

So don't get too excited your drones won't be taking the skies anytime soon.

~~~
lholoubek
It appears this issue is exactly what the decision addressed. At issue was
whether the definition of "aircraft" applied to the model aircraft that Mr.
Pirker was flying. You're correct in stating that every aircraft, as defined
under the regulations, must have FAA approval (in most cases, a COA). The
judge concluded specifically that "aircraft as defined in 14 CFR Part 1,
Section 1.1 does not include model aircraft.[1] The conclusion to be drawn is
that the FAA approval process does not apply to model aircraft. This finding
was in addition to finding that the FAA policies on model aircraft - including
the ban on commercial use - are not legally enforceable.

[1]"Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6)
definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft
within their respective definition."

~~~
commandar
And one of the issues here is that the existing regulations didn't make much
sense. The _exact same_ aircraft that would be considered a model aircraft if
you would fly as a hobbyist would suddenly be classified as a UAS the instant
you took any payment to fly it.

So, I could go out to a field and zoom around a field and record footage to my
heart's content and be completely kosher. But if my buddy decided it'd be neat
to have a photo of his neighborhood and gives me $5 to fly over and snap one,
I'm illegally operating a UAS. Absolutely nothing has changed in terms of what
the aircraft is and the level of danger it does or does not pose.

------
andymoe
Here at my little company Fighting Walrus [1] (we make a radio accessory so
small commercial UAVs can be controlled via iPad) we are really excited that
there has been some forward movement on the legal front. My personal view has
always been that commercial drone use would be worked out in the courts before
the FAA really got a handle on their (much delayed) roadmap for integrating
them into the national airspace. However I would caution that the FAA is
probably going to appeal the decision to the full five member safety board.
The FAA is not going to give up regulatory control of this class of small
unmanned aerial vehicles (SUAVs) easily.

[1] [http://www.fightingwalrus.com](http://www.fightingwalrus.com)

ps. If this stuff interests you come to the SF Drones Startup Meetup my Co-
Founder Bryan organizes - [http://www.meetup.com/SF-Drones-Startup-
Meetup](http://www.meetup.com/SF-Drones-Startup-Meetup) (About 700 members so
far!)

------
damon_c
I hope when automated delivery is a reality, those of us who live on high
floors of apartment buildings can affix some machine identifiable sticker to
the outside of our chosen delivery window.

When that happens, I will know I'm living in the future.

------
swalsh
YES! I have several business ideas that I've been sitting on because of the
restrictions.

Is there a good source someone here can hook me up with already made drones? I
can do software, but i'm not really a hardware guy.

~~~
dronehire
DJI and 3DR are two of the most popular manufacturers of RTF (ready-to-fly)
drones. If you don't have much experience with flying model aircraft, I'd
definitely recommend that you practise with a micro multicopter such as the
Hubsan X4 H107C. You could also join a drone user group - see dugn.org -
there's a group in San Francisco that is focused on startups.

~~~
swalsh
Thanks, i'm actually based out of Boston. I'll try to find some groups here.

------
smtddr
Huh, so if Amazon really wants to start sending out those drones they no
longer have any legal hurdles? I expect to hear stories of college kids
capturing them before EOY.

~~~
robodale
Capture, hell - I'd enjoy shooting them down with my Remington 877 Express
(with gooseload), or maybe my .243 Ruger rifle....but only if they are
hovering.

~~~
outworlder
So you go around randomly destroying other people's property?

~~~
sosborn
That question is as appropriate as "So, you go around randomly trespassing on
other people's property?"

~~~
abruzzi
I'm curious what property owners rights will be for private drone overflight.
What altitude will they have to be? I also wonder if I put a 70ft radio tower
(amateur radio) with guy wires for support, will the amazon drones be smart
enough not to run into my equipment when overflying my house.

------
andymoe
So as expected (by me at least) the ruling has been appealed by the FAA and
will go to the full NTSB so the opinion is stayed until the board rules:
[http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...](http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15894)

I think the FAA _may_ lose the appeal but we will have to wait and see. This
is really political for the FAA; they want to be in control of this area as
much as possible so they will fight very hard to get the lower court ruling
overturned. There is a large heated discussions thread on DIYDrones.com [1] if
anyone is interested in opinions of folks with boots on the ground so to
speak.

[1] [http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/commercial-drones-are-
le...](http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/commercial-drones-are-legal-in-the-
us-court-roles)

------
coldcode
Not really. It just means the FAA has to come up with rules just like for any
other flying planes. No one wants drones flying into protected airspace,
crashing into things, etc. It's not a sudden free for all. They just can't
refuse to come up with rules because it's a drone. The rules could still be
hard to meet.

~~~
bpicolo
Can the rules be "they can't fly", or something so prohibitive that it makes
it so?

~~~
jonknee
Sure. But then all sorts of things will be banned: footballs, baseballs,
kites, model rockets, frisbees, conventional model aircraft, weather balloons,
etc etc. The better way to do it is with common sense safety standards,
certifications and clear rules on airspace.

------
logfromblammo
I am not a pilot. But I imagine that there should be not problems flying a
piloted unmanned aircraft in uncontrolled airspace--which is, I believe,
usually under 1200' AGL. If you're operating remotely without a camera, you
keep the craft within line of sight, and double the visibility distance for a
manned aircraft. Otherwise, you operate by IFR using whatever telemetry you
get back.

With a _drone_ , however, I'd think that operating in controlled airspace
would require extensive collision avoidance and fault recovery software, which
would have to be tested and certified by experienced pilots.

There is a difference between drones and remotely piloted aircraft, and I
certainly hope that the journalists can learn it before we end up with another
"hacker" situation.

------
dougbright
This is simply awesome news for startup/small business UAS operators in the US
in the short term. I do have some concern, though, that this could cause the
FAA to now rush the rule-making process which could result in half baked, ham
fisted regulations. This is especially possible if we see several high profile
accidents during this new free-for-all period.

Cheap plug: if you want to play with aerial photography but are more of a
software guy than a hardware guy, check out my embarrassingly buggy side
project at [http://airboss.io](http://airboss.io). It's an app that lets you
use an old Android phone mounted on a drone as a photography/video platform
with real-time first person view streaming using WebRTC.

~~~
biblio777
You seem to misunderstand you cannot commercially operate a UAS in the US.
This is not "awesome news" for all your "disruptive" startups. You cannot
"disrupt" the FAA and I highly suggest you do not attempt too; that path is
littered with corpses. The FAA does not joke around and your little UAS is no
where near up to the 50+ years of standards, processes and regulations in
place for modern aircraft. Why do you think new aircraft manufacturers are not
popping up every year? The ignorance and complete disrespect for an industry
no one of this forumn truly understands is appalling. Your drones are not
going to be delivery packages or flying passengers anytime soon (most modern
airlines are not flown but "operated" like a giant computer anyways). That is
about as close as it is going to get for awhile so dream on.

------
blutack
This sounds similar to the UK's CAP722, which is the basis for commercial UAS
flying over here. As jccooper said, the immediate industries affected by this
will be those which gather imagery or video.

In the UK, there is a restriction against flying out of line of sight. Most
operators will fly using a GPS lock for stability but will not be using video
streams from the aircraft for anything other than framing shots. Here,
commercial UAS are often used as a low-cost, faster alternative to
scaffolding; I recently got up a 4am to help an operator survey the exterior
of an old hotel in the centre of a large city, looking for damaged pipes. He
did the entire hotel in the course of three 3 hour sessions.

------
lsiebert
I read the original motion for this, and it's a good read.

The government has some pretty big restrictions on binding regulations from
agencies. Restrictions that make a lot of sense when you realize that most law
is made by elected officials with constituents, ie representative democracy.
Regulations aren't made like that, so you have a lot of rules to prevent
abuse.

One of the restrictions is you need to have defined periods for public comment
on new regulations. Which the FAA did not do, as I understand things. It just
came up with new rules without following the defined regulatory process. If
for no other reason then that, the UAV rules were invalid.

------
chrisa
After reading the pdf, I'm still not clear: does this mean UAVs can operate in
regular airspace (above 400 ft) with proper licensing, or are they still (for
now) limited to under 400 ft, and away from populated areas?

~~~
jccooper
UAVs (UASs) can operate above 400 ft with a Certificate of Airworthiness (or
similar.) However, the FAA will not yet issue you one, as they don't yet have
to rules to do so.

UAVs that qualify as "model aircraft" can operate in that domain, as they
always could. But now commercial use doesn't automatically turn them into
license-requiring UAVs.

------
biblio777
This is ridiculous. The coming (and fictitious) drone/UAS revolution every
little rich punk in Silicon Valley is just that ... day dreaming.

I cannot wait to watch the FAA mow down your dreams. You have NO idea the
power of the organization you are dealing with and their commitment to safety.

UAS are not and will not be (for decades) up to the FAA standards. If you are
an investor putting money behind these outlandish businesses proposed here
then you are even stupider than I thought.

~~~
zobzu
somebody's jealous.

------
griffendoor
What if I got 100 drones that picked up a tarp and carried me around (i.e. use
them for transport, claiming that they carry the tarp and I just happen to be
on it)? Or how about using drones in mass by a non-profit to intimidate at
political gatherings?

I like drones, but I have a feeling this is a decision that will get
overturned within 5 years.

------
coin
I have yet to see a practical solution that provides separation between UAV
and manned aircraft. All flights under VFR are responsible for their own
separation by way of see-and-be-seen. I have yet to see a UAV that can
visually recognize an approaching aircraft and take evasive action.

~~~
tim333
Perhaps do the separation by height above the ground? In most of the world
light aircraft are not supposed to fly below 500ft apart from landing. You
could limit drones to flying below 200ft say. It would also reduce the impact
when they pack up and crash on you!

------
marktangotango
Is anyone doing an orbiting UAV as a signal transponder for microwave radio?
Ie line of site networking. Internet off the commercial backbones. The privacy
and security implication should be clear.

~~~
jrockway
Sure. Just bounce your signal off the moon:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_\(communications\))

(There are also plenty of amateur satellites that you can use for
communication. You won't like the rules, though: no encryption. You also won't
like the realities of powering a radio transmitter in space: with a few
minutes of sun per orbit onto a tiny solar panel, you get less radio output
power than your WiFi network has.

If only some company were using tethered balloons to provide networking...)

~~~
marktangotango
An advantage aerial over satellite is lower latency.

------
ilovecookies
Now this suddenly became a valid activity for your CV.

[http://nodecopter.com/](http://nodecopter.com/)

------
sitkack
Just tell me if the burrito deliver network is now possible!!

