FAA Blames FBI For Slowing UAS Rules

jnmeade

jnmeade

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
1,220
Location
Eastern Iowa
Display Name
Display name:
Jim Meade
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting story out that essentially says the FAA was ready to propose new rules for UAS that would expand operations such as flight over crowds, night flights and flight beyond visual range of the operator. Apparently, the security people are set on being able to identify the operator. The FBI and similar are worried about terrorists weaponizing UA.

"Federal Aviation Administration draft rules intended to permit small unmanned aircraft to routinely fly over crowds were close to being published late last year, according to industry officials, but they were effectively vetoed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, along with other agencies, for failing to adequately address how to remotely identify such airborne vehicles."

"Industry officials familiar with the FAA and FBI deliberations estimated it could take between a year and 18 months to get a final rule clearing the way for flights over crowds. But remote-identification technology currently under development could reduce the costs of enhanced tracking. The FAA also is considering a separate rule permitting routine night flights for commercial operators."

So, that is why one reporter thinks we don't have expanded UAS operations already.
 
Why does anyone besides law enforcement need to fly over crowds or beyond visual range of the operator?
 
Awesome. I love it when government employees think that laws prevent crimes.

Somehow they believe that a terrorist will not break the UAV rules so that will stop them from murdering people. Sheesh

Gee, I was going to rob that bank and shoot the guard, but I won't because taking a gun into a bank is illegal. Darn those gun control laws!
 
Even better, citizens that don't understand what is needed to protect the public with the resources available.
 
Clip4 said:
Even better, citizens that don't understand what is needed to protect the public with the resources available.
Click to expand...
A thicker rulebook always makes us safer with the existing resources available, obviously.
 
Salty said:
Why does anyone need to fly an airplane?
Click to expand...

And airplanes must obey certain altitude restrictions above crowds, buildings, etc. The drone operators don't want to obey those rules and due to the 400' rule they can't anyway. Sorry, they should not be allowed over crowds.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yeah, the non-aviation-savvy media really needs to be flying drones low over crowds.
Click to expand...
Like we need amazon delivering packages with drones. That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I can't believe anyone repeats it in a serious manner.
 
Salty said:
Somehow they believe that a terrorist will not break the UAV rules so that will stop them from murdering people. Sheesh

Gee, I was going to rob that bank and shoot the guard, but I won't because taking a gun into a bank is illegal. Darn those gun control laws!
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with preventing crime - it's to make it easier to enforce. If all good drones have to squawk, you can just shoot down all non-squawking drones.

Same reason why you don't want people in a bank to wear a ski mask or motorcycle helmet. It makes the one who does stand out.

That's the theory anyway - in practice you spend so much resources patrolling for compliance that if you used those resources elsewhere you can probably stop more actual crime for cheaper.
 
deonb said:
Nothing to do with preventing crime - it's to make it easier to enforce. If all good drones have to squawk, you can just shoot down all non-squawking drones.

Same reason why you don't want people in a bank to wear a ski mask or motorcycle helmet. It makes the one who does stand out.

That's the theory anyway - in practice you spend so much resources patrolling for compliance that if you used those resources elsewhere you can probably stop more actual crime for cheaper.
Click to expand...
I agree. The theory is nonsense. Making everyone a criminal does not make it easier to find real crime with a given set of resources - it makes it harder.
 
Salty said:
Like we need amazon delivering packages with drones. That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I can't believe anyone repeats it in a serious manner.
Click to expand...

I mean the request exists because Amazon is lobbying for it. Not saying it's a good idea.
 
deonb said:
I mean the request exists because Amazon is lobbying for it. Not saying it's a good idea.
Click to expand...
understood, it just started me on a rant. In fairness, it's not as bad an idea as the "flying car".
 
SkyDog58 said:
Why does anyone besides law enforcement need to fly over crowds or beyond visual range of the operator?
Click to expand...
Event photos. I have seen them at 5k/10k runs.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
SkyDog58 said:
And airplanes must obey certain altitude restrictions above crowds, buildings, etc. The drone operators don't want to obey those rules and due to the 400' rule they can't anyway. Sorry, they should not be allowed over crowds.
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
deonb said:
Nothing to do with preventing crime - it's to make it easier to enforce. If all good drones have to squawk, you can just shoot down all non-squawking drones.
Click to expand...


HUH?!

Let's think that one through a bit.

Unknown drone is hovering 100 feet over a crowd. Likely just a kid or an idiot flying it, but maybe there's a 1 in 10,000 chance it's a terrorist and the drone is carrying a small explosive.

So with those odds, you think LE should start shooting at it over the heads of the crowd? If they hit it, where's it going to fall? What happens to the explosive device? And whether they hit it or not, what's the crowd going to do when the shooting starts?

Bad, bad idea.
 
Half Fast said:
So with those odds, you think LE should start shooting at it over the heads of the crowd? If they hit it, where's it going to fall?
Click to expand...

That's not how you shoot down a drown. This is:
 
Yeah, yeah - I've seen those. Planning to do it over a crowd of people? And it won't stop the theoretical terrorist from hitting the "detonate" button.
 
Half Fast said:
Yeah, yeah - I've seen those. Planning to do it over a crowd of people? And it won't stop the theoretical terrorist from hitting the "detonate" button.
Click to expand...

See my comment (in post #16) about the practicality of enforcing compliance.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Why does anyone besides law enforcement need to fly over crowds or beyond visual range of the operator?
Click to expand...
We could start with package delivery and go on to pipeline/powerline patrol, setting up networks during disasters, aerial survey over forest land, search and rescue, and so forth.

The real issue here is the insistence on full identification of each operator - in other words, big brother is watching.
 
wsuffa said:
We could start with package delivery and go on to pipeline/powerline patrol, setting up networks during disasters, aerial survey over forest land, search and rescue, and so forth.

The real issue here is the insistence on full identification of each operator - in other words, big brother is watching.
Click to expand...

I understand the concerns surrounding drones - definitely a list of matters that will need to be addressed with them. Some don't present a simple solution unfortunately.

You are right that drones are only going to become more popular and expand. A lot of new businesses being developed around drones (good idea I should start one...). A friend of mine is an engineer who is working for a company who uses drones for avalanche control...pretty cool.
 
Every dude thinks he's smart when he says, "More laws don't prevent crimes." What said smart dude totally fails to realize is that a law makes it a lot easier to identify a crime. Taken further, it allows one to know when to run for cover. Example: No 'drones' allowed over crowds? You're at a large gathering and a large 'drone' flies over carrying a package. Anyone order from Amazon? No? Ok, RUN!!! See?
 
wsuffa said:
We could start with package delivery and go on to pipeline/powerline patrol, setting up networks during disasters, aerial survey over forest land, search and rescue, and so forth.

The real issue here is the insistence on full identification of each operator - in other words, big brother is watching.
Click to expand...
As someone currently in the aerial survey and formerly pipeline business... Unless you're doing an area the size of the average shopping mall's footprint, a drone is *less* efficient than a real aircraft in both manpower (drone pilot + observer) and acreage covered.

For instance, you can cover a couple hundred miles of pipeline in a real plane in a day. How long would it take to cover that with these glorified toys with < 30 minute endurance? You can map a few hundred square miles of 3" GSD with a real plane and let's say an ADS100 per day. With a toy you'd need weeks for that county sized job.

These toys don't need to be in the hands of any minimally trained "Tom, Dick, and Harry" operating in the air space us real humans are flying in. I've seen a few of the kids at work getting UAS licenses, I wouldn't trust them to drive my riding lawn mower.
 
Lachlan said:
Every dude thinks he's smart when he says, "More laws don't prevent crimes." What said smart dude totally fails to realize is that a law makes it a lot easier to identify a crime. Taken further, it allows one to know when to run for cover. Example: No 'drones' allowed over crowds? You're at a large gathering and a large 'drone' flies over carrying a package. Anyone order from Amazon? No? Ok, RUN!!! See?
Click to expand...
Yeah, making everything a crime certainly makes it easier to know if someone is breaking the law.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Why does anyone besides law enforcement need to fly over crowds or beyond visual range of the operator?
Click to expand...
When the realtor shot drone video of the 160 acres that I recently sold, I guarantee you that he wasn't "in visual range" on the drone the entire time. The thing was over 1/2 mile from him at various times.
 
Yeah, to heck with the FBI, did the Administrator get the opinion of the Deputy Sheriff of Mayberry, Barney?
 
A little background on this story. The rulemaking process is a complex process that involves several review and approval on several levels both inside the agency as well as outside the agency. Among the several step process is a review with other agencies, so that they can review and comment on any potential rulemaking that may effect their agency. In this case the FAA got a non-concur from DOJ and DHS on allowing operations over people without additional security efforts such as the ability to immediately identify the UAS. Problem is we have a situation where there is effectively no prohibition for hobby and modeler, who are neither certificated or registered, to fly over people, while part 107 operators, who would presumably have to meet certain standards for risk mitigation, are grounded because the FAA can't move forward.

What will happen in the meantime is the industry will spool up on submitting waivers for 14 CFR 107.39, and the FAA will review--and potentially approve them if they make a reasonable safety case--essentially circumventing the rulemaking process and DOJ et alia's objections. Add to that a high political directive and ops over people will happen whether we like it or not.
 
Broken systems, broken processes, good (mostly) people trying to make it work, but time is passing this nonsense by . . .
 
As a result, drones falling on crowds will replace drones taking out airliners as the leading cause of drone-related deaths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top