FAA To Appeal Ruling About Its Lack Of Mandate Over Commercial Drones
from the the-tacocopter-may-be-grounded-yet-again dept
Late last week, we wrote about an NTSB ruling that said the FAA has no mandate over commercial drones. Apparently, the FAA will not take this attack on its perceived powers lying down, and has announced that it will file an appeal, asking the full NTSB board to review. Along with this, comes the usual hyperbole from the FAA about how if this ruling isn't stayed, it "could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground." While it may make sense for there to be some clear rules for how these things work, frankly the fact that commercial drone use has been totally grounded until now while a bunch of bureaucrats battle it out seems like a complete waste of time when useful experiments and innovation could be progressing.
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, tacocapter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
However, if they have no control over drones they lose that - someone could theoretically remote pilot a 747 full of passengers without coming into the FAA control.
Perhaps instead of delineating their control based on whether the pilot is on board, perhaps a better line would be based on the cargo (passengers/livestock, or tacos), the height (in the commercial jet highway, or 100 feet over a football field), size, being flown over urban areas, etc.
Something like anything with people/animals on board or anything flown over 1000 feet? Should give them the ability to maintain passenger airspace safety, while allowing low flying freeform innovation (and avoiding people being arrested for flying unsanctioned paper aeroplanes)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring back the red flag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They already have this ability, altitude and nearness to airports etc. defines controlled airspace and any vehicle entering this space needs air traffic permission. Size and whether the vehicle is manned or not is irrelevant, so model rockets and balloons to the stratospheres need flight permission. This can be granted on a location and time window basis, so that they can keep other vehicles away from such launches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A four to seven pound bird can do significant damage to even large planes. A flock of such birds caused the incident that led a 737 to ditch into the Hudson river so famously a few years back.
Hitting a drone that a pilot has virtually no chance to see because of it's size at 200+ miles an hour combined speed isn't going to be pretty or fun for a light aircraft. That drone has to also have a means to look for and attempt to avoid other aircraft in flight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It might make sense for local weather and traffic reporting to operate several drones rather than helicopters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FAA Is Right
If the DoD and FAA can't manage to do it safely, I'm not sure how a commercial operation is going to do a better job...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The FAA Is Right
How exactly is it not safe? Will the drones randomly fall out of the sky because they are in commercial service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
5kg+ lumps of stuff flying around under the conbtrol of Microsoft software- what could possibly go wrong?
Seriously though - these things do need to be regulated somehow.
Model aircraft generally operate under an exemption that has conditions attached.
In most countries these conditions are typically:
1. No flying over people or buildings.
2. No flight by models >5kg above 400ft.
3. No flight beyond the visual range of the operator.
4. Old style radio control to be available as a backup at all times. WITH A COMPETANT PILOT.
Now these conditions pretty much eliminate the usefulness of such models for commercial purposes.
Recent incidents involving model aircraft using "drone technology" of which I am aware only serve to reinforce the view that commercial use is not practical at present.
The point is not that it cannot be done (after all the Spirit of Butts Farm flew across the atlantic over 10 years ago) but that it is not yet safe over people in non-expert hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
Who said anything about using Microsoft software?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
A UAS cannot meet the requirements, as they are currently written, to operate in the NAS. Either we're going to have to loosen the requirements or come to accept this is a bad idea. If we decide to loosen the requirements, then I'm moving to the Marianas Trench or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The FAA Is Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
And what do you think I meant when I said "I worked for several years with the FAA on studying the use of UAS in the National Airspace System"? That we sat around in a room and thought about what could possibly go wrong?
There are multiple active studies right now, operating in both simulated environments and "live" tests in controlled airspace. I worked on the simulators, myself, and I can assure you they're more than realistic enough to study the problem. Actually, if anything, the problem with the simulations were that they provided the UAS pilots with entirely TOO MUCH information compared to what would actually be available in the field. And it STILL resulted in unsafe operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
I was talking about uncontrolled air space. There is a huge difference between flying larger drones for large area surveillance, which often means entering controlled air space, and flying a small drone at low altitude over the corn fields and the like. These are two very different uses of drones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
I'm serious.
What is the expected benefit? And why is it worth the risk? And yes, there is a significant risk: Loss-of-Control incidents are still very common in UAS. Most of the larger platforms have automated "Lost Link" procedures they follow in such circumstance, but those don't always work--and often aren't very conducive to safety of others. Generally they're intended to make re-acquisition by the base station easier under the assumption they're operating in an area where they don't have to worry about hitting anything "friendly".
All of this is really moot, though. There are already UAS operating in the NAS under an individual Certificate of Agreement, including ones being used by the FAA primarily to study the safety problems. What benefit is there to flying them in even less realistic scenarios?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The FAA Is Right
There is no way, be some mad rush to start flying these things everywhere just because the FAA has zero power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
No, I know the FAA does a damn fine job of safely managing the NAS.
That doesn't stop Taser, or any of the other contractors that supply equipment to LEOs and Military. They just get indemnification.
Ehhhh... You should look into the safety record of currently operating UAS, and how often birds that cost tens of millions of dollars get smashed into the ground/ocean due to pilot error... (Nevermind the shockingly bad quality of some of them).
No. Just... No. This isn't even a matter of theory. What you're describing is civil aviation in the first half of the 20th century. We know from experience IT DOESN'T WORK. The Federal Aviation Act was passed because of the failure of the exact sort of approach you're describing: "Well, let everyone do their own thing, no one has to be in charge, I'm sure they'll all try very hard not to hurt each other."
You don't know how wrong you are. The DoD is desperate (for reasons I still don't understand) to fly UAS in the NAS. So is every two-bit, tin-pot Sheriff and Chief of Police in the US, who have apparently decided that having assault teams and armored vehicles isn't compensating enough for their manhood deficiency and so now they need remotely piloted spy cams. And between them are all the military contractors, rubbing their hands gleefully together with dollar signs in their eyes. You can't comprehend how quickly the FAA losing authority over this would be taken advantage of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The FAA Is Right
There is no way, be some mad rush to start flying these things everywhere just because the FAA has zero power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The FAA Is Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]