6 ms·

FAA has never allowed the use of drones to deliver packages. The right headline would be "The FAA does still not allow use of drones to deliver packages."

bmelton 12y ago
The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. In this regard, it makes the statement that they are now banning it more true than they are still banning it, because they have never expressly disallowed it in the past (to my knowledge -- if incorrect, probably renders my point moot). Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.
- cromulent 12y ago
  According to the FAA, they clarified this in 2007. No flying a UAS for commercial purposes, only one case has ever been approved. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240 http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Oops. Thanks for the clarification. That explains the yo-yo voting patterns I'm seeing on my post, I suppose.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    at least the 2012 act requires them to allow flying UAS for commercial purposes (at the very least in the arctic, and likely elsewhere, depending on how you read it), and start a rulemaking about it
    - asynchronous13 12y ago
      The 2012 act requires that the FAA have rules in place by 2015. So far, the FAA has missed nearly every deadline that was required by the 2012 act. In theory, the FAA's funding is contingent upon having rules in place. In practice, I'm sure congress will grant them an extension when they end up late.
- bri3d 12y ago
  Nope! http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf... UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling). That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone). EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene. One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rejects-faas-drone-ban-now-what http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.
  - newaccountfool 12y ago
    Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular. In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.
    - bri3d 12y ago
      Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash." I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing. I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!" As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.
sheetjs 12y ago
Clicked link, ads shown -> mission accomplished (for TC, at least)
- aet 12y ago
  I didn't see any ads
baddox 12y ago
The FAA has no physical ability, and currently no legal authority, to allow or disallow the use of drones to deliver packages. This document is a set of rules that the FAA would like to carry legal weight, but which currently do not.
- bri3d 12y ago
  I'm assuming you're referring to FAA v. Pirker. Isn't the case still undecided? http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-appeal-brief-in-closely-watched-drone-pilot-case/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-...
  - baddox 12y ago
    The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal? But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0]. [0] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims-authority-over-unsafe-model-aircraft-flights http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims...
    - bri3d 12y ago
      In this case the appeal stays the decision: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15894&cid=TW209 http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId... Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.
      - hershel 12y ago
        Even if they lose, won't the laws change to give them these powers ? I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.
esbonsa 12y ago
Which law are you talking about?
- bri3d 12y ago
  http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_... This 2007 policy document clarifies the FAA's stance about drone operations, citing various FAA notices and arguing that commercially flown drones are subject to the standard Part 91 aircraft regulations and none are approved - thus, making them illegal. http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf... This 2012 notice clarifies the FAA's stance that model aircraft are not all aircraft under 55lbs, but rather those that are flown by hobbyists non-commercially, again citing various FAA notices (but no actual rules). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658 The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the FAA explicit authority to regulate Unmanned Aerial Systems and requires that they implement rules within a certain timeframe (as yet, no rules are implemented - they work through this process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act ). The FAA tried to fine a high-profile UAV operator (the founder of Team Black Sheep): http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/03/07/faa-drone-fine-ntsb-judge-overturned/6167759/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/03/07/faa-... The lowest NTSB court ruled that the FAA's current UAS regulations are unenforceable as the FAA's attempt relied on Notices to Airmen and FAA Policy documents, but no actual enforceable FAA Rules. However, the FAA appealed which immediately stays the decision (due to the procedure for NTSB proceedings). Observers expect the appeal to fail, but by the time the court proceedings are complete there's a good chance that the FAA's actual Rules will be in place.

bmelton 12y ago

The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. In this regard, it makes the statement that they are now banning it more true than they are still banning it, because they have never expressly disallowed it in the past (to my knowledge -- if incorrect, probably renders my point moot). Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.

cromulent 12y ago
According to the FAA, they clarified this in 2007. No flying a UAS for commercial purposes, only one case has ever been approved. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240 http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
- bmelton 12y ago
  Oops. Thanks for the clarification. That explains the yo-yo voting patterns I'm seeing on my post, I suppose.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  at least the 2012 act requires them to allow flying UAS for commercial purposes (at the very least in the arctic, and likely elsewhere, depending on how you read it), and start a rulemaking about it
  - asynchronous13 12y ago
    The 2012 act requires that the FAA have rules in place by 2015. So far, the FAA has missed nearly every deadline that was required by the 2012 act. In theory, the FAA's funding is contingent upon having rules in place. In practice, I'm sure congress will grant them an extension when they end up late.
bri3d 12y ago
Nope! http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf... UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling). That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone). EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene. One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rejects-faas-drone-ban-now-what http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.
- newaccountfool 12y ago
  Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular. In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.
  - bri3d 12y ago
    Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash." I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing. I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!" As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.

sheetjs 12y ago

Clicked link, ads shown -> mission accomplished (for TC, at least)

aet 12y ago
I didn't see any ads

baddox 12y ago

The FAA has no physical ability, and currently no legal authority, to allow or disallow the use of drones to deliver packages. This document is a set of rules that the FAA would like to carry legal weight, but which currently do not.

bri3d 12y ago
I'm assuming you're referring to FAA v. Pirker. Isn't the case still undecided? http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-appeal-brief-in-closely-watched-drone-pilot-case/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-...
- baddox 12y ago
  The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal? But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0]. [0] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims-authority-over-unsafe-model-aircraft-flights http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims...
  - bri3d 12y ago
    In this case the appeal stays the decision: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15894&cid=TW209 http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId... Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.
    - hershel 12y ago
      Even if they lose, won't the laws change to give them these powers ? I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.

esbonsa 12y ago

Which law are you talking about?

bri3d 12y ago
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_... This 2007 policy document clarifies the FAA's stance about drone operations, citing various FAA notices and arguing that commercially flown drones are subject to the standard Part 91 aircraft regulations and none are approved - thus, making them illegal. http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf... This 2012 notice clarifies the FAA's stance that model aircraft are not all aircraft under 55lbs, but rather those that are flown by hobbyists non-commercially, again citing various FAA notices (but no actual rules). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr658 The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the FAA explicit authority to regulate Unmanned Aerial Systems and requires that they implement rules within a certain timeframe (as yet, no rules are implemented - they work through this process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act ). The FAA tried to fine a high-profile UAV operator (the founder of Team Black Sheep): http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/03/07/faa-drone-fine-ntsb-judge-overturned/6167759/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/03/07/faa-... The lowest NTSB court ruled that the FAA's current UAS regulations are unenforceable as the FAA's attempt relied on Notices to Airmen and FAA Policy documents, but no actual enforceable FAA Rules. However, the FAA appealed which immediately stays the decision (due to the procedure for NTSB proceedings). Observers expect the appeal to fail, but by the time the court proceedings are complete there's a good chance that the FAA's actual Rules will be in place.