22 ms·

FAA Moves Toward Treating Drones and Planes as Equals

162 points by szczys 8y ago

chroma 8y ago
The FAA sounds so risk averse. I bet if passenger planes were invented today, the FAA would never allow them.
- abakker 8y ago
  Risk aversion is why commercial flight is so safe, though.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Yea I'm actually OK with them being risk adverse, because I don't really want to have to worry about the plane I am flying in suddenly dropping out of the sky for any number of reasons.
    - vernie 8y ago
      No, you have to move fast and kill people by the hundreds.
      - myrryr 8y ago
        825,000 drones were sold in the U.S. in 2016 The move fast happened a while ago. Where is the killing people by the 100s?
    - jschwartzi 8y ago
      I'm equally uncomfortable with your plane falling on me suddenly.
  - chroma 8y ago
    Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed countries. Also, the FAA does grandfather in a lot of stuff. If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers or get near populated areas. Lastly, I'm not sure if modern passenger jets would be allowed in the same way if invented today. The FAA would probably restrict them within 100 miles of urban areas. After all, what if people tried to crash them into buildings?
    - outworlder 8y ago
      Other countries follow a lot of FAA recommendations voluntarily, even if they have no jurisdiction there.
    - lazyasciiart 8y ago
      Is the FAA different in risk aversion to other developed country equivalents?
    - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
      > Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed countries. Developed countries also have an FAA equivalent. Regulation is equally strict in the EU for instance.
    - rlpb 8y ago
      > If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers... Why? Are you saying they'd ban all single engine aircraft from carrying passengers? What about the SR22?
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        Don't let them know about the Experimental-Amateur Built category where anyone can build an airplane in their garage and a licensed pilot can go fly it with very limited FAA oversight of the construction...
        ryanwaggoner 8y ago
        It’s not like there are no rules to follow: http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-operating-limitations.html http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-oper...
  - UpshotKnothole 8y ago
    And by contrast the absence of that same aversion is why general aviation experiences orders of magnitude less safety.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I bet if passenger planes were invented today, the FAA would never allow them No, the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets [1], "the first aircraft...intended for carrying multiple passengers in commercial service" [2] wouldn't pass FAA muster. I'm not sure that observation is useful, though. Before the Ilya Muromets, passenger air travel didn't exist. There was no baseline. (There was no FAA.) Today, we have a baseline from which parity or improvement is demanded. That future innovators are constrained in not sacrificing safety for e.g. fuel economy is intended. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#History
- AmVess 8y ago
  Risk aversion and mitigation is exactly why they exist.
  - nraynaud 8y ago
    I don't see in their regulation things to improve reliability of drones (parachutes, standard of manufacturing and care, stuff like that), just pure restriction of use. There is no mitigation here.
    - hef19898 8y ago
      You do realise that drone are just a sideline for the FAA, right?
- chongli 8y ago
  That's the life cycle of all human endeavours: 1) take big risks to be an innovator 2) succeed and grow like crazy to become the establishment 3) become extremely risk averse to try to maintain your position 4) get disrupted
  - philipodonnell 8y ago
    > 4) get disrupted More like 4) Hire lobbyists and donate to politicians in order to to criminalize competition under the guise of "protecting the public". :-)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- specialp 8y ago
  I am actually surprised the FAA was so tolerant of drones for so long. Commercial drone operators are for more regulation because they know the day some dope flies a drone into an approaching aircraft it will cause more draconian responses. Meanwhile there are millions of unguided medium sized drones flying around airports and everywhere (Birds). I think the 400ft line of sight rule is plenty safe because short of aircraft taking off or making a final approach there aren't aircraft in this zone (Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure.) If drones hitting people in the heads becomes a big issue, terrestrial laws are better to handle that. Generally besides areas very close to airports the FAA shouldn't be regulating <400ft AGL.
  - handedness 8y ago
    > Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure. An aircraft might be there precisely because of an equipment failure.
    - specialp 8y ago
      Ok then I suppose we should trim all trees to 50ft or less and ban structures that high, and exclude all birds from the skies there because an aircraft might be on a near crash unpowered approach. Also at that point, hitting a small drone is the least of their problems.
      - cameldrv 8y ago
        There are rules on structure height in approach paths. It doesn't restrict everything over 50 ft, but with drones we're talking 400 ft here, and they're practically invisible and don't carry transponders. If your drone crashes into an airplane, you buy a new one. The other guy might not be so fortunate.
        specialp 8y ago
        At 400ft with a glide slope of 20:1 you are at 0ft in ~1.5 miles. You'd probably hit something else in a mile or less that is far more substantial than a drone at a lot greater probability.
adamur 8y ago
Curious to see where this puts first person view (FPV) flying. I very much enjoy watching this sport grow, but with these new regulations the operator would have to be in line sight at all times.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- snuxoll 8y ago
  Maintaining VLOS was already a requirement for section 336 pilots, nothing has changed. There was one way around this which was to have dedicated spotters that kept line of sight on the UAS, I'm curious if the FAA will continue to allow this.
sctb 8y ago
Post on the FAA site: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=91844 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=91844.
anon4lol 8y ago
Disclaimer: I'm a licensed private pilot and have a registered drone. I can sum this up simply: jerks ruin everything. Drones were unregulated and would remain so, except for people being jerks. Pilots have areas they can't fly below a certain altitude because the noise would rile up wildlife, like flocks of birds; jerk drone pilots, oblivious to this, started zipping through those areas and national parks, scaring up the wildlife (and annoying people), which led to them being banned around national monuments and parks. Drones have also interfered with commercial approaches at airports in Class B airports so they became banned around airports, unless permission is granted from the airport. The FAA came out with regs requiring you to register, and you had to make sure you acknowledged that you had to be permission to fly in class B airport, from the airport. Simply stated, it was so that if you were an jerk and your drone crashed, or you injured anyone on the ground they could find you. Seems reasonable to me. The new regs are just an incremental update. Many flights operate on VFR (Visual Flight Rules), which is basically "see and avoid." Most commercial flights operate in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) where air traffic control system guarantees you separation from other aircraft. Of course, they can't see small drones on radar, so they can't vector you around them or talk to the drone operator. There was a case where a black hawk was struck by a drone last year, requiring an emergency landing. The NTSB ultimately found the guy through the manufacturers serial number, because he his drone never returned. There have been many, many bad actors using drones to harass neighbors, spy on women, and it's getting ridiculous. When a licensed pilot has an accident, they know the NTSB and FAA will investigate. You file a safety report and own up to any mistakes, or it will be very bad. The NTSB is very thorough and is primarily interested in keeping future accidents from happening. However, drone pilots run away abandoning their hardware. I think the next iteration will be drones required to have transponders, so air traffic control can see them, and a pilot who has TCAS can see them also. This just means they will be become more expensive, and over time, hopefully transponders and ancillary avionics will become cheaper on aircraft as these companies push into general aviation.
- yason 8y ago
  That's the problem with jerks. The other problem with jerks is that they don't follow any rules anyway while the good guys get to deal with the added bureaucratic overhead. How do the rules prevent a jerk from buying a drone (with cash, to remove even the faintest connection to himself) and go fly it near the local approach to film landing planes from air? There's no way to trace it back to you even if the authorities found the serial number from the wreckage.
escherplex 8y ago
You can download the final HR302 in .pdf here: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-115hr302enr.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-115hr302enr.p... (utilities that remove signature panel and permissions which restrict cropping or bookmarking can be used without corrupting document for editing) Some salient points: § 44809 /a/7: The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request § 44809 /c/7: Persons operating unmanned aircraft [in controlled areas, eg, near airports] shall make the location of the fixed site known to the Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the air traffic control facility. Plus authorization of local micromanagement by 'State, local, and Tribal governments' which can submit applications Sec. 351: - prohibiting operations in connection with community or sporting events that do not remain in one place (for example, parades and running events). - prohibiting flight during specified morning and evening rush hours or only permitting flight during specified hours such as daylight hours, sufficient to ensure Didn't see any age restrictions on a cursory scan. Rather than setting up a new testing bureaucracy, don't see couldn't they use the existing amateur radio VE pool? Just use General or Extra who already passed the new FAA test.
wolfgke 8y ago
Just a consideration: instead of regulating drones more, we could also regulate planes less to make them more equal.
- jakeinspace 8y ago
  Truly some sage advice, I say bring on the unlicensed pilots.
  - kmnt 8y ago
    ultralights can already be piloted without a license or registration. Its an amazing degree of freedom that most don't realize they have.
    - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
      Ultralights have very strict restrictions and rules where they can be operated, to limit the risk to others. 14 CFR 103.15: "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons." Also, you don’t need a license, but trying to fly without sufficient and proper training is likely to get you killed. These aren’t bicycles.
- gizmo385 8y ago
  Dropping aviation regulations will lead to dangerous corner-cutting, which will lead to more mistakes (which in aviation, usually means deaths).
someguydave 8y ago
Anti-drone policies are good for pilots and manned aircraft operators. The bootleggers-and-baptists theory of political incentives would predict that the agency in charge of manned pilot licensing would find morally positive reasons for banning UAVs. They don’t mention the fact that unmanned aviation could be an existential threat to large sectors of manned aviation, and therefore their political influence. Nor do they mention the enormous costs imposed on society because they have banned potentially cheaper or more effective means to productive ends.
- ticviking 8y ago
  O.o Most aircraft are highly automated, with humans running checklist programs as the backup system. I doubt that "banning automation" is the motive here as much as, "preventing interference with already functioning automation"
  - someguydave 8y ago
    The FAA’s actions admit that interpretation, but fail to exclude the other.
madrox 8y ago
When I started my first coding job, I once made the joke that "testing is hard. I'll just push the code to production and see what happens." An old, crusty engineer just looked at me and said, "you're the kind of person that gets people killed." I feel like 99% of the engineers who comment on HN don't work in fields where their technology could kill someone if it messes up. If an error meant someone's death, you'd probably think a little harder for committing. That's why I'm not taking anyone who calls this "draconian" or derisively "risk averse" seriously. Being a safety-first industry is not a punch line. Life is stochastic, not deterministic, and the FAA exists to add as many 9s to the likelihood of success as possible. Sorry your fun is ruined, but when I fly in a plane I don't want to be worrying if some hobbyist with more money than accountability will put my life at risk because they wanted to make a cool video to put on YouTube.
- AWildC182 8y ago
  I agree completely. This coming from a flight software dev, instrument pilot and EAB aircraft builder: embrace the FAA and it's regulation. Don't be afraid to work with them either. If you think for a second that the UAV industry (both hobby and commercial) is going to stop at little quadcopters and 400ft, you're sorely mistaken. Not even the sky is the limit if you learn to work within the mindset that your decisions have consequences, so you very very much want to be treated as equals to manned systems. I know it sounds restrictive but manned aircraft can basically do anything and go anywhere, they just have to take certain precautions.
  - adonnjohn 8y ago
    Tangential - any advice for software devs looking for entry level experience in the industry? It's a topic I'm passionate about and would love to branch into, but I started in computer science and don't have any aerospace experience.
    - AWildC182 8y ago
      In short, learn C, FPGA development or both, and get used to low level computing. Pay attention in your computer architecture class!
mrfusion 8y ago
Here come all the comments that are strangely pro regulation.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  It's amazing, isn't it?
  - petermcneeley 8y ago
    Totally! Its like im reading comments from some alternative reality HN. Drone deliveries could transform the world in a more significant way than even smartphones. Can you imagine the number of lives that could be saved by just reducing vehicle accidents?
mrfusion 8y ago
I hope these regulations will finally address bird ownership. Anyone can walk into a pet shop and buy one with no Id. And if one of those birds escapes from a careless owner it could easily hit a plane or ambulance!
- superkuh 8y ago
  Hah! You joke (?) but this is a very real and valid point. They offer equal danger. The reason the FAA is getting support for making these changes in radio controlled craft is because they give individuals powers they didn't have before. No government wants that. There hasn't been a single example of a radio controlled craft causing harm to people on commercial flights or the like.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Yes, let’s wait until an idiot with a drone brings down an airliner killing hundreds of people before even considering common sense regulations.
    - superkuh 8y ago
      Alright. I'll take you seriously as soon as you agree it implies a need for pet bird licenses, passing exams to own a bird with ID required, and pet bird operating zones for the same reason.
      - cr1895 8y ago
        >I'll take you seriously as soon as you agree it implies a need for pet bird licenses, passing exams to own a bird with ID required, and pet bird operating zones for the same reason. Where are these user-controlled, remotely-operated birds you speak of?
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        User-controlled/remotely-operated only makes things safer than completely uncontrolled. Unless you're making an argument about terrorists? In your rush to point out a difference between drones and birds, you managed to pick one where drones have the advantage.
poof131 8y ago
My 2 cents as an F-18 pilot turned software dev interested in the space: They need to break apart rules for the true hobbyists, the model airplane flyers: dedicated areas below certain altitudes. They also need to embrace private property rights to a certain altitude. Who wants an Amazon Prime distribution center doing 10,000 flights a day over their kids playing in the backyard. [1] Future BVR (and autonomous) drone operations between 200-400’ will eventually more closely resemble IFR class-A than VFR airspace. [2] Routes need to be defined. [3] Emergency landing areas need to be determined. [4] Comms (network) out procedure need to be planned. [5] And more. It will require significant local involvement. The FAA is going to make sure accident information is shared so lessons can be learned. [6] Part-135 will play a role. [7] For manned aviation these things were implemented over a century with lessons written in blood. [8] It’s going to happen quicker for drones and this is a step in the right direction. People like this are helping to force the issue. [9] [1] https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes-law-give-us-property-owners-airspace-rights-200ft/ https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes... [2] https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=42&sID=505&preview=true https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airway_(aviation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airway_(aviation) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_landing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_landing [5] https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483/Lost%20Com%20Graphic.pdf https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483... [6] https://uavcoach.com/daniel-elwell-interdrone-2018/ https://uavcoach.com/daniel-elwell-interdrone-2018/ [7] https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/135_certification/ https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/135_certification... [8] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/why-do-people-say-aviation-regulations-are-written-in-blood https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/why-do-pe... [9] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/3931613-drone-crashes-inspecting-cracked-window-at-sinking-millennium-tower/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/3931613-drone-crashe...
proctor 8y ago
Here's the opinion of an engineer who is also a drone and fixed wing flyer, Bruce Simpson of the x-jet youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjJFnVzZzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjJFnVzZzY He thinks that larger organizations such as amazon want the airspace and are lobbying for it.
51Cards 8y ago
I saw this video recently. Changed my mind on regulating drones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0
- 51Cards 8y ago
  Really HN, Posting an informative video gets downvoted without a single comment. The internet points are irrelevant but it is a sad sign on commentary here.
carapace 8y ago
Just this very evening somebody was flying a big drone all over my neighborhood, on and off again for about an hour or two. It just pisses me off: No identifying marks. No way to tell who the owner is, nor who's piloting it. Invasion of privacy. Some unknown person can see into my yard and windows. Hazard. This is a dense neighborhood. If anything goes wrong with that drone it's going to crash on someone's property or head. This thing was way up in the air and large enough to be seen from quite a distance, maybe 500 meters. I don't see any way around it. Drones require strict regulation. I think technology is going to force us to adopt a totalist system (and our humanity will force us to make it humane.) "Star Trek or North Korea" in the limit.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I think technology is going to force us to adopt a totalist system (and our humanity will force us to make it humane.) "Star Trek or North Korea" in the limit. Star Trek (or at least the UFP, other regimes in the fiction vary considerably) isn't remotely “totalist”, North Korea isn't humanitarian; neither is an example of a system that is both.
  - carapace 8y ago
    Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "totalist" in the sense that we're going to record and store all our activity. This, in turn, will force us to confront ourselves, or we'll turn into a mechanized version of (inhumane) N. Korea. > The true horror of technological omniscience is that it shall force us for once to live according to our own rules. For the first time in history we shall have to do without hypocrisy and privilege. The new equilibrium will not involve tilting at the windmills of ubiquitous sensors and processing power but rather learning what explicit rules we can actually live by, finding, in effect, the real shape of human society. ~ https://firequery.blogspot.com/2013/10/total-surveillance-is-perfection-of.html https://firequery.blogspot.com/2013/10/total-surveillance-is... My thesis is that technology forces us to a total information awareness regime, and the choice is between a relatively open and egalitarian system like UFP or a system of gross privilege and starving serfs unbreakably enforced by machine. To me, drone legislation is a part of this larger process of humanity coming to terms with our power as thinking tool-users.
inamberclad 8y ago
I'm a pilot. We have a saying: that the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are written in blood. It's very literal. The rulebook for manned flight is comprised mostly of regulations enacted because someone died in a preventable way and we are a deliberately safety-conscious culture. Aviation has 115 years under its belt, and many of those are full of fatalities. One of the issues I see with drones as an emerging industry is that people seem unwilling to learn from our history. I've only been flying for a few years and myself and most of my friends have near-miss stories with other full size, fairly slow moving aircaft. How can we expect to see a drone head-on where there's no relative motion? Having the privileged of flying in the national airspace system means shouldering the responsibility of keeping yourself, your passengers, and the people around you safe. Knowing the airplane, weather, and terrain can keep you and your passengers safe. To keep everyone else safe, you need to work with the system so that we can manage increasingly congested areas around the country. TLDR: If drone companies and operators want to be treated like grownups, they'll need to grow up.
- nybble41 8y ago
  > the privileged of flying in the national airspace system This is exactly the core of the problem. You've claimed the entire atmosphere as your private domain, from the ground up. Territorial claims are founded on use; you have no right to exclude others from airspace which is not part of a routine flight corridor. Certainly nothing below 400' and not part of a standard takeoff or approach glide path should be considered part of the national airspace system or otherwise subject to FAA jurisdiction.
  - inamberclad 8y ago
    It's not private, it's a national resource. Every time you fly any airliner you use this system. The reason the US airspace system is so expansive is that it's necessary to allow the level of freedom afforded to private aircraft (think Piper, not Gulfstream) while maintaining safety and coverage as top priorities. However, you're correct that most airspace below 400 feet AGL shouldn't be considered part of the system. Generally, that's not considered navigable unless it's being used takeoff and landing.
mrfusion 8y ago
when cars were first coming into use pennsylvania passed a law which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified. In the UK self-propelled vehicles had to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
mips_avatar 8y ago
The problem here isn't that the FAA is regulating, we do need rules of the road for drones. The problem is up until this point they didn't have the legal authority to do so. From 2010-2014 the FAA put out some draconian memos and statements with scary insinuations that suggested they had the power to regulate drones flying inside your house. These fear tactics required my university to shut down flights of model aircraft, my competition team at an aerial robotics competition couldn't compete from 2014 - 2017.

162 points by szczys 8y ago

chroma 8y ago

The FAA sounds so risk averse. I bet if passenger planes were invented today, the FAA would never allow them.

abakker 8y ago
Risk aversion is why commercial flight is so safe, though.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Yea I'm actually OK with them being risk adverse, because I don't really want to have to worry about the plane I am flying in suddenly dropping out of the sky for any number of reasons.
  - vernie 8y ago
    No, you have to move fast and kill people by the hundreds.
    - myrryr 8y ago
      825,000 drones were sold in the U.S. in 2016 The move fast happened a while ago. Where is the killing people by the 100s?
  - jschwartzi 8y ago
    I'm equally uncomfortable with your plane falling on me suddenly.
- chroma 8y ago
  Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed countries. Also, the FAA does grandfather in a lot of stuff. If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers or get near populated areas. Lastly, I'm not sure if modern passenger jets would be allowed in the same way if invented today. The FAA would probably restrict them within 100 miles of urban areas. After all, what if people tried to crash them into buildings?
  - outworlder 8y ago
    Other countries follow a lot of FAA recommendations voluntarily, even if they have no jurisdiction there.
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    Is the FAA different in risk aversion to other developed country equivalents?
  - the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
    > Is it? Commercial flight isn't that much more dangerous in other developed countries. Developed countries also have an FAA equivalent. Regulation is equally strict in the EU for instance.
  - rlpb 8y ago
    > If the Cessna 172 was invented today, the FAA would never allow it to carry passengers... Why? Are you saying they'd ban all single engine aircraft from carrying passengers? What about the SR22?
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Don't let them know about the Experimental-Amateur Built category where anyone can build an airplane in their garage and a licensed pilot can go fly it with very limited FAA oversight of the construction...
      - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
        It’s not like there are no rules to follow: http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-operating-limitations.html http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/amateur-built-oper...
- UpshotKnothole 8y ago
  And by contrast the absence of that same aversion is why general aviation experiences orders of magnitude less safety.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I bet if passenger planes were invented today, the FAA would never allow them No, the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets [1], "the first aircraft...intended for carrying multiple passengers in commercial service" [2] wouldn't pass FAA muster. I'm not sure that observation is useful, though. Before the Ilya Muromets, passenger air travel didn't exist. There was no baseline. (There was no FAA.) Today, we have a baseline from which parity or improvement is demanded. That future innovators are constrained in not sacrificing safety for e.g. fuel economy is intended. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#History
AmVess 8y ago
Risk aversion and mitigation is exactly why they exist.
- nraynaud 8y ago
  I don't see in their regulation things to improve reliability of drones (parachutes, standard of manufacturing and care, stuff like that), just pure restriction of use. There is no mitigation here.
  - hef19898 8y ago
    You do realise that drone are just a sideline for the FAA, right?
chongli 8y ago
That's the life cycle of all human endeavours: 1) take big risks to be an innovator 2) succeed and grow like crazy to become the establishment 3) become extremely risk averse to try to maintain your position 4) get disrupted
- philipodonnell 8y ago
  > 4) get disrupted More like 4) Hire lobbyists and donate to politicians in order to to criminalize competition under the guise of "protecting the public". :-)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
specialp 8y ago
I am actually surprised the FAA was so tolerant of drones for so long. Commercial drone operators are for more regulation because they know the day some dope flies a drone into an approaching aircraft it will cause more draconian responses. Meanwhile there are millions of unguided medium sized drones flying around airports and everywhere (Birds). I think the 400ft line of sight rule is plenty safe because short of aircraft taking off or making a final approach there aren't aircraft in this zone (Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure.) If drones hitting people in the heads becomes a big issue, terrestrial laws are better to handle that. Generally besides areas very close to airports the FAA shouldn't be regulating <400ft AGL.
- handedness 8y ago
  > Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure. An aircraft might be there precisely because of an equipment failure.
  - specialp 8y ago
    Ok then I suppose we should trim all trees to 50ft or less and ban structures that high, and exclude all birds from the skies there because an aircraft might be on a near crash unpowered approach. Also at that point, hitting a small drone is the least of their problems.
    - cameldrv 8y ago
      There are rules on structure height in approach paths. It doesn't restrict everything over 50 ft, but with drones we're talking 400 ft here, and they're practically invisible and don't carry transponders. If your drone crashes into an airplane, you buy a new one. The other guy might not be so fortunate.
      - specialp 8y ago
        At 400ft with a glide slope of 20:1 you are at 0ft in ~1.5 miles. You'd probably hit something else in a mile or less that is far more substantial than a drone at a lot greater probability.

adamur 8y ago

Curious to see where this puts first person view (FPV) flying. I very much enjoy watching this sport grow, but with these new regulations the operator would have to be in line sight at all times.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
snuxoll 8y ago
Maintaining VLOS was already a requirement for section 336 pilots, nothing has changed. There was one way around this which was to have dedicated spotters that kept line of sight on the UAS, I'm curious if the FAA will continue to allow this.

sctb 8y ago

Post on the FAA site: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=91844 https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=91844.

anon4lol 8y ago

Disclaimer: I'm a licensed private pilot and have a registered drone. I can sum this up simply: jerks ruin everything. Drones were unregulated and would remain so, except for people being jerks. Pilots have areas they can't fly below a certain altitude because the noise would rile up wildlife, like flocks of birds; jerk drone pilots, oblivious to this, started zipping through those areas and national parks, scaring up the wildlife (and annoying people), which led to them being banned around national monuments and parks. Drones have also interfered with commercial approaches at airports in Class B airports so they became banned around airports, unless permission is granted from the airport. The FAA came out with regs requiring you to register, and you had to make sure you acknowledged that you had to be permission to fly in class B airport, from the airport. Simply stated, it was so that if you were an jerk and your drone crashed, or you injured anyone on the ground they could find you. Seems reasonable to me. The new regs are just an incremental update. Many flights operate on VFR (Visual Flight Rules), which is basically "see and avoid." Most commercial flights operate in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) where air traffic control system guarantees you separation from other aircraft. Of course, they can't see small drones on radar, so they can't vector you around them or talk to the drone operator. There was a case where a black hawk was struck by a drone last year, requiring an emergency landing. The NTSB ultimately found the guy through the manufacturers serial number, because he his drone never returned. There have been many, many bad actors using drones to harass neighbors, spy on women, and it's getting ridiculous. When a licensed pilot has an accident, they know the NTSB and FAA will investigate. You file a safety report and own up to any mistakes, or it will be very bad. The NTSB is very thorough and is primarily interested in keeping future accidents from happening. However, drone pilots run away abandoning their hardware. I think the next iteration will be drones required to have transponders, so air traffic control can see them, and a pilot who has TCAS can see them also. This just means they will be become more expensive, and over time, hopefully transponders and ancillary avionics will become cheaper on aircraft as these companies push into general aviation.

yason 8y ago
That's the problem with jerks. The other problem with jerks is that they don't follow any rules anyway while the good guys get to deal with the added bureaucratic overhead. How do the rules prevent a jerk from buying a drone (with cash, to remove even the faintest connection to himself) and go fly it near the local approach to film landing planes from air? There's no way to trace it back to you even if the authorities found the serial number from the wreckage.

escherplex 8y ago

You can download the final HR302 in .pdf here: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-115hr302enr.pdf https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr302/BILLS-115hr302enr.p... (utilities that remove signature panel and permissions which restrict cropping or bookmarking can be used without corrupting document for editing) Some salient points: § 44809 /a/7: The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request § 44809 /c/7: Persons operating unmanned aircraft [in controlled areas, eg, near airports] shall make the location of the fixed site known to the Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the air traffic control facility. Plus authorization of local micromanagement by 'State, local, and Tribal governments' which can submit applications Sec. 351: - prohibiting operations in connection with community or sporting events that do not remain in one place (for example, parades and running events). - prohibiting flight during specified morning and evening rush hours or only permitting flight during specified hours such as daylight hours, sufficient to ensure Didn't see any age restrictions on a cursory scan. Rather than setting up a new testing bureaucracy, don't see couldn't they use the existing amateur radio VE pool? Just use General or Extra who already passed the new FAA test.

wolfgke 8y ago

Just a consideration: instead of regulating drones more, we could also regulate planes less to make them more equal.

jakeinspace 8y ago
Truly some sage advice, I say bring on the unlicensed pilots.
- kmnt 8y ago
  ultralights can already be piloted without a license or registration. Its an amazing degree of freedom that most don't realize they have.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    Ultralights have very strict restrictions and rules where they can be operated, to limit the risk to others. 14 CFR 103.15: "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons." Also, you don’t need a license, but trying to fly without sufficient and proper training is likely to get you killed. These aren’t bicycles.
gizmo385 8y ago
Dropping aviation regulations will lead to dangerous corner-cutting, which will lead to more mistakes (which in aviation, usually means deaths).

someguydave 8y ago

Anti-drone policies are good for pilots and manned aircraft operators. The bootleggers-and-baptists theory of political incentives would predict that the agency in charge of manned pilot licensing would find morally positive reasons for banning UAVs. They don’t mention the fact that unmanned aviation could be an existential threat to large sectors of manned aviation, and therefore their political influence. Nor do they mention the enormous costs imposed on society because they have banned potentially cheaper or more effective means to productive ends.

ticviking 8y ago
O.o Most aircraft are highly automated, with humans running checklist programs as the backup system. I doubt that "banning automation" is the motive here as much as, "preventing interference with already functioning automation"
- someguydave 8y ago
  The FAA’s actions admit that interpretation, but fail to exclude the other.

madrox 8y ago

When I started my first coding job, I once made the joke that "testing is hard. I'll just push the code to production and see what happens." An old, crusty engineer just looked at me and said, "you're the kind of person that gets people killed." I feel like 99% of the engineers who comment on HN don't work in fields where their technology could kill someone if it messes up. If an error meant someone's death, you'd probably think a little harder for committing. That's why I'm not taking anyone who calls this "draconian" or derisively "risk averse" seriously. Being a safety-first industry is not a punch line. Life is stochastic, not deterministic, and the FAA exists to add as many 9s to the likelihood of success as possible. Sorry your fun is ruined, but when I fly in a plane I don't want to be worrying if some hobbyist with more money than accountability will put my life at risk because they wanted to make a cool video to put on YouTube.

AWildC182 8y ago
I agree completely. This coming from a flight software dev, instrument pilot and EAB aircraft builder: embrace the FAA and it's regulation. Don't be afraid to work with them either. If you think for a second that the UAV industry (both hobby and commercial) is going to stop at little quadcopters and 400ft, you're sorely mistaken. Not even the sky is the limit if you learn to work within the mindset that your decisions have consequences, so you very very much want to be treated as equals to manned systems. I know it sounds restrictive but manned aircraft can basically do anything and go anywhere, they just have to take certain precautions.
- adonnjohn 8y ago
  Tangential - any advice for software devs looking for entry level experience in the industry? It's a topic I'm passionate about and would love to branch into, but I started in computer science and don't have any aerospace experience.
  - AWildC182 8y ago
    In short, learn C, FPGA development or both, and get used to low level computing. Pay attention in your computer architecture class!

mrfusion 8y ago

Here come all the comments that are strangely pro regulation.

jessaustin 8y ago
It's amazing, isn't it?
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Totally! Its like im reading comments from some alternative reality HN. Drone deliveries could transform the world in a more significant way than even smartphones. Can you imagine the number of lives that could be saved by just reducing vehicle accidents?

mrfusion 8y ago

I hope these regulations will finally address bird ownership. Anyone can walk into a pet shop and buy one with no Id. And if one of those birds escapes from a careless owner it could easily hit a plane or ambulance!

superkuh 8y ago
Hah! You joke (?) but this is a very real and valid point. They offer equal danger. The reason the FAA is getting support for making these changes in radio controlled craft is because they give individuals powers they didn't have before. No government wants that. There hasn't been a single example of a radio controlled craft causing harm to people on commercial flights or the like.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  Yes, let’s wait until an idiot with a drone brings down an airliner killing hundreds of people before even considering common sense regulations.
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Alright. I'll take you seriously as soon as you agree it implies a need for pet bird licenses, passing exams to own a bird with ID required, and pet bird operating zones for the same reason.
    - cr1895 8y ago
      >I'll take you seriously as soon as you agree it implies a need for pet bird licenses, passing exams to own a bird with ID required, and pet bird operating zones for the same reason. Where are these user-controlled, remotely-operated birds you speak of?
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        User-controlled/remotely-operated only makes things safer than completely uncontrolled. Unless you're making an argument about terrorists? In your rush to point out a difference between drones and birds, you managed to pick one where drones have the advantage.

poof131 8y ago

My 2 cents as an F-18 pilot turned software dev interested in the space: They need to break apart rules for the true hobbyists, the model airplane flyers: dedicated areas below certain altitudes. They also need to embrace private property rights to a certain altitude. Who wants an Amazon Prime distribution center doing 10,000 flights a day over their kids playing in the backyard. [1] Future BVR (and autonomous) drone operations between 200-400’ will eventually more closely resemble IFR class-A than VFR airspace. [2] Routes need to be defined. [3] Emergency landing areas need to be determined. [4] Comms (network) out procedure need to be planned. [5] And more. It will require significant local involvement. The FAA is going to make sure accident information is shared so lessons can be learned. [6] Part-135 will play a role. [7] For manned aviation these things were implemented over a century with lessons written in blood. [8] It’s going to happen quicker for drones and this is a step in the right direction. People like this are helping to force the issue. [9] [1] https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes-law-give-us-property-owners-airspace-rights-200ft/ https://www.unmannedairspace.info/uncategorized/ulc-proposes... [2] https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=42&sID=505&preview=true https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airway_(aviation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airway_(aviation) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_landing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_landing [5] https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483/Lost%20Com%20Graphic.pdf https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483... [6] https://uavcoach.com/daniel-elwell-interdrone-2018/ https://uavcoach.com/daniel-elwell-interdrone-2018/ [7] https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/135_certification/ https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/atos/135_certification... [8] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/why-do-people-say-aviation-regulations-are-written-in-blood https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13081/why-do-pe... [9] https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/3931613-drone-crashes-inspecting-cracked-window-at-sinking-millennium-tower/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/3931613-drone-crashe...

proctor 8y ago

Here's the opinion of an engineer who is also a drone and fixed wing flyer, Bruce Simpson of the x-jet youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjJFnVzZzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcjJFnVzZzY He thinks that larger organizations such as amazon want the airspace and are lobbying for it.

51Cards 8y ago

I saw this video recently. Changed my mind on regulating drones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0

51Cards 8y ago
Really HN, Posting an informative video gets downvoted without a single comment. The internet points are irrelevant but it is a sad sign on commentary here.

carapace 8y ago

Just this very evening somebody was flying a big drone all over my neighborhood, on and off again for about an hour or two. It just pisses me off: No identifying marks. No way to tell who the owner is, nor who's piloting it. Invasion of privacy. Some unknown person can see into my yard and windows. Hazard. This is a dense neighborhood. If anything goes wrong with that drone it's going to crash on someone's property or head. This thing was way up in the air and large enough to be seen from quite a distance, maybe 500 meters. I don't see any way around it. Drones require strict regulation. I think technology is going to force us to adopt a totalist system (and our humanity will force us to make it humane.) "Star Trek or North Korea" in the limit.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think technology is going to force us to adopt a totalist system (and our humanity will force us to make it humane.) "Star Trek or North Korea" in the limit. Star Trek (or at least the UFP, other regimes in the fiction vary considerably) isn't remotely “totalist”, North Korea isn't humanitarian; neither is an example of a system that is both.
- carapace 8y ago
  Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "totalist" in the sense that we're going to record and store all our activity. This, in turn, will force us to confront ourselves, or we'll turn into a mechanized version of (inhumane) N. Korea. > The true horror of technological omniscience is that it shall force us for once to live according to our own rules. For the first time in history we shall have to do without hypocrisy and privilege. The new equilibrium will not involve tilting at the windmills of ubiquitous sensors and processing power but rather learning what explicit rules we can actually live by, finding, in effect, the real shape of human society. ~ https://firequery.blogspot.com/2013/10/total-surveillance-is-perfection-of.html https://firequery.blogspot.com/2013/10/total-surveillance-is... My thesis is that technology forces us to a total information awareness regime, and the choice is between a relatively open and egalitarian system like UFP or a system of gross privilege and starving serfs unbreakably enforced by machine. To me, drone legislation is a part of this larger process of humanity coming to terms with our power as thinking tool-users.

inamberclad 8y ago

I'm a pilot. We have a saying: that the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are written in blood. It's very literal. The rulebook for manned flight is comprised mostly of regulations enacted because someone died in a preventable way and we are a deliberately safety-conscious culture. Aviation has 115 years under its belt, and many of those are full of fatalities. One of the issues I see with drones as an emerging industry is that people seem unwilling to learn from our history. I've only been flying for a few years and myself and most of my friends have near-miss stories with other full size, fairly slow moving aircaft. How can we expect to see a drone head-on where there's no relative motion? Having the privileged of flying in the national airspace system means shouldering the responsibility of keeping yourself, your passengers, and the people around you safe. Knowing the airplane, weather, and terrain can keep you and your passengers safe. To keep everyone else safe, you need to work with the system so that we can manage increasingly congested areas around the country. TLDR: If drone companies and operators want to be treated like grownups, they'll need to grow up.

nybble41 8y ago
> the privileged of flying in the national airspace system This is exactly the core of the problem. You've claimed the entire atmosphere as your private domain, from the ground up. Territorial claims are founded on use; you have no right to exclude others from airspace which is not part of a routine flight corridor. Certainly nothing below 400' and not part of a standard takeoff or approach glide path should be considered part of the national airspace system or otherwise subject to FAA jurisdiction.
- inamberclad 8y ago
  It's not private, it's a national resource. Every time you fly any airliner you use this system. The reason the US airspace system is so expansive is that it's necessary to allow the level of freedom afforded to private aircraft (think Piper, not Gulfstream) while maintaining safety and coverage as top priorities. However, you're correct that most airspace below 400 feet AGL shouldn't be considered part of the system. Generally, that's not considered navigable unless it's being used takeoff and landing.

mrfusion 8y ago

when cars were first coming into use pennsylvania passed a law which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified. In the UK self-propelled vehicles had to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

mips_avatar 8y ago

The problem here isn't that the FAA is regulating, we do need rules of the road for drones. The problem is up until this point they didn't have the legal authority to do so. From 2010-2014 the FAA put out some draconian memos and statements with scary insinuations that suggested they had the power to regulate drones flying inside your house. These fear tactics required my university to shut down flights of model aircraft, my competition team at an aerial robotics competition couldn't compete from 2014 - 2017.