FAA Has Approved More Than 1,000 Drone Exemptions 62
coondoggie writes: The Federal Aviation Administration today said it has issued 1,008 exemptions to businesses wanting to fly unmanned aircraft in the national airspace. Such small drones have been on the bad side of the news in the past few days: there have been at least three complaints about the diminutive aircraft flying near the flight path of JFK airport in New York. All three of the flights landed safely but the events prompted New York Senator Charles Schumer to call for "tougher FAA rules on drones," as well as geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area.
When guns are outlawed... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eh, it's kind of like your Android phone not making root readily available. It's there to protect the unwashed masses from themselves. Serious hobbyists (or bad actors) don't have much difficulty getting around the restrictions. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that "geofencing" software will keep a terrorist from flying a drone into restricted airspace. What it will do is keep the "hold my beer and watch this!" crowd from flying their drone into the glide path of a 747.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
AGL != MSL
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Although not desirable, I don't see why a small hobby drone should bother a full size airplane. The plane should just plow through on its course and it will easily knock the drone out of the sky. A bird would have more effect than a small drone, and no one is talking about geo-fencing birds. On the other hand, my kickstarter project of dog fighting drones should do well. Killer drones to take out the unapproved drones. All government areas and rich celebrities will want them.
This is the FAA we are talking about where perceived safety is king... Where it's not likely to kill anybody, shooting at an aircraft is illegal... Why? Because it MIGHT kill somebody, or a whole lot of somebodies if you hit the thing with your lucky shot.
Drones are the same kind of thing. Yea, it's unlikely a drone is going to bring down a 747, even if it happens to hit it, but it's POSSIBLE one could go though the windshield or though an engine and do enough damage or cause enough distraction to cause
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody is talking about geofencing birds, really? Can you really be that stupid? Bird control is a MAJOR concern at airports.
Re: (Score:2)
Look how that turned out for RadioShack!
Re: (Score:1)
"...geofencing software that could prohibit a done from flying higher than 500 feet, and keep it two miles away from any airport or sensitive area."
Which would be many of us who do (or want to do) such things commercially, and like the idea of getting paid without risk of our assets being seized and without the potential for criminal charges. ;-)
That's how you make money in government (Score:4, Funny)
1) Have the legislature pass a law against X with exemptions to be granted by agency Y and get the executive to sign it. (Ideally, X outlaws everyone from doing anything - see below.)
2) As an employee of agency Y, get into a position of power to grant exemptions
3) Accept bribes (quietly, the "invest $500K in my brother-in-law's fishing charter" kind) to grant exemptions to the law
4) PROFIT!
How to do 500 feet? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the terrain is not going to change that much.
Hello, flatlander!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or 500 feet above sea level.
No flying drones in Denver where the ground STARTS at 5,000 feet above sea level and goes up from there... There is a reason they call it the "Mile High City" and it's not because they allow pot smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah I would expect a minimum accuracy to be +-100ft.
Ideal would be +-10ft most equipment won't do that especially none of the cheaper stuff.
And I would hope that a gov't requirement would bring the cost's down due to volume like it did with the led light bulbs.
But as a poster noted above unlevel terrain would be a problem in places (grand canyon).
While it should be cheap enough to geofence around areas the height limit may be a bit of a problem.
Height above ground seems silly in some places and height abov
Re: (Score:2)
I am assuming they mean above ground, because otherwise it would be a stupid idea (I'm not saying that's impossible). Do you require drones to be equipped with laser or radar altimeters? Do you require them to use DTED?
I would expect that they would be happy with the following rule.. The 500' altitude restriction referenced from the GROUND level at the point of launch. I would further use a 1 mile radius from the starting point as a limit. The only other way this works is you have and are following DTED and do not exceed 500' above an adjacent DTED observation point, which doesn't seem practical to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Feeling tongue-tied?
Pilot's licenses should be required (Score:2)
... to fly drones outside your own personal property. That would solve many of these issues very quickly. Pilots are trained to understand airspace restrictions, to file flight plans, and to look up TFRs before they fly. Obviously, you can't trust normal people to do these things, so licenses should be required. Flying a drone without a license should be a prosecutable criminal offense, and even worse if you bust airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely necessary for someone flying a 3-pound plastic quadcopter 25 feet off the ground to take a look at whether or not some gutters need to be cleaned out
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss my comment about flying over private property owned by the pilot (or presumably, where the owner has given the pilot permission to fly in it)?
It's just like driving a vehicle: if you have a big farm, there is zero requirement to register your car with the state government or get a driver's license, as long as you keep your vehicle on your own land. You can even let your 12-year-old kid drive your car on your land. It's only when you drive onto public streets that all that stuff becomes mandat
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss my comment about flying over private property owned by the pilot (or presumably, where the owner has given the pilot permission to fly in it)?
No. Why should it make any difference? Commercial aviation goes over your property too. Are you saying that somebody launching a 3-pound quadcopter into the air above their property is inherently safer at 1000' than is the person who does that from some empty lot or a wooded park in the middle of nowhere?
You don't seem to understand that you don't own the air over your property.
Re: (Score:3)
This exactly shows why morons like you have no business flying without a license. You have no concept whatsoever of "airspace".
You don't seem to understand that you don't own the air over your property.
Bullshit. You own the air up to 500 feet. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly within that zone without permission or a really good reason.
Are you saying that somebody launching a 3-pound quadcopter into the air above their property is inherently safer at 1000' than is the person who does that from s
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, as someone who *does* have a pilot's certificate, the GP is more right than you are.
First of all it's a certificate, not a license. Yes, the distinction matters. And there's lots of not-commercial aircraft - in any case the airspace rules are no different.
You don't own the air up to 500 feet by any means. The FAA's rules (mostly for fixed-wing aircraft) are in 14 CFR 91.119 [cornell.edu], paraphrased:
- Always where an emergency landing can be conducted without "undue hazard" (note, not "no hazard") to people or prope
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of confusion over nit-picking terms is not surprising, given the FAA itself sounds confused. From http://www.faa.gov/pilots/become/ [faa.gov], "FAA's rules for getting a pilot's license (certificate) " and "There are several different types of pilot's licenses...".
One might be forgiven for assuming that the certificate is evidence of licensure.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. You own the air up to 500 feet.
This is factually incorrect, pure and simple. You have no idea what you're talking about.
No, someone with a 3-pound quadcopter has no business operating at 1000' because that's federally regulated airspace, unless that person has a proper pilot's license and type rating for that aircraft.
Which is exactly why your entire premise about being over your own yard or over some other patch of dirt means exactly nothing in the context of your complaint.
What I'm saying is that someone who owns the property and also the drone shouldn't need a license to operate their drone, within their airspace (up to 500' AGL), as long as they stay within that box.
But you think they're going to somehow be smart enough, without a pilot's certificate, to stay under 500' above their own dirt, but can't be trusted to make exactly the same decision thirty feet to the right, above a different patch of grass? People who are go
Re: (Score:2)
What say you if a quadcoper/"drone" had a cryptographically-secure mechanism to prevent it from flying above 500' AGL?
What if it had an active (and useful!) default LIDAR/RADAR/SONAR looking at the ground to enforce this, with complementary GPS?
Might that be OK from the non-licensed aviator perspective?
Might it be worse, from the FOSS perspective?
(and for the inevitable slippery slope argument: I'll volunteer to watch the watchers. All of them, no matter what they are watching. Nobody has anything to fea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True that. Otherwise, think about prison yards (recent drop by a drone of drugs in one), athletic fields (imagine a drone ditching, aldning, crashing in the middle of a professional football or baseball game), back yards as you mentioned, stampeding farm animals, hovering outside a business's windows and photographing commercial secrets. The list goes on and on and on.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, if you think I'm going to read all this idiotic Libertarian claptrap, you're deluded. (But then, you have to be deluded to believe this shit.)
The simple fact is that flying is extremely dangerous, and when pilots fuck up, it has serious consequences, usually worse if there's passengers, but even if there's not, they can cause catastrophic damage on the ground too. The government has every right to regulate airspace, just as it regulates roads to keep dangerous drivers off the highways so they d
Re: (Score:2)
We kill 30,000 people per year with drunk driving, and yet the federal govt does not license or test car drivers or drinkers.
Bullshit. The state governments license and test car drivers (poorly usually). If the federal government took it over, people like you would start screaming about the 10th Amendment. The Federal government handles aviation because planes routinely cross state lines, whereas interstate car traffic isn't remotely a majority of car traffic.
For that matter, over 50 people die per year
laser turret (Score:2)
Perhaps a drone shooting automated turret at the airport is in order.
It could also take out those pesky geese!
All That's Needed is One Stupid Rule (Score:1)
This is SO FUCKING STUPID!! Is the FAA now opening a new division and hiring more bureaucrats just to process drone exception paperwork? What a stupid waste of money! That's how you know it was invented by government employees.
The real solution is very simple: just declare that drones are only allowed to fly in class Gulf airspace, knock it off with the bullshit bureaucracy, and watch sales of sectionals, airspace databases, and GPS units increase. THERE! I fixed that for ya.
Oh, and as common sense,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes sir, and what about those darned motorcars? Always roaring about belching smoke and steam, and dripping oil... why, last week my prize mare almost threw a shoe after slipping on a patch of that foul petroleum distillate.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think a modern city would be recognizable to the opponents of the automobile or even to some of those who championed it.
If you don't look up, the difference would be less shocking than you imagine... especially since the motorcar is so very much cleaner and quieter now than it was then.
I also don't think people can appreciate what a city of ubiquitous drones would be like.
This drone thing is a fad, it will come in waves. This is the "pretty cheap" wave, it is fairly annoying. The "practically free" wave will be even worse. Then it will settle down to a dull background murmur.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if Amazon and Google have anything to say about it.
You won't even notice those drones most of the time. There's a whole lot of space in which they can operate which is below aircraft but well above the humans.
Incidents (Score:2)
an UAV pilot license (Score:2)
I am an UAV pilot myself. Flying a multi-rotor and fixed-wing UAV well is not that simple. It requires extensive theoretical and practical training.