7 ms·

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

81 points by aioprisan 10y ago

6stringmerc 10y ago
>The new rule, which takes effect in late August, offers safety regulations for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-hobbyist operations. This makes sense to me - the FAA being concerned with, well, basically commerically-oriented UAV flights and using their authority to establish parameters. Hopefully this is a helpful step to start integrating more flights and more interest in the field with trying to minimize ignorance that could be somewhat dangerous. >The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation. Sounds like this could get a waiver if the group is established and has the right safety record / resources. That's pretty neat. As a concert / festival / event attendee the last thing I'd want as a souvenir is a mangled noggin or appendage from an improperly or irresponsibly piloted UAV with a camera on it coming down on me. Also, while the licensing parameters might seem a bit overbearing to some, I kind of think they rather reflect just how utterly terrible the testing and credentialing process is for automobile drivers in the US. >Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate. To me it's not that the UAV license is too much, but that consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.
    - MawNicker 10y ago
      > I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    You don't own the airspace over your property though, the FAA does. I can stay at up to 400 feet over your property if I'm not over a densely populated area. Flying a drone over someone's house is plain stupid as well and should be avoided, but I can see a future where Amazon flies hundreds of drones at 400ft over someone's property as long as it's not densely populated, and destroying a drone will land the property owner in jail charged with a fellony, punishable up to 20 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20...
    - ghaff 10y ago
      Perhaps. There's at least some (though certainly not definitive) case law that suggest home owners have rights to 500 ft. or so above their property. e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417 http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-... Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.
- bdamm 10y ago
  > consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose It'll only take a handful of well publicized court cases to solve that problem. As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on. > FAA "will provide all drone users with recommended privacy guidelines as part of the UAS registration process and through the FAA’s B4UFly mobile app." Bonus points for wrapping public concerns with privacy into the registration sequence.
  - CPLX 10y ago
    > As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on I'm a private pilot too. Were you able to decipher this to determine if people with an existing PPL will need an endorsement or currency requirement, or if we are already considered certified in this context as well? I couldn't figure it out.
    - btgeekboy 10y ago
      Reading the summary[0] I'm led to believe that, as a current private ASEL holder, I simply need to take "a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA" and apply for a certificate. The summary doesn't mention anything about UAS currency, just that you need to be BFR-current for your Part 61. I'll probably get a UAS certificate just for kicks. (Why not?) [0] http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
- VLM 10y ago
  "consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines." In that case I think you'd find our rather loose maritime laws to be particularly triggering. Our gun regulations are the same way. In that way its semi-consistent, smart people aren't going to get in trouble no matter what, dumb people are going to do dumb things no matter what regardless of what laws are written, so why bother.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Fair enough, and I think you're accurate regarding the correlatives with firearms to some extent. I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people - which most gun owners would likely be classified as in the US, even with 'sport rifles' like the AR or AK type - so in this discussion it'd be more like regulating Armored Car drivers or Security Guards that are allowed to carry weapons as part of their job. No pass, no gun on the job. No pass, no commercial UAV license.
    - aioprisan 10y ago
      > I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people These regulations regulate both hobbyist and commercial usage. Where did you see that the rules are for commercial use only?
      - uberdog 10y ago
        "The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations" https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516 https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2... "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
slantaclaus 10y ago
Training to get my sport pilot license and just got out of a flight lesson on a Light Sport Aircraft (Cessna 162 Skycatcher). My instructor was telling me about drone pilots in the Augusta, GA area training on the aircraft to meet FAA requirements. Getting an SPL is easier than a PPL so a lot of drone pilots are going this route. Looks like they might not have to now anymore though
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Rebelgecko 10y ago
Glad to see these new regulations... the Section 333 exemption process is/was a huge pain, and these rules also seem much more reasonable (mainly, you don't need to get a "real" pilot's license, just a remote pilot certificate, which will presumably be much more relevant for UAV operators). I think it's interesting that you have to report any incident with more than $500 of damage. Is the FAA going to investigate every time someone flies a Phantom into a tree? Quick edit: I'll leave my last two sentences there for posterity, but turns out you only need to report if there's $500 of damage, excluding damage to the UAS
- an_account_name 10y ago
  Trees are expensive.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    Interesting enough, you should be able to see tree details in GIS: http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforestry/treeinventory https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforest... and technically the city own those planted trees, so you could be doing damage to city property.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  It's a judgement call for the pilot whether or not the damage caused is up to that $500 cost. Your Phantom will be in pieces if it flies in a tree (been there), while a tree will get a broken branch. In that case, you don't have to report anything. But if your drone runs into a traffic light, you better believe that's worthy of a police report and insurance claims (and by the way, there isn't any commercial drone insurance yet, but I'm hoping soon there will be).
drabiega 10y ago
As someone with only cursory knowledge of the area, it seems like the requirement to keep the drone within line of sight would be pretty crippling. Is this just me? I guess this makes drone based camerawork feasible for film/sporting events, but it seems like it kills any sort of delivery or remote sensing applications.
- chrischen 10y ago
  Launch it from the top of a skyscraper!
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    The regulations do stipulate that you get 400 feet from the launch point as well, so if you launch from 1000ft building, you get to go to 1400ft
    - tomswartz07 10y ago
      Technically, it's 400' from the tallest surrounding object. So, yes; you can technically fly to 1400ft near a 1000ft building.
- fixermark 10y ago
  It adds a lot of complication for some use cases, but I bet you'd find it isn't the common use cases (though who's to say what would be common in five years?).
- kodablah 10y ago
  Yup, Amazon or any other drone-based delivery service will have to apply for a "waiver" as mentioned in the press release.
- walrus01 10y ago
  It cripples not just delivery or beyond-1km remote sensing, but also very local stuff like "We want to use a drone with a camera to inspect the condition of our warehouse roof".
jonnycowboy 10y ago
Interesting that most of the requirements listed can be waived, including presumably the line of sight requirement (ie: for drone delivery): • Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  They also do not explain or reference what it would take to get such a certificate of waiver. It's very likely that someone like myself cannot ever get one, but perhaps Amazon could? What if I'm a small startup, can I get the same treatment that Amazon could?
mgrennan 10y ago
"Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;" So these are rules for people doing chimerical work like "property assessment" or outdoor photography. Not your hobby flyer / AMA member.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  Where does "with a couple seconds of highlights posted on a monetized YouTube channel" fall in that? No longer a hobby?
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    Are you asking for model aircraft or drones? I believe that if your intent is to make money from the beginning, it classifies as commercial usage vs hobbyist. But if you post a video from a drone and it winds up going viral afterwards, and then you get a payday, your original hobbyist intent still counts. If you intend to make it a career, get a commercial pilot's license, so that you can fly aircraft and drones under the same license.
  - walrus01 10y ago
    The FAA has in the past sent demand letters and attempted to subpoena documents related to payments from youtube videos. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun-drone-flamethrower-drone-argues-faa-cant-regulate-him/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun...
    - aioprisan 10y ago
      The context of the request was to figure out if the stunt of firing a gun that was attached to an UAS was done with the purpose of gaining notoriety and money, and if it was in the public's interest, as it could cause harm to the public. The FAA won, drones are aircraft, and the FAA regulates all aircraft. But broadly, this was a case about public safety, not about revenue from YouTube hits: "On the broader question of the legality of arming a drone, the law prohibits recklessly endangering the public when flying an aircraft."
russell_h 10y ago
What is the status of autonomous flight? Is it allowed, as long as the aircraft is within line of sight of an operator who could take over?
- aioprisan 10y ago
  There are no rules around that, the only rules that apply are line of sight and the ability to control it the entire time. Technically, even parking by drone assist technology, where the drone itself can go back to the launch spot and start lowering itself to the ground requires you to be in control and able to abort. I was in a situation where even though I specified a return altitude of 50ft, the drone went straight instead when parking, which would have caused it to crash in a tree. In other words, the pilot needs to be able to control it at all times, but does not explicitly have to actively control it at all times. Who knows how long specific language around passive/active assist requirements are baked in.
coroutines 10y ago
As an aside: I'm really hoping as drones become mainstream people will be made aware of their right to privacy and where they have it. I spend a fair amount of time watching clips of ignorant people attacking cameramen and drone operators in public. This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.
- bsder 10y ago
  > This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is socially acceptable. Drones are normally really loud and annoying. In addition, the sound tends to radiate because it's above the things that would absorb the sound. If I'm out to enjoy some quiet on a trail, and I've got a gaggle of "Drunk Go-Pro Drone Bros", I'm going to be upset, and I'm going to have words with them (been there, done that). The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.
  - slm_HN 10y ago
    >The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people. Charming. Let's all try to solve problems by being kindergarten bullies. This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the WWF for role models.
    - bsder 10y ago
      > This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the WWF for role models. And the reason why we have regressed to needing to threaten someone physically is because an entire generation has been raised to believe that they are "special little flowers" who don't have to pay attention to the fact that what they do has an impact on other people. While, yes, it is technically illegal to shoot a drone out of the sky over your own property, there is a reason why nobody has been willing to push the point in court.
ggreer 10y ago
These rules remind me of the red flag laws[1] in the early days of cars. They're needlessly restrictive, and they block billions of dollars in economic productivity. More importantly, these rules are going to cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain. Today, we use ground vehicles to transport stuff. When people click "buy now" on Amazon, it results in multi-ton metal boxes speeding through neighborhoods. When vehicles and pedestrians exist in close proximity, people get hurt. Every day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being hit by cars. Around a dozen die.[2] Even if drones are every bit as dangerous as fearmongers say, they're not that bad. The more that drones substitute for ground vehicles, the safer we'll be. Unfortunately, the FAA is optimizing for "minimum number of people harmed by drones" and not "minimum number of people harmed". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws 2. 2013 CDS statistics: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/
- kingnothing 10y ago
  "Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver." From the FAA Summary.
  - ggreer 10y ago
    Yes, I read that part, and I actually skimmed the full rules[1]. Waivers are only available for some restrictions. For example, page 50 of the Part 107 Rule states: > Accordingly, any waivers that the FAA may grant to the visual-line-of-sight provisions of part 107 will not allow the operation to transport property for compensation or hire beyond visual line of sight. That makes drone parcel delivery all but impossible. 1. http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
    - pyre 10y ago
      > That makes drone parcel delivery all but impossible Not if they launch it from an airship! A sky full of dirigibles here we come!
aioprisan 10y ago
A good step in the right direction. I wonder who/what it would take to get a waver from these regulations. As a drone pilot myself, it's good to see training requirements and background checks, and hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have. The one part that I found very interesting is 'First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways,' opening the door for some wiggle room on how the line of sight and see-and-avoid rules get applied.
- ghaff 10y ago
  >hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have. I suspect that the FAA would not see that as part of their mandate. They're primarily concerned with aviation safety in this context.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    "The FAA also will educate all commercial drone pilots on privacy during their pilot certification process; and will issue new guidance to local and state governments on drone privacy issues." So it looks like the local laws may be part of the actual test itself and issue guidance to local and state governments, although it's very vaguely written.
aioprisan 10y ago
"No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely populated area" seems to suggest that I could do that for personal usage, but not for commercial usage: "Transportation of property for compensation or hire allowed provided that [...] the flight is conducted within visual line of sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft"
Animats 10y ago
This is quite reasonable. The Academy of Model Aeronautics won their battle to have recreational use regulated under existing model aircraft regulations. The FAA rules apply to commercial use. A key item is "Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission." (Here's the US airspace classification.[1]) Most US airspace near the ground is class G. So, as a practical matter, almost all farmers and ranchers will be able to use drones with few restrictions. Classes B, C, and D are around airports and go all the way down to the ground. They're controlled by FAA control towers with radar. To do anything in the air in B, C, and D airspace, you have to be visible to ATC and in communication with them. This now applies to drones, too. There are now ADS-B transponders for drones; the smallest weighs 20 grams.[2] This makes your drone visible and identifiable to air traffic control. If you're taking real estate photos or shooting a movie in a big city, you need to be visible to ATC and talking to them. ATC towers have published phone numbers. The hardest place to operate is New York City. City policy can be summed up as "No way". NYC assumes that anything unauthorized flying over the city is a terrorist attack, and ATC will not grant permission. Some bozo crashed a small drone into the Empire State Building early this year.[3] He was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) [2] http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/ http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/ [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-videos-script-an-arrest-for-flying-a-drone.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-video...
- aioprisan 10y ago
  It is highly unlikely that a class B airport will allow for drone operations, even if you call them. Case in point, I live in downtown Boston, within Logan Airport's 5 mile cone, so I can't fly the drone anywhere near my house and get some great footage of the Charles river and the downtown skyline, even if flying over the water instead - calling ATC resulted in a prompt no. I now go by Harvard instead, which is well outside the 5 mile radius, and can get some pretty great shots of the city while complying with the regulations.
- pj_mukh 10y ago
charlesacknin 10y ago
Small tangent here. I'm getting a project started in the UAV space -- a new form of transportation. I'm putting a team together. Ping me if you're interested in learning more (username at gmail).

81 points by aioprisan 10y ago

>The new rule, which takes effect in late August, offers safety regulations for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-hobbyist operations. This makes sense to me - the FAA being concerned with, well, basically commerically-oriented UAV flights and using their authority to establish parameters. Hopefully this is a helpful step to start integrating more flights and more interest in the field with trying to minimize ignorance that could be somewhat dangerous. >The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation. Sounds like this could get a waiver if the group is established and has the right safety record / resources. That's pretty neat. As a concert / festival / event attendee the last thing I'd want as a souvenir is a mangled noggin or appendage from an improperly or irresponsibly piloted UAV with a camera on it coming down on me. Also, while the licensing parameters might seem a bit overbearing to some, I kind of think they rather reflect just how utterly terrible the testing and credentialing process is for automobile drivers in the US. >Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate. To me it's not that the UAV license is too much, but that consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines.

MawNicker 10y ago
American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    > I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  You don't own the airspace over your property though, the FAA does. I can stay at up to 400 feet over your property if I'm not over a densely populated area. Flying a drone over someone's house is plain stupid as well and should be avoided, but I can see a future where Amazon flies hundreds of drones at 400ft over someone's property as long as it's not densely populated, and destroying a drone will land the property owner in jail charged with a fellony, punishable up to 20 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20...
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Perhaps. There's at least some (though certainly not definitive) case law that suggest home owners have rights to 500 ft. or so above their property. e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417 http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-... Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.
bdamm 10y ago
> consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose It'll only take a handful of well publicized court cases to solve that problem. As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on. > FAA "will provide all drone users with recommended privacy guidelines as part of the UAS registration process and through the FAA’s B4UFly mobile app." Bonus points for wrapping public concerns with privacy into the registration sequence.
- CPLX 10y ago
  > As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on I'm a private pilot too. Were you able to decipher this to determine if people with an existing PPL will need an endorsement or currency requirement, or if we are already considered certified in this context as well? I couldn't figure it out.
  - btgeekboy 10y ago
    Reading the summary[0] I'm led to believe that, as a current private ASEL holder, I simply need to take "a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA" and apply for a certificate. The summary doesn't mention anything about UAS currency, just that you need to be BFR-current for your Part 61. I'll probably get a UAS certificate just for kicks. (Why not?) [0] http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
VLM 10y ago
"consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines." In that case I think you'd find our rather loose maritime laws to be particularly triggering. Our gun regulations are the same way. In that way its semi-consistent, smart people aren't going to get in trouble no matter what, dumb people are going to do dumb things no matter what regardless of what laws are written, so why bother.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Fair enough, and I think you're accurate regarding the correlatives with firearms to some extent. I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people - which most gun owners would likely be classified as in the US, even with 'sport rifles' like the AR or AK type - so in this discussion it'd be more like regulating Armored Car drivers or Security Guards that are allowed to carry weapons as part of their job. No pass, no gun on the job. No pass, no commercial UAV license.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    > I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people These regulations regulate both hobbyist and commercial usage. Where did you see that the rules are for commercial use only?
    - uberdog 10y ago
      "The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations" https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516 https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2... "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf

slantaclaus 10y ago

Training to get my sport pilot license and just got out of a flight lesson on a Light Sport Aircraft (Cessna 162 Skycatcher). My instructor was telling me about drone pilots in the Augusta, GA area training on the aircraft to meet FAA requirements. Getting an SPL is easier than a PPL so a lot of drone pilots are going this route. Looks like they might not have to now anymore though

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Rebelgecko 10y ago

Glad to see these new regulations... the Section 333 exemption process is/was a huge pain, and these rules also seem much more reasonable (mainly, you don't need to get a "real" pilot's license, just a remote pilot certificate, which will presumably be much more relevant for UAV operators). I think it's interesting that you have to report any incident with more than $500 of damage. Is the FAA going to investigate every time someone flies a Phantom into a tree? Quick edit: I'll leave my last two sentences there for posterity, but turns out you only need to report if there's $500 of damage, excluding damage to the UAS

an_account_name 10y ago
Trees are expensive.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  Interesting enough, you should be able to see tree details in GIS: http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html http://gis.cambridgema.gov/dpw/trees/trees_walk.html https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforestry/treeinventory https://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/urbanforest... and technically the city own those planted trees, so you could be doing damage to city property.
aioprisan 10y ago
It's a judgement call for the pilot whether or not the damage caused is up to that $500 cost. Your Phantom will be in pieces if it flies in a tree (been there), while a tree will get a broken branch. In that case, you don't have to report anything. But if your drone runs into a traffic light, you better believe that's worthy of a police report and insurance claims (and by the way, there isn't any commercial drone insurance yet, but I'm hoping soon there will be).

drabiega 10y ago

As someone with only cursory knowledge of the area, it seems like the requirement to keep the drone within line of sight would be pretty crippling. Is this just me? I guess this makes drone based camerawork feasible for film/sporting events, but it seems like it kills any sort of delivery or remote sensing applications.

chrischen 10y ago
Launch it from the top of a skyscraper!
- aioprisan 10y ago
  The regulations do stipulate that you get 400 feet from the launch point as well, so if you launch from 1000ft building, you get to go to 1400ft
  - tomswartz07 10y ago
    Technically, it's 400' from the tallest surrounding object. So, yes; you can technically fly to 1400ft near a 1000ft building.
fixermark 10y ago
It adds a lot of complication for some use cases, but I bet you'd find it isn't the common use cases (though who's to say what would be common in five years?).
kodablah 10y ago
Yup, Amazon or any other drone-based delivery service will have to apply for a "waiver" as mentioned in the press release.
walrus01 10y ago
It cripples not just delivery or beyond-1km remote sensing, but also very local stuff like "We want to use a drone with a camera to inspect the condition of our warehouse roof".

jonnycowboy 10y ago

Interesting that most of the requirements listed can be waived, including presumably the line of sight requirement (ie: for drone delivery): • Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.

aioprisan 10y ago
They also do not explain or reference what it would take to get such a certificate of waiver. It's very likely that someone like myself cannot ever get one, but perhaps Amazon could? What if I'm a small startup, can I get the same treatment that Amazon could?

mgrennan 10y ago

"Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;" So these are rules for people doing chimerical work like "property assessment" or outdoor photography. Not your hobby flyer / AMA member.

wlesieutre 10y ago
Where does "with a couple seconds of highlights posted on a monetized YouTube channel" fall in that? No longer a hobby?
- aioprisan 10y ago
  Are you asking for model aircraft or drones? I believe that if your intent is to make money from the beginning, it classifies as commercial usage vs hobbyist. But if you post a video from a drone and it winds up going viral afterwards, and then you get a payday, your original hobbyist intent still counts. If you intend to make it a career, get a commercial pilot's license, so that you can fly aircraft and drones under the same license.
- walrus01 10y ago
  The FAA has in the past sent demand letters and attempted to subpoena documents related to payments from youtube videos. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun-drone-flamethrower-drone-argues-faa-cant-regulate-him/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun...
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    The context of the request was to figure out if the stunt of firing a gun that was attached to an UAS was done with the purpose of gaining notoriety and money, and if it was in the public's interest, as it could cause harm to the public. The FAA won, drones are aircraft, and the FAA regulates all aircraft. But broadly, this was a case about public safety, not about revenue from YouTube hits: "On the broader question of the legality of arming a drone, the law prohibits recklessly endangering the public when flying an aircraft."

russell_h 10y ago

What is the status of autonomous flight? Is it allowed, as long as the aircraft is within line of sight of an operator who could take over?

aioprisan 10y ago
There are no rules around that, the only rules that apply are line of sight and the ability to control it the entire time. Technically, even parking by drone assist technology, where the drone itself can go back to the launch spot and start lowering itself to the ground requires you to be in control and able to abort. I was in a situation where even though I specified a return altitude of 50ft, the drone went straight instead when parking, which would have caused it to crash in a tree. In other words, the pilot needs to be able to control it at all times, but does not explicitly have to actively control it at all times. Who knows how long specific language around passive/active assist requirements are baked in.

coroutines 10y ago

As an aside: I'm really hoping as drones become mainstream people will be made aware of their right to privacy and where they have it. I spend a fair amount of time watching clips of ignorant people attacking cameramen and drone operators in public. This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class.

bsder 10y ago
> This irks me. Like somehow you can claim this public space because you're in it? Every kid should be enrolled in a Civics class. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is socially acceptable. Drones are normally really loud and annoying. In addition, the sound tends to radiate because it's above the things that would absorb the sound. If I'm out to enjoy some quiet on a trail, and I've got a gaggle of "Drunk Go-Pro Drone Bros", I'm going to be upset, and I'm going to have words with them (been there, done that). The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people.
- slm_HN 10y ago
  >The threat of a physical altercation is a good check on people who don't seem to get that, yes, you are causing problems for other people. Charming. Let's all try to solve problems by being kindergarten bullies. This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the WWF for role models.
  - bsder 10y ago
    > This is what happens when you raise a generation of kids with nothing but the WWF for role models. And the reason why we have regressed to needing to threaten someone physically is because an entire generation has been raised to believe that they are "special little flowers" who don't have to pay attention to the fact that what they do has an impact on other people. While, yes, it is technically illegal to shoot a drone out of the sky over your own property, there is a reason why nobody has been willing to push the point in court.

ggreer 10y ago

These rules remind me of the red flag laws[1] in the early days of cars. They're needlessly restrictive, and they block billions of dollars in economic productivity. More importantly, these rules are going to cause more harm than they prevent. Let me explain. Today, we use ground vehicles to transport stuff. When people click "buy now" on Amazon, it results in multi-ton metal boxes speeding through neighborhoods. When vehicles and pedestrians exist in close proximity, people get hurt. Every day in the US, over 400 people require medical attention from being hit by cars. Around a dozen die.[2] Even if drones are every bit as dangerous as fearmongers say, they're not that bad. The more that drones substitute for ground vehicles, the safer we'll be. Unfortunately, the FAA is optimizing for "minimum number of people harmed by drones" and not "minimum number of people harmed". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws 2. 2013 CDS statistics: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/

kingnothing 10y ago
"Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver." From the FAA Summary.
- ggreer 10y ago
  Yes, I read that part, and I actually skimmed the full rules[1]. Waivers are only available for some restrictions. For example, page 50 of the Part 107 Rule states: > Accordingly, any waivers that the FAA may grant to the visual-line-of-sight provisions of part 107 will not allow the operation to transport property for compensation or hire beyond visual line of sight. That makes drone parcel delivery all but impossible. 1. http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf
  - pyre 10y ago
    > That makes drone parcel delivery all but impossible Not if they launch it from an airship! A sky full of dirigibles here we come!

aioprisan 10y ago

A good step in the right direction. I wonder who/what it would take to get a waver from these regulations. As a drone pilot myself, it's good to see training requirements and background checks, and hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have. The one part that I found very interesting is 'First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways,' opening the door for some wiggle room on how the line of sight and see-and-avoid rules get applied.

ghaff 10y ago
>hope they will do more to clarify the legitimate privacy concerns that people can have. I suspect that the FAA would not see that as part of their mandate. They're primarily concerned with aviation safety in this context.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  "The FAA also will educate all commercial drone pilots on privacy during their pilot certification process; and will issue new guidance to local and state governments on drone privacy issues." So it looks like the local laws may be part of the actual test itself and issue guidance to local and state governments, although it's very vaguely written.

aioprisan 10y ago

"No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely populated area" seems to suggest that I could do that for personal usage, but not for commercial usage: "Transportation of property for compensation or hire allowed provided that [...] the flight is conducted within visual line of sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft"

Animats 10y ago

This is quite reasonable. The Academy of Model Aeronautics won their battle to have recreational use regulated under existing model aircraft regulations. The FAA rules apply to commercial use. A key item is "Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission." (Here's the US airspace classification.[1]) Most US airspace near the ground is class G. So, as a practical matter, almost all farmers and ranchers will be able to use drones with few restrictions. Classes B, C, and D are around airports and go all the way down to the ground. They're controlled by FAA control towers with radar. To do anything in the air in B, C, and D airspace, you have to be visible to ATC and in communication with them. This now applies to drones, too. There are now ADS-B transponders for drones; the smallest weighs 20 grams.[2] This makes your drone visible and identifiable to air traffic control. If you're taking real estate photos or shooting a movie in a big city, you need to be visible to ATC and talking to them. ATC towers have published phone numbers. The hardest place to operate is New York City. City policy can be summed up as "No way". NYC assumes that anything unauthorized flying over the city is a terrorist attack, and ATC will not grant permission. Some bozo crashed a small drone into the Empire State Building early this year.[3] He was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) [2] http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/ http://www.uavionix.com/products/ping2020/ [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-videos-script-an-arrest-for-flying-a-drone.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/15/nyregion/not-part-of-video...

aioprisan 10y ago
It is highly unlikely that a class B airport will allow for drone operations, even if you call them. Case in point, I live in downtown Boston, within Logan Airport's 5 mile cone, so I can't fly the drone anywhere near my house and get some great footage of the Charles river and the downtown skyline, even if flying over the water instead - calling ATC resulted in a prompt no. I now go by Harvard instead, which is well outside the 5 mile radius, and can get some pretty great shots of the city while complying with the regulations.
pj_mukh 10y ago

charlesacknin 10y ago

Small tangent here. I'm getting a project started in the UAV space -- a new form of transportation. I'm putting a team together. Ping me if you're interested in learning more (username at gmail).