4 ms·

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

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.
    - lsh123 12y ago
      It changes risk decisions: instead of worrying only about safety the pilots/operators start to also worry about making the schedule. In the history of aviation, it led to numerous accidents and incidents of pilots flying into bad weather, pilots flying un-airworthy aircrafts, etc. only because they've had schedule to meet.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Safety loses out when you're on a deadline. I flew private with someone when I was a student pilot; we were on a deadline, so instead of waiting for the weather to let up, we were scud running about 300 miles back to our home airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud_running http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud_running). This is inadvisable; you're throwing minimum ceilings out the window, and hoping you don't run into obstacles on the ground (wind towers, cell towers, antenna guy wires). It's not just dangerous, but illegal if you get caught. (Note: I was not PIC, and did not make the call). Do not do this. EDIT: /u/lsh123 said it better.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    You seem to be coming at this from a traditional aviation viewpoint (which is valid). I'm coming at it from a modeling viewpoint. And I think that's where a large part of the disconnect comes into play. From the traditional point of view, you'd like to bring these drones into the normal aviation regulatory framework. From the model point of view, large regulations are overkill and are severely limiting the development of this industry. I think that there are a couple of obvious rules that could be applied to speed things along: 1) limit location and altitude of flying, 2) require hands-on control (or take over), 3) require line of sight, 4) enforce some reasonable weight restrictions (for cameras). If you could meet those four things, then I don't see why you'd need to have a commercial restriction. You might have other issues to deal with for insurance, but I don't see why the FAA should care about commercial/non-commercial with such small craft. Now, when you get into autonomous flight and real payloads, then that's a whole other ballgame, where I think the FAA will have some real work to do. In particular though, I'd hate to see them limit the hobbyist segment too much. I think it would be a lot of fun to build a small, autonomous drone that could fly using GPS waypoints with a camera. I just don't want to have to go through 2 years of certification to be able to fly it!
    - lsh123 12y ago
      You are missing important part: find a way to punish violators of these (and other) rules. This is critical for safety.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        Typically, if you violate FARs, you'll lose a huge pilot's license investment (private, ifr, commercial can total in the tens of thousands of dollars). It doesn't hurt to lose a $300-$1000 quadrotor pilot license.
        lsh123 12y ago
        Correct. The question is - how to identify the drone pilot? With planes you have N-number, transponders, FBOs, etc.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
nightski 12y ago
There already is to an extent. You can fly drones as long as they are within visible range iirc even today.

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.
  - lsh123 12y ago
    It changes risk decisions: instead of worrying only about safety the pilots/operators start to also worry about making the schedule. In the history of aviation, it led to numerous accidents and incidents of pilots flying into bad weather, pilots flying un-airworthy aircrafts, etc. only because they've had schedule to meet.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Safety loses out when you're on a deadline. I flew private with someone when I was a student pilot; we were on a deadline, so instead of waiting for the weather to let up, we were scud running about 300 miles back to our home airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud_running http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scud_running). This is inadvisable; you're throwing minimum ceilings out the window, and hoping you don't run into obstacles on the ground (wind towers, cell towers, antenna guy wires). It's not just dangerous, but illegal if you get caught. (Note: I was not PIC, and did not make the call). Do not do this. EDIT: /u/lsh123 said it better.
- mbreese 12y ago
  You seem to be coming at this from a traditional aviation viewpoint (which is valid). I'm coming at it from a modeling viewpoint. And I think that's where a large part of the disconnect comes into play. From the traditional point of view, you'd like to bring these drones into the normal aviation regulatory framework. From the model point of view, large regulations are overkill and are severely limiting the development of this industry. I think that there are a couple of obvious rules that could be applied to speed things along: 1) limit location and altitude of flying, 2) require hands-on control (or take over), 3) require line of sight, 4) enforce some reasonable weight restrictions (for cameras). If you could meet those four things, then I don't see why you'd need to have a commercial restriction. You might have other issues to deal with for insurance, but I don't see why the FAA should care about commercial/non-commercial with such small craft. Now, when you get into autonomous flight and real payloads, then that's a whole other ballgame, where I think the FAA will have some real work to do. In particular though, I'd hate to see them limit the hobbyist segment too much. I think it would be a lot of fun to build a small, autonomous drone that could fly using GPS waypoints with a camera. I just don't want to have to go through 2 years of certification to be able to fly it!
  - lsh123 12y ago
    You are missing important part: find a way to punish violators of these (and other) rules. This is critical for safety.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      Typically, if you violate FARs, you'll lose a huge pilot's license investment (private, ifr, commercial can total in the tens of thousands of dollars). It doesn't hurt to lose a $300-$1000 quadrotor pilot license.
      - lsh123 12y ago
        Correct. The question is - how to identify the drone pilot? With planes you have N-number, transponders, FBOs, etc.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

nightski 12y ago

There already is to an extent. You can fly drones as long as they are within visible range iirc even today.