3 ms·
> The FAA is also proposing allowing discretionary waivers ... for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement. Huh? What would be a legitim
by testplzignore 8y ago
> The FAA is also proposing allowing discretionary waivers ... for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement.
Huh? What would be a legitimate reason for that?
- solveit 8y agoSurveillance for law enforcement is the easy one that everybody's going to worry about. I can also see some niche uses for wildlife observation.
- lettergram 8y agoCould just be for night shots over ones house or fireworks... OR for low flying drones to view citizens
- stult 8y agoThe anticollision light has to be visible from three miles away. I could see that being excessive and disruptive for certain urban use cases.
- bengotow 8y agoYeah this seems aggressive. At that brightness it'd be like having street lights flying down your block. Also seems like lights that bright might use a prohibitive amount of power?
- asynchronous13 8y agoThe FAA cares about "equivalent level of safety." If it can be demonstrated that an operator can keep things safe even though they're breaking a rule, the FAA will allow a waiver for that rule. Imagine someone operating out in the bush in Alaska where there are no people. There's no need for the same safety precautions out there. Or operations in mountainous terrain where it's not possible that a manned aircraft would fly -- no need for anti-collision lighting there. The FAA is quite strict and is very unlikely to hand out waivers unless the operator can clearly show an equivalent level of safety.