- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
FAA Gets Hands Slapped
- Thread starter Goofy
- Start date
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,651
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
It's all about cutting the red tape.
Stan Cooper
Pattern Altitude
I think the September 21st incident over New York City when a drone hit an Army Blackhawk helicopter and caused significant damage to the Blackhawk's main rotor blade contributed to the change in registration policy. I find it interesting that the drone operator's first language is Russian. The drone operator told investigators that he was unaware of the TFR in place at the time because of activity at the United Nations, and was also unaware of the requirement to keep the drone in sight.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20170922X54600&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=IA
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...-far-beyond-sight-during-black-hawk-collision
Last edited:
MadseasoN
Line Up and Wait
Just do what they did with laser pointers. Interfere with AC operation and it's a Felony. Word will get around.
WannFly
Final Approach
If u are building one, I am paying for it. Just build 2
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Lindberg
Final Approach
That would be government logic. The NTSB was able to identify the operator of an unregistered drone almost immediately, which means we need drone registration. The accident was caused in part by the operator ignoring regulations, which means we need more regulations.I think the September 21st incident over New York City when a drone hit an Army Blackhawk helicopter and caused significant damage to the Blackhawk's main rotor blade contributed to the change in registration policy. I find it interesting that the drone operator's first language is Russian. The drone operator told investigators that he was unaware of the TFR in place at the time because of activity at the United Nations, and was also unaware of the requirement to keep the drone in sight.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170922X54600&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=IA
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...-far-beyond-sight-during-black-hawk-collision
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Because that absolutely works, right?
There were 3,960 laser strikes reported last year, according to the FBI, an average of 11 incidents a day.
Source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/why-its-terrible-idea-point-lasers-airplanes-n28841
Stan Cooper
Pattern Altitude
That's specious. The only reason the NTSB was able to identify the drone operator is because one of the drone motors got tangled in the helicopter structure and was recovered by the army who turned it over to the FAA FSDO. The NTSB was able to track the motor serial number through the drone manufacturer to the retail customer. It was pure serendipity that the motor remained with the helicopter.
Regulations to resume drone registration are needed to identify reckless operators who pose a threat to aviation safety, and this incident is a good example of why reasonable regulation is needed.
"The government" can't win; they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
And it would be pure serendipity to recover whatever tiny part of the drone had the registration number scribbled onto it with a Sharpie. Probably the battery compartment door, but who knows? Could be anywhere, and could be really small.
Not to mention, if the operator had nefarious intentions he wouldn’t write a registration number on the drone in the first place.
This is unreasonable because it’s almost useless. Truly reckless operators won’t register.
Besides, this horse left the barn years ago. This will go as well as did the FCC and CB radio licenses. The FCC finally gave up.
The gov can’t win because they showed up too late with an ineffective piece of security theatre, rather than a true solution. They don’t deserve to “win.”
Lindberg
Final Approach
You prove my point.
Stan Cooper
Pattern Altitude
The goal should be aviation safety, and enhancing the ability of those whose job it is to keep the airspace safe for all users to quickly identify operators who violate safety rules without depending on chance.
FAA drone identification and tracking report released | AOPA, December 21, 2017
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
”Much anticipated” is a polite way of saying woefully late. Note also that neither of the two recommendations has anything to do with writing a number on your drone. Notice also that there are no specifics, and nothing recommended can be done for existing drones already being flown.
Stan Cooper
Pattern Altitude
"Half fast" said:
It's a start.
Did you even read the UAS ID ARC Final Report? There are lots of specifics. Writing a number on your drone is completely ineffective in identifying the operator if the drone is destroyed in a mid-air collision.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes, I read it. Did you? I stated above that a written number on the drone is useless, yet you seemed to think that the government’s registration law was useful. It’s not.
The report is quite vague. It’s a shopping list of some existing technologies, but the comparisons do not consider actual UAVs. Without surveying the most common air vehicles and assessing the suitability of the technologies against each, the report isn’t much use. There is zero discussion of what impact the additional power consumption would have on air vehicle endurance, for one obvious example.
The report has lots of suggestions for further study and is hardly comprehensive. Years of work remain, followed by more years of solicitations to industry, proposals, trials, testing, qualification, ....
This thing is so out of control and the FAA is so late to the game that they will never catch up.
So instead they will create a useless drone registry and give us security theatre, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not sure it’s still solvable at this point. Certainly not in 10 minutes on an Internet forum.
In any case, no one has hired me to solve it. I’m a whore, not a slut. Lockheed pays me very very well for solving complex engineering problems; I don’t do it for free.
OkieFlyer
En-Route
The problem I have is with them trying to regulate the entire RC community instead of just focusing on the problem. RC aircraft in general aren't a problem. "Drones" are not even the problem. FPV is the problem. That's First Person View for those that may not know, which means navigating using a camera and either a monitor or goggles. Until multirotor aircraft that can navigate beyond line of sight, or with FPV goggles became available to the masses, there was no problem. I suggest we regulate that if we must, and leave everybody else alone. I'm generally not one to get behind more regulations, but if it's that big of a deal, then regulate the specific thing that has caused the problem, and leave the rest of us alone.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Not sure there is a problem. Probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of “drones” or model RC aircraft have flown. We’ve had like one or two midairs??? Not exactly a common thing.
If one manned aircraft hit is a problem and it needs to be solved, then EVERY drone sold would have to have built in altitude and distance restrictions. These restrictions would make them so expensive and unpopular that no one would buy them.
The person who hit the Black Hawk knew exactly what he was doing. It’s cool to fly a drone a couple miles from your house simply by using a FPV device. That sort of activity is going to keep on happening and there’s nothing the FAA can do about it.
If one manned aircraft hit is a problem and it needs to be solved, then EVERY drone sold would have to have built in altitude and distance restrictions. These restrictions would make them so expensive and unpopular that no one would buy them.
The person who hit the Black Hawk knew exactly what he was doing. It’s cool to fly a drone a couple miles from your house simply by using a FPV device. That sort of activity is going to keep on happening and there’s nothing the FAA can do about it.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Agreed.
And even if you did find something cheap and easy to implement on new drones in a couple of years, you can’t do anything about all the ones that are already out there.
Paulie
Line Up and Wait
For those of you that thinks drones don't cause problems, when working in aviation fighting fires out west, operations were shut down on a weekly basis because some idiot was flying a drone over the fire. With multiple aircraft flying (there are quite a few involved with spotters, lead aircraft and numerous tankers) and a drone is spotted everything shuts down. How would you feel if your house almost got saved and all the airplanes disappeared. I was working for the company that has the DC-10 tankers and those guys drop from 200 feet in a valley and hauling ass, the last thing they need is to be dodging drones. Even a small one is capable of taking out a engine.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
At least one drone manufacturer has locked down their drones, to an extent. This reference, from 2 years ago, gives some detail- https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-fly-safe-system . However, home-made and older drones wouldn't be programmed in this fashion. I haven't heard that DJI is losing market share.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Like I said, EVERY drone would have to have these restrictions. Those are hardly restrictions on the DJ when the operator can easily override them. They only apply in certain air space also.
All the RC aircraft I fly don’t have any restrictions built in. If they did, I’d find a way to bypass them.
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
I'm generally in agreement with your sentiments. Didn't I mention 2 "exceptions" to these restrictions?
For the DJI drones, one has do something to lift the restrictions that is traceable to the account (and presumably the owner). I don't know if the ownership could be spoofed. However, the restrictions were put in place by one manufacturer and others could do the same. A simple altitude/distance restriction should be easier to implement than the airspace restrictions used by DJI. Be that as it may, I merely only intended to let you know that drones could be programmed with restrictions, it's being done now, and it hasn't made those drones more expensive.
It's too bad fools are acting in such a fashion that people are contemplating removing a freedom that we have.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah I understand and am aware of drones that come with restrictions built into the software.
What I’m saying, in order to prevent any midair with a manned aircraft, these restrictions would have to be in effect in all aircraft and in all airspace. Example, the Black Hawk hit the drone at only 300 ft. That’s a popular altitude for helicopters. It’s even our min altitude for Part 135 helo flight. So basically if we want to truly keep drones from manned aircraft, you’d need like a 200 ft restriction. That’s not practical and I’d never fly a drone with that type of restriction. My RC jets do around 100 mph and can easily stay within sight above the popular, although misunderstood, 400 ft altitude. If using common sense and having controls (spotter, remain in sight, portable radio), this type of operation can be done safely.
The problem, if we can even call it that, is what you said in your last sentence. AMA has already stated that all these infractions are from non AMA members. No idea if that’s true or not but my interaction with AMA members is positive and we abide by the rules laid out by AMA. You get these guys that are non members,doing stupid things with their aircraft and it creates a bad image for all of us. That’s the true problem.
denverpilot
Tied Down
FAA will argue that you never had that freedom, they just weren’t forced to enforce until the morons showed up in “their” airspace.
What you seem to misunderstand is the FAA is bound by the law, as fast and loose as they like to play it. The enabling legislation is pretty broad, but there are a few cases such as this one where there is actually enacted law putting limits on the FAA. Bellyache at CONGRESS not the FAA is you don't like it.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
The BlackHawk incident wasn't the best example to use. He broke 2 rules- flying in the TFR, and flying the drone out of his line of sight; I read over 2 miles away. If he kept the drone within his line of sight, he may have been able to drop it lower or do something else to avoid the helicopter. Use of a spotter, as you say, could have avoided the incident too. But this was a yahoo who clearly didn't read the rules, nor all of the instructions that came with his DJI drone. "Stupid drone tricks" have gotten them thrown out of national parks and wildlife refuges.
What would you do?
There's probably problems with selling a "limited" drone that is programmed from going very far or high unless someone reads far enough into the instructions to find out how to take a course and test that gives an unlock code that allows them to do more with the drone. That would maybe reduce the problem by limiting the abilities of the yahoos to make trouble, and still allow people with RC planes utilize their aircraft as they always have.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The BlackHawk incident wasn't the best example to use. He broke 2 rules- flying in the TFR, and flying the drone out of his line of sight; I read over 2 miles away. If he kept the drone within his line of sight, he may have been able to drop it lower or do something else to avoid the helicopter. Use of a spotter, as you say, could have avoided the incident too. But this was a yahoo who clearly didn't read the rules, nor all of the instructions that came with his DJI drone. "Stupid drone tricks" have gotten them thrown out of national parks and wildlife refuges.
What would you do?
There's probably problems with selling a "limited" drone that is programmed from going very far or high unless someone reads far enough into the instructions to find out how to take a course and test that gives an unlock code that allows them to do more with the drone. That would maybe reduce the problem by limiting the abilities of the yahoos to make trouble, and still allow people with RC planes utilize their aircraft as they always have.
To be honest, there’s nothing I would do because I don’t see it as a major problem right now. While it seems like near misses are happening all the time, when we look at the shear numbers of these things flying, sightings are pretty rare. I mean, we’ve got more manned vs manned midairs every year and with the number of aircraft flying, I don’t see manned flight being a problem.
Now, can we do better? Sure we can but the question is, how much FAA involvement is necessary? The FAA has clamped down with all the Part 107 rules but those don’t apply to Part 101 (hobby) flyers on an approved program (AMA). Personally, I think the FAA and AMA need to get together and come up with rules that are universal. But, like AOPA, AMA fights for our rights to freedom of flight and some of the 107 restrictions such as 400 ft, just won’t “fly” for us AMA members.
It would help if all of these RC / drone suppliers had the rules for Part 101 / 107 clearly laid out in the instruction manual. I was just looking at my instructor manual to my MotionRC A-4 and while it has a few safety tips, nothing in it is stated in regards to specific flying rules. So, you can theoretically get some yahoo that knows nothing about avoiding manned aircraft, knows nothing about registration and has no clue what a TFR is.
But like I said, I think most of the rule breakers know exactly what they’re doing anyway. No registration requirement (because they’ll skip it) can stop them.
Last edited:
Because the FAA never did the rule making process for the UAVs. So what everyone thinks are rules (400 foot, line of sight) are just suggestions to follow. What they did do is legitimize the drones and call them an aircraft. So by doing that, they are just like any other Piper Cub going low and slow. So the rules in place are see and avoid. Who is at fault when two Cessna 172 collide mid air?
Yet, they can not do this. They are BANNED by enacted law to issue regulations covering 'drones' that fit the definition of model aircraft in the law.
It matters not how they want to spin the definition of an drone or their responsibility to safety, they can't do more than they are authorized by law to do.
It matters not how they want to spin the definition of an drone or their responsibility to safety, they can't do more than they are authorized by law to do.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
They can REGISTER them, that's the only thing that the NDAA restored. It doesn't entirely repeal the prohibition on the regulation of "model aircraft."
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
But all the FAA has to do is whine to Congress to regulate model aircraft. Congress just didn’t think of reinstating this registration on their own. You can bet the FAA made them aware of the issue and in turn, thought it prudent to reinstate the registration.
So in reality, the protection of model aircraft only exists until Congress passes a law that erodes at that protection.
So in reality, the protection of model aircraft only exists until Congress passes a law that erodes at that protection.
MadseasoN
Line Up and Wait
Because that absolutely works, right?
There were 3,960 laser strikes reported last year, according to the FBI, an average of 11 incidents a day.
Source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/why-its-terrible-idea-point-lasers-airplanes-n28841
Nothing is absolute.
I think there's a difference between someone who buys a laser pointer and someone who buys a UAS.
Last edited:
donjohnston
Pattern Altitude
Care to elaborate on that rather ambiguous statement?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Actually, the FAA does have UAV regulations. Part 101 Subpart E covers model aircraft, and Part 107 covers operations that don't fit within Congress's definition of model aircraft. Part 107 does have the 400 foot rule and the line of sight rule. Part 101 does not. It just has some very general requirements which, as I understand it, echo what's in the statute. One of those requirements is that the operator follow "a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." The "Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code" is an example of that. (Whether there are others, I don't know.)
Both Part 101 Subpart E and Part 107 have requirements to yield the right-of-way to manned aircraft.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Leave it to Congress to write something so vague it could encompass a terrorist cell.