Wish List for regulatory outcome (US)

[Bartman]

Was just wondering what everyone would consider to be on their wish list if/when sUAS regulations are eventually published

For me personally I'd like to see a category that allows line-of-sight operations, below a safe altitude (400'?) and without the pilots license requirement and without approvals/waivers for each and every set of flights.

I agree there should be an education component in the requirements but a full pilots license is a bit much for us smaller operators (even though I already have one).

Bart

 

[econfly]

My (partial) wish list for small sUAS regs:

• Line of sight under 400' over private land -- no license, no restrictions, no reporting required. Completely free.
• Line of sight under 400' over public space -- regulate to protect privacy and safety, including some form of licensing.
• No flights of any kind under 400' over private land without owner permission.
• I don't know how to handle semi-autonomous or FPV (non-line-of-sight) flying, but I would like some differentiation between public and private space.
• No carve-outs for "special" groups. For example, I own farm land and would benefit from an agricultural exemption to whatever regs come down the line. But I wouldn't ask for that. In other heavily regulated areas we see what happens when these carve-outs start to pop up, and the end result is terrible over-regulation of those not powerful enough to get special treatment. For this reason, I would very much oppose any special treatment of subgroups, including public safety. Make everyone play by the same rules and everyone will have the same incentives to support good rules.

 

[Bartman]

Make everyone play by the same rules and everyone will have the same incentives to support good rules.

good post! That makes a lot of sense.

 

[eskil23]

I guess this thread is about US regulations. There are plans for new EU regulations as well. I hope they'll come soon because the regulations we have in Sweden right now really sucks!

* Radio frequency regulations. This is the least of the problems since 1.2-1.3 GHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.7-5.8 GHz band are free to use without license. There is a 100 mW limit for the 2.4 GHz band.

* Swedish Transport Agency regulations. A license is required for commercial use of UAV systems. Fairly easy to get for UAV weighing Less than 7 kg. License cost about $500 the first time and $150 to renew. License for heavier UAV or for beyond line-of-sight are much more difficult and expensive to get.

* Civil Aviation Administration prohibits UAVs within 2 km from airports and landing zones. Also requires application for flight within air control zones. From what I understand, it is ok to apply for flight permission by telephone to the flight controller at the nearest airport before take off.

* County Administrations frequently classifies FPV systems as video surveillance and requires application. The administration fee for the application is quite expensive and almost impossible to get if you can not prove that the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent crime or accidents.

* Private aerial photography is allowed, but to publish aerial photos they must first be reviewed by Swedish Armed Forces intelligence- and security department. This sound more serious than it is. They are quite generous with what they permit as long as you don't happen to catch something sensitive such as military installations, airports or other protected compound.


Most amatures are unaware of these regulations. Enthusiasts don't bother with license but try to keep out of air control zones. Professionals get a UAV license and send in their photos for review (or get a self examination permit). Nobody gives a **** about the video surveillace regulations (except for County Administration and Swedish Data Inspection Board). Not even the police for what I understand.

 

[SleepyC]

I am in for some common sense regulations, and the removal of the private pilots license demand. It makes No sense. i would be find with a ground school class, and even a proof of ability flying exam, but the cost, time and potential hazard of obtaining a full scale airplane license just to fly multi rotors is insane.

I ask the FAA to give the multi rotor user the same deal as it gives the Ultralight pilot: (Which can be 254lbs + PILOT - no danger there to air traffic, especially as ultralights can fly for MILES and MILES at 5 - 10K feet!)

Flying Under Ultralight Rules (FAR Part 103)

• Recreational flight limited to single seaters weighing less than 254 lbs
• Any category, class or type of vehicle permitted (i.e. airplane, trike, powered parachute)

FAA has chosen not to promulgate Federal regulations regarding pilot certification, vehiclecertification, and vehicle registration, preferring that the ultralight community assume the initiative forthe development of these important safety programs. The ultralight community has taken positiveaction and developed programs almost two decades ago gaining FAA approval for their implementation.
FAA further states, "...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support andcompliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy ofallowing industry self-regulation in these areas."

Pilot/Instructor Requirements
FAA does not certify ultralight-specific pilot knowledge and proficiency, but it expects pilots to complete training under an FAA-recognized program. By earning your ultralight pilot wings, this confirms your ultralight-specific knowledge and proficiency. Ultralight pilot flight instruction time averages 10 to15 hours, prior to solo flight. A current list of FAA-recognized USUA flight instructors can be found in our instructor list.

 

[Bartman]

SleepyC, this has to do with See and Avoid, I'll post a new thread so more people can participate in the conversation

 

[Roto5411]

At this point, I hope the rumor that the FAA will enact a pilot license requirement on sUAS/hobby RC operators is just that, a rumor. If they enact this requirement, my biggest question would be how would they even begin to enforce it? The agency doesn't even have enough inspectors to adequately police the general and commercial manned aviation side let alone spend time tracking down errant "drone" operators! And they had better not expect local law enforcement to help them with this. It's not local law enforcement's job to enforce federal regulations.

Everybody wants the FAA to act, but when government agencies act quickly to create "new" or "necessary" regulations because of congressional pressure, lots of mistakes and bad decisions are made. What I would like the FAA to do is create three separate categories of UAS regulations:
1) The first category would include hobby/commercial/public safety operators that fly within line-of-sight (with or without an FPV/OSD system), below 400' AGL, under 55 pounds, and outside of controlled or restricted airspace. This category would require little regulation, nor do I believe a pilot's license is necessary (a short training course on airspace and other related aviation information probably wouldn't be a bad idea). Extra requirements or procedures (such as COAs or direct radio contact with appropriate ATC) could be developed to clear operators who need to fly within controlled or restricted airspace (such as public safety and commercial operators). I firmly believe that the threat of civil legal process will encourage this category of operators to fly safely. All the regulations in the world won't discourage individuals from doing stupid or reckless acts, but the threat of getting sued will.
2)The second group would include individuals who add features to their machines that enable them to fly beyond line-of-sight strictly with the help of an FPV system and a 400MHz transmitter extension system that are specifically designed for that purpose. The FAA is going to have to deal with this issue because these systems are out there and many flyers are using them. I have mixed emotions on how this category should be regulated.
3)The third is the UAS's that will be operated autonomously in the National Airspace System above 400' AGL. This is the category in which FAA should be focusing the bulk of their time and resources.

A main point to remember in this discussion is that the FAA is in the air safety business, not privacy business. The issue of whether a drone is being operated over someone's private property is not an FAA issue, nor should it even enter their consideration for new regulations. That job, it has been rumored, is currently being tackled by the White House's General Counsel Office and will soon be turned over to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for actual drafting of so-called "drone privacy" regulations. Will they, like 15 states and many municipalities have already done, outright ban drone flights over private property?

2015 is going to be an interesting year!

 

[Roto5411]

I stand corrected, the FAA DOES want state and local cops to help them enforce "drone" regulations. Isn't this quite ironical and hypocritical, however, since local LE agencies have been sued by the federal government for enforcing federal immigration laws!
Excerpt of statement to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on UAS Integration, Oversight, and Competitiveness starting on page 7, given by FAA Associate Administrator for Safety, Margret Gilligan on December 10, 2014:
"We are also working with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to address and educate the public about the unsafe, or unauthorized, use of UAS since they are often in the best position to deter, detect, and immediately investigate such activity. The FAA may take enforcement action against anyone that operates a UAS in a way that endangers the safety of the NAS, or who conducts an unauthorized UAS operation. This authority is designed to protect the users of the airspace as well as people and property on the ground. State and local law enforcement can assist us in protecting the safety of the NAS by identifying individuals or entities engaged in unauthorized use, collecting and preserving evidence, and immediately reporting an incident, accident or other suspected violation to one of the FAA Regional Operation Centers (ROC) located around the country. The FAA tracks UAS events, including those reported to the FAA by law enforcement and the general public, as well as events identified by FAA air traffic control facilities. A single UAS-specific event tracking database is currently in development and will be deployed by the end of 2015."

 

[Kougarok]

I would like to see some minimal airframe certification for commercial use. The electrical connections aren't good in an off the shelf UAV and there's not a lot of redundancy.

 

[Vermiform]

Above all else, I wish they would get off of their bureaucratic asses and implement whatever they are implementing.

 

[jbrumberg]

I heard/saw on the news and read a thread at RCG today about Amazon having made proposals to the FAA and other agencies for different "drone zones". I think it is proposing a high speed drone delivery zone from 200' - 400' and a commercial/local and recreational use zone limited to 0' - 200'. I think this is in conjunction with existing restrictions related to airports, etc.

 

[Bartman]

I heard/saw on the news and read a thread at RCG today about Amazon having made proposals to the FAA and other agencies for different "drone zones". I think it is proposing a high speed drone delivery zone from 200' - 400' and a commercial/local and recreational use zone limited to 0' - 200'. I think this is in conjunction with existing restrictions related to airports, etc.

have a link to the original story by any chance?

 

[jbrumberg]

Bartman- here you go

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2182312-amazon-determining-safe-access-with-a-best.html

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2182311-amazon-revising-the-airspace-model-for-the-safe.html

 

[Webheadfred]

As an air traffic controller, the requirement for a full pilots license is a little rediculous. I think I know a little about aviation regulations which I could apply to flying an unmanned aircraft. I have in fact, taken flying lessons out of curiosity but am not a licensed pilot. I'm a hell of a controller though.