

FAA OKs first commercial drone flights over land - andrewmac
http://news.yahoo.com/faa-oks-commercial-drone-flights-over-land-125928627--finance.html

======
frisco
I hope that drones end up going through the same channels as traditional
aviation - you get a pilot certificate with a drone rating (Drone Quadengine
Land?). That would be very cool because it would get the drone operators in
the same system as everyone else, ensure they know the FARs and are
sufficiently skilled to be safe, and create a pathway that everyone could feel
good about being legitimate. Aviation is a really complex thing, and while I
wouldn't expect the complexity of a small drone license to be anywhere near
even a Recreational Pilot certificate, there's at least a weekend of stuff to
know here and it should result in a license.

The bar for CFIs would be different, too, and I imagine you'd end up seeing
tons of little Part 141-style drone schools pop up for $100 - $300 for a
Saturday or so. It would be like adding a motorcycle rating to a driver's
license. I don't think it would meaningfully hinder progress.

I feel like this is important even if they're exclusively limited to class G
airspace near the ground (and the reality is that in a lot of the congested
areas where drones are being flown, it isn't traditional class G airspace).

Add it onto the new light sport aircraft pathways and you make it easy for
people get into drones safely while also introducing them to the wider world
of aviation.

~~~
tlrobinson
I think there need to be different classes of drones. A kid who wants to film
his friends at a skate park with a 1 pound AR.Drone shouldn't have to get a
drone pilots license, while someone flying FPV 5 miles out probably should.

~~~
mbreese
Right now you don't need a license for a 1 pound quad-copter that is flown
within line of sight (for non-commercial uses).

The problem is that even for line-of-sight users, the FAA won't let you use
them for commercial purposes. So, your hypothetical kid would be okay filming
their friends, so long as they didn't make any money from it.

There are two issues with drones that the FAA needs to figure out: 1)
commercial use and 2) autonomous (out of sight) flight. The latter is much
trickier than the former. I'm all for autonomous drones having to get
certified (including FPV, since those would need some kind of fail-safe). But
even here, there might need to be a "hobbyist" class and a commercial class
with different requirements.

~~~
frisco
The reason the FAA is so nervous about commercial operations in general is
because in aviation there's nothing more dangerous than saying, "we'll be
there by 2:30." It's why the rules for Part 135 (charter) operators are much
stricter than for Part 91 (personal) operators, and go through the roof for
Part 121 (scheduled airline) operators. The commercial aspect adds a
potentially major consideration other than safety and so the FAA has a whole
separate way of thinking about it. The spirit of these concerns is probably as
true for drones as it is for manned aircraft, though the concrete
instantiations of it will obviously be different.

~~~
mbreese
You seem to be coming at this from a traditional aviation viewpoint (which is
valid). I'm coming at it from a modeling viewpoint. And I think that's where a
large part of the disconnect comes into play. From the traditional point of
view, you'd like to bring these drones into the normal aviation regulatory
framework. From the model point of view, large regulations are overkill and
are severely limiting the development of this industry.

I think that there are a couple of obvious rules that could be applied to
speed things along: 1) limit location and altitude of flying, 2) require
hands-on control (or take over), 3) require line of sight, 4) enforce some
reasonable weight restrictions (for cameras). If you could meet those four
things, then I don't see why you'd need to have a commercial restriction. You
might have other issues to deal with for insurance, but I don't see why the
FAA should care about commercial/non-commercial with such small craft.

Now, when you get into autonomous flight and real payloads, then that's a
whole other ballgame, where I think the FAA will have some real work to do. In
particular though, I'd hate to see them limit the hobbyist segment too much. I
think it would be a lot of fun to build a small, autonomous drone that could
fly using GPS waypoints with a camera. I just don't want to have to go through
2 years of certification to be able to fly it!

~~~
lsh123
You are missing important part: find a way to punish violators of these (and
other) rules. This is critical for safety.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Typically, if you violate FARs, you'll lose a huge pilot's license investment
(private, ifr, commercial can total in the tens of thousands of dollars).

It doesn't hurt to lose a $300-$1000 quadrotor pilot license.

~~~
lsh123
Correct. The question is - how to identify the drone pilot? With planes you
have N-number, transponders, FBOs, etc.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Require user registration by serial number on the drone possible? Or perhaps
require commercial drones use ADS-B?

~~~
LyndsySimon
Registering individual airframes doesn't make much sense - it's not unusual
for a single quadcopter to go through many design iterations over the course
of a few months.

It might start out as a 10" wide quadcopter, until the first major crash.
Instead of ordering a new arm, it can be reconfigured as a tricopter with the
addition of a servo. After a while, the tricopter might become a V-Tail if the
user likes the flight characteristics.

Then FPV kit might get added, or a GPS reciever. Now it's flying semi-
autonomously and the user wants better quality video, so it's transplanted
onto a 18" frame, fitted with a gimbal and nicer camera.

At what point does the multicopter need to change registration numbers?

A simple "You must have your name and contact info on it" rule would be more
than sufficient - and in fact is already the case for 90% of the aircraft out
there. I even have my contact info taped to the body of my little 4" Hubsan
quadcopter; I'll probably never need it, but why throw away expensive hardware
if you don't have to?

------
blottsie
This is a misleading headline. It approved BP to use a drone for pipeline
surveillance over land in Alaska—that's it. It's not a blanket approval for
all commercial uses.

------
stcredzero
Cargo drones have interesting implications. When the requirement of a human
pilot or crew/passengers of any kind at all disappears, the possible form
factors increase greatly. So, just a wild first-draft brainstorm here: How
about quadcopter drones that take off and rendezvous with an overhead
aircraft? Perhaps they deploy a drogue chute or streamer drogue in front of
the craft, which is equipped with something like the Fulton surface-to-air
recovery system:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-
air_recovery_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-
air_recovery_system)

(Similar devices have already been used to retrieve satellites that have
reentered the atmosphere.) Once the mother aircraft retrieves its assigned
drones, it stores them away, climbs to 50,000 feet, orients itself, then fires
rockets to put it on a suborbital trajectory. On such a trajectory, the mother
aircraft could reach any point on the globe in under 2 hours.

After the mother craft has reentered, it returns to a normal aircraft flight
regime, then releases the quadcopter drones to fly directly to their delivery
coordinates. Voila: same day point to point (city to city) small parcel
delivery anywhere in the world. (Perhaps even same morning or same afternoon.)

Obviously, there are a lot of potential problems. Lots more organizations
besides the FAA would have to get involved. The system described above doesn't
take into account international customs and the spread of invasive species.
There is the potential that people would try to use the system to deliver
bombs. Also, suborbital craft of such capabilities are basically ICBMs. Such
concerns would mean that the mother craft would have to land at an airport and
the cargo drones inspected before they are sent to their destinations. It
might be better to have the mother aircraft remove a cargo pack then drop the
drones, which would float away on the streamer drogue, re-furl the drogue and
resume powered flight back to base. This would save the weight of the drone
for the suborbital flight. Then customs could proceed at the destination
country mostly as usual, then the small parcels could be re-dispatched on a
different set of drones, or proceed by conventional delivery. (Which, by then,
could be a self driving vehicle.)

------
coin
First, -1 to Yahoo for disabling zoom on mobile devices.

On drones - I have yet to see the FAA (or anyone else) address separation
between manned VFR traffic and drones. VFR traffic maintains separation by
"see and be seen". In other words, you look out the window for nearby traffic.
Will drones have image recognition to detect nearby traffic?, I highly doubt
it. Another way of separation is using the aircraft's transponder. But this
won't necessarily work as not all aircraft have transponders. Many older GA
aircraft do not even have an electrical system (other than the magneto spark
plug system). A transponder is not required in class D, E, G airspace below
10,000 feet and 30 NM from a primary class B airport. The majority of the US
is class E airspace. I'm also curious if all these drones will have a
transponder (heavy given the battery usage).

The other way around is for the manned aircraft visually see a drone. Given
the size of the drones, it will be very hard. Also, will drones have anti-
collision lights?

Just like any new industry, safety regulations are enacted in response to
incidents. I predict we'll have a few mid-air drone to airplane collisions in
the 10-15 years. Once that happens we'll see better regulation.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> I predict we'll have a few mid-air drone to airplane collisions in the 10-15
> years. Once that happens we'll see better regulation.

I think it depends on the drones.

Consider that the DJI Phantom 2 Vision weighs 1.2kg, and an adult male
Canadian Goose weight up to 6.5kg. Barring the exception case of getting
ingested into a jet engine, bird strikes don't seem to be a huge problem.

Of course, geese don't have sense enough to stay the hell away from airports -
presumably, _most_ drone operators do. Even if we assume that all drone
operators will operate their drones wherever they'd like, whenever they'd like
- will there likely be more drones in the air than Canada Geese?

I really think the threat to manned aircraft (while real) is extremely
overstated.

------
mmaunder
I fully support drones, but this definitely is going to make life interesting
for light aircraft pilots flying around already busy airspace like SoCal at
relatively low altitude. Hit a 55 pound drone and you'll feel it.

~~~
mbreese
This is far more restricted than that. They approved the use of drones by BP
to survey their operations / pipelines in Alaska.

I think the restrictions in SoCal will be much more stringent.

------
rasz_pl
Last time I checked Court said to FAA they have zero jurisdiction over drones,
so they cant approve dick.

------
hitchhiker999
If you guys had any other type of government I'd be so excited for you right
now. I'm obsessed with RC stuff, this tech is just amazing!

However, seriously now - guys, come on... It's not going to end well for you.
You must know that. I dont _think_ I'm being what you call a 'tin-foil-hat
guy'.

It's a fair assumption that massive-scale general abuse will overshadow the
wonder of this technological achievement. Or maybe this has to be the straw
that breaks the camel's back?

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm guessing that if they had _dis_ approved it you'd have written another
message about excess government control designed to curtail natural freedoms.

~~~
hitchhiker999
No - I would not have posted that - you can go through my history if you like
to get an idea of who I am. If they had disapproved it I would have 'mildly'
curious as to why.

That's an 'Ad hominem' argument, you're making assumptions about who I am and
then attacking my personality.

Anyway, good luck to you all. I hope I'm wrong about this, probably am.

~~~
personlurking
Give it time, 'you all' will include yourself, and me and everyone. It's hard
to understand how someone might say your prediction isn't possible or likely.

