Commercial Drones Declared Legal; Release The Tacocopters
from the let's-get-this-going... dept
Almost exactly two years ago, we wrote about the tacocopter, a sort of proof of concept idea for using drones to deliver products to people's homes. Yes, Amazon got some attention last year for claiming to be working on something similar, but the Tacocopter (and Lobstercopter on the east coast) idea was the first I'd heard of anyone seriously thinking about commercial-use drones. However, the key point of our Tacocopter story was that they were illegal:Current U.S. FAA regulations prevent ... using UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, like drones] for commercial purposes at the moment.Well, that's no longer the case apparently. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) administrative law judge Patrick Geraghty has unleashed the tacocopters of the world by issuing a ruling that the FAA has no mandate to regulate commercial drones. The case involved the first time that the FAA had actually tried to fine someone, a guy named Raphael Pirker, $10,000 for trying to film a commercial with a drone at the University of Virginia.
The issue, basically, is that the FAA has historically exempted model airplanes from its rules, and the NTSB finds it impossible to square that with its attempt to now claim that drones are under its purview. As Geraghty notes, accepting that leads to absurd arguments about the FAA's mandate over all flying objects:
Complainant has, historically, in their policy notices, modified the term "aircraft" by prefixing the word "model", to distinguish the device/contrivance being considered. By affixing the word "model" to "aircraft" the reasonable inference is that Complainant FAA intended to distinguish and exclude model aircraft from either or both of the aforesaid definitions of "aircraft".The judge notes that while the FAA had some internal memorandum about these issues, it did not put forth a full rule, and thus it is not an actual policy. As a result, the ruling finds that the current definition of aircraft is not applicable here and thus the FAA has no real mandate over this kind of drone.
To accept Complainant's interpretive argument would lead to a conclusion that those definitions include as an aircraft all types of devices/contrivances intended for, or used for, flight in the air. The extension of that conclusion would then result in the risible argument that a flight in the air of, e.g., a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider, could subject the "operator" to the regulatory provisions of FAA Part 91, Section 91.13(a)....
..... The reasonable inference is not that FAA has overlooked the requirements, but, rather that FAA has distinguished model aircraft as a class excluded from the regulatory and statutory definitions.
This does not preclude the FAA from trying to go through a full rule-making process to try to gain a mandate over commercial drone use, but that will involve a big political fight. It's way easier to block something like that from becoming official than overturning it if it was already deemed the law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drone, faa, ntsb, patrick geraghty, raphael pirker, tacocopter, uav
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Flying cars always had problems as piloted vehicles. There are FAA regulations covering the pilot such as training, licensing, and health. These rules are somewhat aircraft independent. Certain health conditions can ground a pilot until medically cleared. The drone "pilot" is likely sitting a ground based console so the pilot's medical condition is less critical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Man killed by his own model helicopter
I have also seen a car damaged by a small powered aircraft, about 18 inch wingspan, when it went into an uncontrolled dive. It put a significant dent into the roof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, that's a sport copter. It is absolutely possible to make a design which is much safer (you sacrifice extreme maneuverability -- which is unnecessary if you're just delivering things). More rotors mean that they don't have to spin as fast, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be useful as a delivery vehicle, a drone is also going to be dangerous if things go wrong`, probably heavy enough to cause serious injury or death if it loses power and falls out of the sky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not weight (it needs as little of that as possible), but yes, it needs power. But of a different sort.
"Also if the drone is to fly in a built up area, it had better be maneuverable, so it can deal with disturbed air around buildings."
Also true, but it doesn't need the extreme maneuverability of sport copters. It doesn't need to be able to perform acrobatics, to fly upside down, to fly tail down, to do loops or barrel rolls, etc.
"To be useful as a delivery vehicle, a drone is also going to be dangerous if things go wrong"
I never said otherwise. What I said was such a vehicle can be made much less dangerous than a sport bird. This is clearly true. For example, if you have two birds of similar weight and engine power, but one is a quadracopter and the other isn't, the quadracopter is much less dangerous. The rotor speed is lower (so less kinetic energy per blade), the top speed is lower (so less kinetic energy in power dives), and the drag is larger (so less kinetic energy in free-fall).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would be easier to just fly over them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you don't seem to know is that most cities already have laws about where model aircraft can and can't be flown regardless of whether they are commercial or not. We don't need the FAA making Federal laws that should be handled at the local level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here are a few of the basic rules I am legally required to follow when I fly. With the exception of the airport proximity rule, these are not FAA rules:
I cannot fly higher that 500 feet within a mile of an airport.
I cannot fly over crowds.
I must adhere to all noise ordinances. In practice, this means no night flying in residential areas.
I cannot fly in a harassing or threatening manner (hovering outside of someone's window, following people, etc.)
Plus, there's a slug of FCC rules relating to the radio equipment, but that's not directly related to flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's crazy talk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's crazy talk!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, there is still the FCC. Many multicopter, helicopter or airplane "drone" model operators use a video downlink from the aircraft. These downlinks are often transmitting video at a higher power rating than the general public is licensed to use, or in a frequency band that the general public is not supposed to use. A common variety uses 2.4GHz at 600 mW, for example, while a typical WiFi router is 100 mW. For this, the hobbyist can apply for a standard "HAM" amateur radio technician license, and enjoy their downlink video system. Similar to the FAA rule, HAM licenses cannot be used for commercial purposes at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's more likely that they can't wait to tap into such drones' video feeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FAA takes a reactive stance, which is not surprising for a political entity since no one wants to be blamed for any problems (understandably, because many politicians, at least in their messages to the public, focus on blaming people on the other side of the aisle).
The judge's decision paves the way for a proactive solution where, yes, their may be some problems, but by discovering them, they can be solved in a way that makes the technology an overall benefit to society.
In the words of Thomas Edison, referring to the light bulb, "I have not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." (It's a good thing Nikola Tesla was able to help him out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also instead of no commercial use of drones I think we need safety standards. Non-commercial uses would have pretty lax standards, while commercial uses need to meet stricter requirements. In any case the operator would obviously be responsible for damages if they lose control of their drone.
Alternately we can let the FAA claim jurisdiction over all commercial flight and send them after people with homing pigeons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh no
No. It's perfectly fine to NOT aid the enemy.
The FAA has no jurisdiction over model aircraft and we don't need to help them get it.
"Alternately we can let the FAA claim jurisdiction over all commercial flight"
"We"? You and the mouse in your pocket can do whatever you like as can the FAA with congressional approval.
For now, the FAA has jurisdiction over all commercial flight... of a non-model variety. If they need more, they will get it.
When you start with "I think someone should..." and end with "We should..." or "we can let the FAA claim"... I'm thinking it's time to focus on the legislative process, not your drug of choice.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A one-pound toy helicopter you can get in a shopping mall can easily fly faster than 40 MPH forward speed. Banning them bans everything.
Conversely, an 8-pound 600mm rotor hobby helicopter has only about 1/6 gallon of liquid fuel, and can kill a person who stands too close to the rotor blade while it's in a standing hover. Your limits are way too lax there.
There is an organization in the US called the AMA. They do three things: they advocate safe flying with lots of helpful advice to pilots; they offer insurance for pilots to cover mishaps when flying responsibly; and they lobby on behalf of responsible pilots for reasonable government policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drones
It seems to me that everything becomes scarier when executed by "drone"s. (like it matters to the people being blown up where the actual pilot sits 50km away)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
Ain't that the truth. In my mind drones mean that scores of Stormtroopers, or the Borg, or Daleks, or god-forbid, the Wraith are on their way to destroy (or assimilate, or exterminate, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
A drone could be autonomous, or remotely piloted by camera, or remotely piloted by sight from the ground. It could be a hovercraft, a fixed wing plane, a helicopter, a multicopter. It could have jet turbine engines or propellers. It could have a drop payload or a projectile weapon or a laser weapon or a specialized camera. It could have GPS guidance or laser illumination guidance or be able to fly freely. It could weigh under two pounds or over two tons.
I think the only consistent traits are that it flies, it is under active control, it can return to home, and it is unmanned. If it's on the ground it's some other kind of robot. If it's in space, it's more of a probe or rocket. If it doesn't return, it's a missile or projectile. And so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Drones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweet!
It's Taco hunting season!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, imagine this person worked for Amazon delivering tacos by drone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of work before UAV's should be allowed in metros
2) Other UAV's, birds
3) Sudden weather conditions
4) Emergency shutdown - flight control failure
5) Unexpected conditions at landing site i.e. site unavailable
6) Military grade GPS required
7) Doppler radar required
A 10 pound UAV falling from 50 ft may cause serious injury or death to a person on the ground. Falling into a busy street or freeway would not be a lot of fun either.
All that and much, much more.
However, I still like the the eventual reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Delivery etiquite
What if it doesn't come down low enough for you to get your taco? Do you get a ladder?
Can It deliver pizza too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]