5 ms·

I hope that drones end up going through the same channels as traditional aviation - you get a pilot certificate with a drone rating (Drone Quadengine Land?). T

by frisco 12y ago

I hope that drones end up going through the same channels as traditional aviation - you get a pilot certificate with a drone rating (Drone Quadengine Land?). That would be very cool because it would get the drone operators in the same system as everyone else, ensure they know the FARs and are sufficiently skilled to be safe, and create a pathway that everyone could feel good about being legitimate. Aviation is a really complex thing, and while I wouldn't expect the complexity of a small drone license to be anywhere near even a Recreational Pilot certificate, there's at least a weekend of stuff to know here and it should result in a license. The bar for CFIs would be different, too, and I imagine you'd end up seeing tons of little Part 141-style drone schools pop up for $100 - $300 for a Saturday or so. It would be like adding a motorcycle rating to a driver's license. I don't think it would meaningfully hinder progress. I feel like this is important even if they're exclusively limited to class G airspace near the ground (and the reality is that in a lot of the congested areas where drones are being flown, it isn't traditional class G airspace). Add it onto the new light sport aircraft pathways and you make it easy for people get into drones safely while also introducing them to the wider world of aviation.

tlrobinson 12y ago
I think there need to be different classes of drones. A kid who wants to film his friends at a skate park with a 1 pound AR.Drone shouldn't have to get a drone pilots license, while someone flying FPV 5 miles out probably should.
- mbreese 12y ago
  Right now you don't need a license for a 1 pound quad-copter that is flown within line of sight (for non-commercial uses). The problem is that even for line-of-sight users, the FAA won't let you use them for commercial purposes. So, your hypothetical kid would be okay filming their friends, so long as they didn't make any money from it. There are two issues with drones that the FAA needs to figure out: 1) commercial use and 2) autonomous (out of sight) flight. The latter is much trickier than the former. I'm all for autonomous drones having to get certified (including FPV, since those would need some kind of fail-safe). But even here, there might need to be a "hobbyist" class and a commercial class with different requirements.
  - frisco 12y ago
    The reason the FAA is so nervous about commercial operations in general is because in aviation there's nothing more dangerous than saying, "we'll be there by 2:30." It's why the rules for Part 135 (charter) operators are much stricter than for Part 91 (personal) operators, and go through the roof for Part 121 (scheduled airline) operators. The commercial aspect adds a potentially major consideration other than safety and so the FAA has a whole separate way of thinking about it. The spirit of these concerns is probably as true for drones as it is for manned aircraft, though the concrete instantiations of it will obviously be different.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Obviously we don't want drones traversing glide paths for major airports, but besides obvious stuff like that how are safety concerns for drones in any way comparable to those for aircraft that carry humans?
      - lsh123 12y ago
        The most basic concern is that dron operators need to know these "dangerous" areas. The approach paths is only one of many other potentially dangerous places in the skies. There are also low-level military operation areas, low-level VFR corridors, etc. More importantly, the skies are not empty and the VFR flights are based on see-and-avoid concept. With drones, it is hard to see the drones from planes and drones can't see planes either. Not to mention the enforcement part. All planes today have a call sign and FAA/NTSB can easily go after pilots when rules are broken. This is an important part of the overall safety architecture. FAA would need to come up with a way to enforce rules on drones pilots and operators to ensure that unsafe behavior is punished.
    - pavel_lishin 12y ago
      > * in aviation there's nothing more dangerous than saying, "we'll be there by 2:30."* Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand.
      - 12y ago
- nightski 12y ago
  There already is to an extent. You can fly drones as long as they are within visible range iirc even today.
jessriedel 12y ago
I suggest defining these acronyms. For everyone else: CFI = Certified Flight Instructor. FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation.
bane 12y ago
I haven't looked at the FAA regs yet, but what's the distinction between a drone and a model plane? A camera? Model planes don't need all this licensing stuff, you can just build one and go out in a field and have some fun. There's even some really big, impressive, jet powered model planes. Where is the boundary drawn exactly? Put another way, would drone pilot school be basically learning to fly a model plane/helicopter?
- frisco 12y ago
  My understanding is that RC planes have been mostly ignored in the regulations because the community is so small. If quadrotors enable a massive explosion in hobbyist R/C flight it changes the story. The few drones flying right now aren't the issue - it's what happens now that they're on the verge of becoming so cheap and accessible. I know a lot of people with reasonably high power Phantoms that never would have considered R/C planes before.
  - bane 12y ago
    > I know a lot of people with reasonably high power Phantoms that never would have considered R/C planes before. Do you think it's because it's a more stable/easier to fly platform? My uncle used to be an avid R/C plane enthusiast (even has a small R/C only airfield named after him). Built and flew decent sized aircraft for decades, even put video on quite a few. But damn if they aren't hard to fly.
joshdance 12y ago
I hope that it doesn't follow the same channels. I would prefer different classes of drones with lots of room for experimentation.
ggreer 12y ago
I can see where you're coming from, but I think your proposed system would seriously stunt drones. You assume drones have a pilot, but most of the benefits of drones will be from automated ones. Requiring a human pilot drastically increases drone cost, killing many applications in the cradle. Most delivery services (such as Amazon's proposed system) would be right-out. So would having a drone follow someone on a bike ride or run, carrying supplies or providing light at night. And forget about personal security drones recording encounters, pepper-spraying assailants, and following them until police can catch them. Automated drones would completely change how we live our lives. In contrast, the general aviation community is small and hasn't advanced significantly since the 1950's. The popular engines and airframes are almost the same as they were a half-century ago. Heck, most private planes still run on leaded gasoline. Restricting drones to preserve private planes makes about as much sense as restricting automobiles to preserve horseback riding.
- scrumper 12y ago
  Every example you've given is, at least in my view, a reason to support the parent's proposal. You're thinking somewhat further in the future than the state of the art, too. Why not follow a regulatory path broadly similar to horses->cars->self driving cars? Let the technology catch up, and legislation can follow as appropriate. The parent makes sense today, and will open up a legal framework for piloted drones which doesn't currently exist (crop dusting, aerial photography, news broadcasting, crowd control, traffic monitoring).
  - ggreer 12y ago
    Cars are regulated much less than planes, yet self-driving cars are an excellent example of technology that has been delayed due to risk-averse, slow-to-change legislation. The problem is that while legislators and rule-makers often react quickly when restricting things, they are very loath to repeal restrictions. A work-around is to permit most things by default, then restrict in reaction to specific issues. Two excellent examples of squandered potential are general aviation and amateur radio. Both have been encumbered by nationwide rules that quickly became outdated. (Seriously, Morse code?) I'm very worried the FAA will do the same to drones. After all, that's what they're incentivized to do. They only get fired when someone is killed by a new technology. They aren't commended when millions benefit from it. On the other hand, the FAA could drastically accelerate drone development with one simple rule: Allow cities and states to make their own laws regarding anything less than 10kg flying under 400ft. This includes commercial use.[1] That's it. If local governments want to experiment, let them. 1. Of course there would be the normal restrictions around airports, military bases, etc. Also, temporary restrictions for VIPs such as the president make sense.

by frisco 12y ago

tlrobinson 12y ago

I think there need to be different classes of drones. A kid who wants to film his friends at a skate park with a 1 pound AR.Drone shouldn't have to get a drone pilots license, while someone flying FPV 5 miles out probably should.

mbreese 12y ago
Right now you don't need a license for a 1 pound quad-copter that is flown within line of sight (for non-commercial uses). The problem is that even for line-of-sight users, the FAA won't let you use them for commercial purposes. So, your hypothetical kid would be okay filming their friends, so long as they didn't make any money from it. There are two issues with drones that the FAA needs to figure out: 1) commercial use and 2) autonomous (out of sight) flight. The latter is much trickier than the former. I'm all for autonomous drones having to get certified (including FPV, since those would need some kind of fail-safe). But even here, there might need to be a "hobbyist" class and a commercial class with different requirements.
- frisco 12y ago
  The reason the FAA is so nervous about commercial operations in general is because in aviation there's nothing more dangerous than saying, "we'll be there by 2:30." It's why the rules for Part 135 (charter) operators are much stricter than for Part 91 (personal) operators, and go through the roof for Part 121 (scheduled airline) operators. The commercial aspect adds a potentially major consideration other than safety and so the FAA has a whole separate way of thinking about it. The spirit of these concerns is probably as true for drones as it is for manned aircraft, though the concrete instantiations of it will obviously be different.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Obviously we don't want drones traversing glide paths for major airports, but besides obvious stuff like that how are safety concerns for drones in any way comparable to those for aircraft that carry humans?
    - lsh123 12y ago
      The most basic concern is that dron operators need to know these "dangerous" areas. The approach paths is only one of many other potentially dangerous places in the skies. There are also low-level military operation areas, low-level VFR corridors, etc. More importantly, the skies are not empty and the VFR flights are based on see-and-avoid concept. With drones, it is hard to see the drones from planes and drones can't see planes either. Not to mention the enforcement part. All planes today have a call sign and FAA/NTSB can easily go after pilots when rules are broken. This is an important part of the overall safety architecture. FAA would need to come up with a way to enforce rules on drones pilots and operators to ensure that unsafe behavior is punished.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    > * in aviation there's nothing more dangerous than saying, "we'll be there by 2:30."* Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand.
    - 12y ago
nightski 12y ago
There already is to an extent. You can fly drones as long as they are within visible range iirc even today.

jessriedel 12y ago

I suggest defining these acronyms. For everyone else: CFI = Certified Flight Instructor. FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation.

bane 12y ago

I haven't looked at the FAA regs yet, but what's the distinction between a drone and a model plane? A camera? Model planes don't need all this licensing stuff, you can just build one and go out in a field and have some fun. There's even some really big, impressive, jet powered model planes. Where is the boundary drawn exactly? Put another way, would drone pilot school be basically learning to fly a model plane/helicopter?

frisco 12y ago
My understanding is that RC planes have been mostly ignored in the regulations because the community is so small. If quadrotors enable a massive explosion in hobbyist R/C flight it changes the story. The few drones flying right now aren't the issue - it's what happens now that they're on the verge of becoming so cheap and accessible. I know a lot of people with reasonably high power Phantoms that never would have considered R/C planes before.
- bane 12y ago
  > I know a lot of people with reasonably high power Phantoms that never would have considered R/C planes before. Do you think it's because it's a more stable/easier to fly platform? My uncle used to be an avid R/C plane enthusiast (even has a small R/C only airfield named after him). Built and flew decent sized aircraft for decades, even put video on quite a few. But damn if they aren't hard to fly.

joshdance 12y ago

I hope that it doesn't follow the same channels. I would prefer different classes of drones with lots of room for experimentation.

ggreer 12y ago

I can see where you're coming from, but I think your proposed system would seriously stunt drones. You assume drones have a pilot, but most of the benefits of drones will be from automated ones. Requiring a human pilot drastically increases drone cost, killing many applications in the cradle. Most delivery services (such as Amazon's proposed system) would be right-out. So would having a drone follow someone on a bike ride or run, carrying supplies or providing light at night. And forget about personal security drones recording encounters, pepper-spraying assailants, and following them until police can catch them. Automated drones would completely change how we live our lives. In contrast, the general aviation community is small and hasn't advanced significantly since the 1950's. The popular engines and airframes are almost the same as they were a half-century ago. Heck, most private planes still run on leaded gasoline. Restricting drones to preserve private planes makes about as much sense as restricting automobiles to preserve horseback riding.

scrumper 12y ago
Every example you've given is, at least in my view, a reason to support the parent's proposal. You're thinking somewhat further in the future than the state of the art, too. Why not follow a regulatory path broadly similar to horses->cars->self driving cars? Let the technology catch up, and legislation can follow as appropriate. The parent makes sense today, and will open up a legal framework for piloted drones which doesn't currently exist (crop dusting, aerial photography, news broadcasting, crowd control, traffic monitoring).
- ggreer 12y ago
  Cars are regulated much less than planes, yet self-driving cars are an excellent example of technology that has been delayed due to risk-averse, slow-to-change legislation. The problem is that while legislators and rule-makers often react quickly when restricting things, they are very loath to repeal restrictions. A work-around is to permit most things by default, then restrict in reaction to specific issues. Two excellent examples of squandered potential are general aviation and amateur radio. Both have been encumbered by nationwide rules that quickly became outdated. (Seriously, Morse code?) I'm very worried the FAA will do the same to drones. After all, that's what they're incentivized to do. They only get fired when someone is killed by a new technology. They aren't commended when millions benefit from it. On the other hand, the FAA could drastically accelerate drone development with one simple rule: Allow cities and states to make their own laws regarding anything less than 10kg flying under 400ft. This includes commercial use.[1] That's it. If local governments want to experiment, let them. 1. Of course there would be the normal restrictions around airports, military bases, etc. Also, temporary restrictions for VIPs such as the president make sense.