FAA Proposes $1.9 Million Fine For Unauthorized Drone Use 228
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has been under pressure to regulate the nascent drone industry. It's obvious they lack a clear idea of how to proceed — but they're trying. Today they announced a proposal to fine SkyPan International a whopping $1.9 million for allegedly conducting 65 unauthorized commercial drone flights over Chicago and New York City. The flights occurred over a period of almost three years, for the purpose of aerial photography. 43 of the flights impinged upon highly restricted airspace, and the FAA says none of them were "without risk." They bluntly allege that SkyPan "operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property." SkyPan now has 30 days to respond.
That's not the answer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Clear policies need to be established, particularly for those who think they can fly their drones over private property at their whim.
Re: (Score:2)
If you expect to be able to keep aircraft out of the airspace over your house, you are going to be extremely disappointed.
Even if the rule was "no aircraft under 300m over private property", the cost of cameras that can capture clear images of your nude sunbathing is falling rapidly. Even if you somehow stop that, there is always the danger that a satellite will photograph your house from space on a nice clear, sunny day.
There seems to be little point in trying to hold this tide back.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you expect to be able to keep people from murdering other people, you are going to be extremely disappointed.
Even if the rule was "no murders within 300m over private property", the cost of weapons that can kill you while you sunbathe is falling rapidly. Even if you somehow stop that, there is always the danger that a deorbiting satellite will crash into your house from space on a nice clear sunny day.
There seems to be little point in trying to hold this tide back, so let's make murder legal.
Yeah, not s
Re: (Score:2)
There are easy and effective deterrents to murder that can be realistically enforced.
Realistically we can limit drones in certain ways. Limit range from the transmitter, limit the flight time and size being sold in shops. Allow for enforcement in certain areas where there is already enforcement to stop people getting in, e.g. airports. But unless you are willing to ban flying children's toys and search packages coming from China for them you can't really enforce "no flying over residential areas". Tracking
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like most people are ok with Govt surveilling (NSA), corporations (Google Earth), aircraft, but don't want their fellow citizens neighbors with drones doing the same thing.
Govt ok, corporations ok, but thy neighbor...
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about it, then realized it was a pretty stupid idea, at least with current law and even somewhat affordable drones (DJI phantoms).
Then again, it's more curiosity like what's behind their house etc. And probably crosses some line, but I'm not about to set up some sort regular overflights. I mostly fly over my own property, or places where I've gotten permission by the property owner. I also stay below 400ft by settings in the software. I don't want to impinge on any manned aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
We can realistically limit drones form flying over property too low simply by issuing hunting licenses. There'd be an instant market for drone-killer drones, and of course in rural areas they just get shot down already. (P.S. the everyday consumer has full access to firearms, perhaps moreso than lasers).
Re: (Score:2)
People are primarily concerned about noise and physical risk. I have no problem with drones that are 1000 ft up. The thing people need to be concerned about is that Amazon puts a delivery route 100 ft above their patio, and that is a real concern: if the FAA rules that use of airspace valid, you have no recourse.
(Nevertheless, taking "clear images" from 300m away from a shaky drone is pr
Re: (Score:2)
(Nevertheless, taking "clear images" from 300m away from a shaky drone is pretty tricky; image stabilization is not that good.)
Have you tried any of the ones with a gimbal? I don't know about using a zoom lens, I don't have one, but I have used OOTB DJI Phantom Vision II v3 and it's pretty amazingly stable in the pictures or video. As stable as I can get holding a camera anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Clear policies need to be established, particularly for those who think they can fly their drones over private property at their whim.
Where did you get the idea that you own the airspace above your house?
Try arresting any airplane pilots flying over it lately?
Re: (Score:2)
So if I'm flying a drone myself up to, say, 400 feet, do I then own up to 400 ft, or would I need permanent overflights or a physical structure to that height to be "using" the airspace?
I always thought you owned up to the floor for airplanes - sounds like I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
This... If you go back through my posts I've been warning folks that they will need to regulate themselves or be subjected to draconian laws and absurd restrictions written by people who aren't them and don't have their interests in mind. I'm not even a hobbyist, I don't even own a drone or want to. However, as I've said time and time again - you will be hurt if you don't police yourselves.
Why am I interested? This doesn't affect me. So, why? Because I hate the very idea of people's rights being limited wit
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually people do own the air above their property. Planes merely have a limited easement to fly through that air, but any private use takes precedence.
Re: (Score:2)
You own land, not airspace. I would even argue that (in my state) since you pay property taxes, you lease your land, but that's another discussion.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your understanding of US law is not correct. You have control over what is considered "reasonable enjoyment". The specific height is not defined.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, your understanding of US law is not correct. The public has an easement for navigable airspace, but an easement doesn't change property ownership. For example, the property owner can build in that airspace even if it inconveniences pilots.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see easement anywhere in the law https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do you see the word "property". But an easement is what the act describes:
That is an easement, not ownership.
Re:That's not the answer! (Score:4, Interesting)
The City also owns the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street, but the property resident is required to keep it mowed or raked, as required. And everybody has legal access to it. Very little regarding these types of issues breaks down into the arguments that chest-thumping my-king-is-my-castle advocates use. When they try to understand the mowing requirement, they invariably get bent out of shape; they're compelled to feel under attack, because their misguided stand-in for property rights would leave the requirement on the adjacent owner, not the resident.
I just get upset I can't legally engage in sword duels on "private property." So much for the castle theory. I'm only allowed if I catch them crawling through the window, not if they consent.
In the story though, the morons aren't accused of violating private property, but rather restricted airspace. The funny thing about the private property angle; protecting uniquely valuable property is one of the reasons for restricted air spaces in cities. And people with rooftop helipads have a right to make use of the airspace, which is negatively impacted by unlicensed pilots flying shit through air traffic lanes.
As with everything else, just regulation will assist in managing legitimate access, and unjust regulation will block access. No regulation, combined with locally scarce airspace, would just leave it unsafe for manned flights.
The fine isn't just for unauthorized drone use; it is for unauthorized drone use in restricted airspace, dozens of times. That alone makes it reckless, because the restricted areas are for real public safety reasons. Doing it repeatedly shows a recklessly casual disregard for safety regulations, while violating them, and in the physical presence of people, property, and aircraft that are supposed to be protected by the flight rules.
And not only is there is an air traffic easement, there is also a variable building height limit. You can certainly still stand on the roof and enjoy your 500' though.
Another thing that slipped through the cracks:
From the Cornell link:
You own the bottom 500' or so, but that is because it is not navigable airspace. In the same way that a river with obstructions is not "navigable" but might still have small watercraft tootling about. In my State the State owns all navigable waterways, and there is a law allowing 10' of bank access. So most waterfront property has a public easement and can't legally molest bank fisherman who would otherwise be trespassing. If things are officially classified as navigable is a major thing in understanding these regulations. If it is navigable, I can also get a permit to dredge for gold. Of course regarding air space there is still an easement, because access below the navigable level is permitted for takeoff and landing, and some other uses.
And the Godwin-equivalent for these discussions: Property tax! That's my 500', but I lease it from the State indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
I made a post about it on ar15.com and was told that if they are flying below 500ft, that is an FAA issue. Further a pilot chimed in and said that since the topography of the farm was above surrounding areas, it was likely they were using their altimeter to stay at +500 feet and some terrain below them would rise up at some points during their flight. The pilot thought the FAA wouldn't think much of it.
Cows getting spooked is hard to put a $ amount to. Although I suspect loss in milk production (it doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice there is an exception for helicopters. Essentially there are no limits for helicopters other than the flight has to be "conducted without hazard"
Re: (Score:2)
Hester vs US, look up "open field"
Yeah, that's sound about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Congress could get off their ass and give the FAA a specific, bounded mandate for controlling and allowing drone flights so airspace regulations doesn't descent into a quagmire of confused case law and bureaucratic over-reach like the ATF handling of firearms has become. There's options, but again if drone pilots don't practice some fucking sense the realistic options for minimal regulation will just keep diminishing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is a result of the situation in which drones exist but no airspace exists for drones to fly in. If there were a clear and viable way for drone operators to legally share the airspace with other aircraft, then they'd probably do it, especially the commercial ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA has been "working" on such regulations for years. So far the only regulation it has come up with is "no". Well really "No, and we'd like to further restrict recreational model aircraft as well".
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the FAA regulates drones the way the International Whaling Commission regulates whaling. But it's even sillier than that. Recreational use of remotely piloted model aircraft within line of sight is leg
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the stupidity of your argument, though, don't you? The flights of wild geese cannot be controlled or regulated easily, but the flights of humanly operated aircraft can. Secondly, I can see no reason why people should be allowed to operate drones unless they at least have a VFR pilot license. Last but not least, you would change your opinion quickly if your wife and children all died in the plane crash caused by a drone. And there is really no reason to wait for it to happen.
I can see lots of reasons a drone operator would not need a pilots license. I have a little Hubsan X4 - it is six inches long and weighs about 100 grams. No real time camera. It's small enough that you lose visual contact with it at about 200 feet. Flight time is 5 minutes.
You don't need a private pilots license for this one. Maybe a brief class like a hunter's safety class to bring the idiots up to some sort of speed, but not something that takes thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to acquire.
Re: (Score:3)
What you have isn't a drone, it is an RC copter. Video transmission or autonomous flight is required to be considered a drone.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get the exact same airframe with a camera. You can get a camera to fit the Hubsan Q4 (less than 2" across) as well. They fall into the same category as the big quads, as far as the FAA is concerned (and the camera doesn't actually matter to the FAA)
Re: (Score:2)
It has to do with how it is controlled.
RC Aircraft are controlled by watching them, they can't go too high, and can't be controlled where you can't see them
Drones are controlled by watching through a remote camera or by GPS waypoints
They are different to the FAA; RC Aircraft already have laws regulating them and have for a long time. Drones fall under a mix of manned aircraft rules and RC aircraft rules, so congress asked the FAA to properly regulate them.
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter pilot here. I agree with you about geese vs drones. Not sure whether you meant that drones should require a full pilot license? I think maybe just a license that would take about 8 hours of study in order to pass the test. Make sure people understand the regs/airspace, and give the FAA something to take away if they abuse the privilege.
I also was posting recently in a Slashdot discussion on drones suggesting that requiring ADS-B is not such a big hardship, especially if they develop an ADS-B lite
Re: (Score:2)
You know how much damage my 2 lb "drone" will do if it hits your thousand pound helicopter?
That's a trick question, the rotor wash will knock my "drone" out of the air before it even gets close.
As for ADS-B, it apparently costs several thousand for a system (including transponder), there's no battery-powered version (you really want it sucking power from the flight battery?), and it's going to weigh more than the drone.
Re: (Score:3)
1) I've been flying helicopters 30 years and I think I know what will and will not take down a helicopter. Ask PHI and the families of the 9 people who were killed when a 2.4 pound bird went through the windshield. You think a 2.4 bird is going to cause less damage than a 2.5 pound drone? And... are you willing to limit drones to a maximum weight of 2.5 pounds or would you like to be able to fly larger ones in the airspace?
By the same token, I expect private and commercial aircraft to stay the *F%$* above 500 feet unless taking off or landing.
2) You might expect aircraft to stay above 500 feet, but you have no regulatory basis
Re: (Score:2)
I don't always recommend violence but when I do, I recommend a punch in the nuts.
Seriously, if you're a hobbyist, go find this idiot and record yourself punching them in the nuts. It's for the good of your own hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
or rather should really earn prison time.
Because the people are inherently dangerous to those immediately around them and thus don't deserve to be part of a population and thus contribute to an over crowded prison system problem despite literally being a hazard to less people than someone driving a car on their daily work commute?
The idea that everyone should be in prison is really explaining the USA's incarceration rate.
Yet somehow you can mow down people with a car in the streets in a drunken stupor and it's all good and fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the road death toll and compare it to the growth in prisons. There are countless examples of people killing others in a car and getting away with a hefty fine and a driving ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, deliberately and knowingly entering reserved airspace dozens of times probably should earn someone a hefty fine, or rather should really earn prison time. Doodling around in the flights paths of commercial airliners constitutes a ridiculous and needless risk if the FAA complaint is accurate.
And this is the real question. Did these guys really operate drones where there was a real risk of interfering with an aircraft? Or were they merely operating them in airspace which an airplane could conceivably be in, though unlikely if they are not actively engaged in a kamikaze flight? If they really did operate at a risk to commercial air travel, etc., nail them up, pronto. If not, this is ever so much bullshit and bullying. How do we find out which it really was?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's high time to define UAVs and the subsequent subsets. I've typed it out once before and had an addition made so there's that. I'm not even a hobbyist. I just don't want you guys getting raped for a hobby that's being usurped by idiots.
'They bluntly allege'? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is that all about? I rather like the idea of being able to board an aircraft and not have any problems because some yokel with too much money decides it's fun to fly a piece of plastic into the engine of my plane. Please FAA - keep on fining!
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be a very hard thing to fly a drone into a jet engine. Like hitting a hole in one from 100 miles away. Even if you managed it, the engine (the whole plane, actually) is designed to ingest birds - it probably won't crash the plane. Even if it did damage the engine, there are at least two of those.
Re: (Score:2)
On purpose? Nah, piece of piss.
I can think of three ways in the first 30 seconds, only one of which is actually getting good at piloting the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The ascent rate of a drone is somewhere on the order of 5-10 m/s, decent obviously much higher. A jet on approach is going over 70 m/s, and descending at up to say 15 m/s. That is about the only way you'd have a shot at it, and the conditions are far from ideal. I'd love to hear your 3 methods.
Re: (Score:2)
1 - bloody good piloting. Not one I'd recommend
2 - autonomous drone, using image recognition to head for the only round black object that's increasing in size towards it
3 - mentioned elsewhere on this discussion: swarm of drones, arrayed in a pattern that maximises chance of contact
Or combine 2 and 3, with a swarm that includes seekers
4 - add fishing wire between the swarm members, with feathers or something on them. Not sure if that one would work, the wing may drag them clear of the engine before it sucke
Air safety relies on enforcement of rules (Score:5, Interesting)
It did not matter the Air Traffic Control violated 1 km horizontal separation and 1000 feet vertical separation without a mid air collision. If the rule was violated the incident report must be filed. All rule violations must be filed. Accidents are too infrequent to infer statistically significant conclusions.
Among the federal agencies FAA has a very good track record of amending the rules and regulations to help improve safety. It does not simply issue fines for incident violations. When some rule violation becomes too frequent it analyses the situation and comes up with a solution too.
For example, when the pilots go through the check lists, if it gets interrupted, the rule is to start from the top all over again. Pilots should NOT try to remember what was done and continue from the middle. But this rule was getting violated too often. They analyzed and found that the check lists were getting too long and it was quite tedious to start from the top. They broke the check list into sections, and amended the rule "Start from the top of section. Each section should start in its own page. No section should have more than so many checks". This is how we achieved the safety in air travel. It might hurt the free market fanatics to accept it, but FAA is one federal agency that is doing its job right.
May be a little too slow to respond, and may be it has some conflict of goals in its charter, "to promote safety" as well as "to promote air travel". It is high time we remove the requirement for it to promote air travel and make safety its single goal.
In fact its procedures draw universal acclaim and some medical researchers are arguing for check lists for surgeons for their procedures.
If FAA says this drone operator flew their machines with reckless disregard for safety, they did. They should pay the fine.
Rules v. consequences (Score:2)
Air safety is achieved by rigorous enforcement of rules. One can not show the lack of adverse consequences for a violated rule as defense for violating the rule. At the time the rule violation happened, the violator did not know it would have no adverse consequences.
As an engineer, I like this kind of thinking because it is fair and predictable--a person who breaks a rule gets the same punishment regardless of whether it causes harm, because the rule is deigned to prevent the *possibility* of harm.
As a human being, I know our society is too emotional to do that in the real world. We punish drunk driving differently if it causes a death, for example, and let the *luck* of whether someone dies greatly determine the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Speeding causes deaths, too. Should speeding, even a little, be punished as severely as drunk driving? People die from falling objects too; should you be sent to jail for accidentally knocking a flowerpot off your balcony? A lack of serious consequences is no defense for violating the rule, but it is a mitigating circumstance when it comes to setting the punishment. And conversely, rule-breaking may well earn you a stiffer punishment in case you do cause an accident. If you hit someone with your car and you were found to be speeding or drunk, you'll be more likely to be held fully responsible than if you were operating your car within the rules of the road.
Punishing a person more because they were unlucky and someone died is the cruel part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are begging the question, by defining vehicular manslaughter as a crime. It doesn't have to be. We are creating a crime for "drunk driving and being unlucky enough that someone dies."
What is fair to the rulebreaker is punishing a drunk driver for the crime of manslaughter discounted by his chance of causing it. People are notoriously bad at estimating their chances of having a problem.
I think it's actually incredibly shortsighted to say the lucky ones cause no harm--they were lucky, and the harm they
Drunk driving, FAA and police (Score:2)
The way police "fight" drunk driving is by creating very heavy punishment, but enforce it lackadaisically. The probability of getting caught is low, but if you do get caught the punishment is severe. The ExpectedCost = Sum over the driving population (probability of getting caught * severity of punishment). This leads to widespread rule vio
Re: (Score:2)
No, the "free market fanatics" don't attack the FAA in "every possible way", we attack the FAA (and other regulatory agencies) in two specific ways: (1) we question the extent of powers they have been granted, usually based on lobbying by special interests, and (2) we point out that rule making in such agencies is always and inevitably dominated by special interests (pilots and corporations in the case of the FAA).
Righ
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing to stop Congress from enacting a law and asking FAA to re-evaluate the existing airspace for all users competing for it. Heck, FCC does it all the time in spectrum allocation. It allows free use of the spectrum, with power limits and range limits. Same way, FAA can be mandated to review the airspace allocation policies and come up with a legal
Re: (Score:2)
That's a misleading statement of the FAA's job, and its job is anything but simple, since it necessarily involves balancing a lot of conflicting interests.
My point is that pushing for such changes is what you denounce as "free
Re: (Score:2)
That attitude works well provided that "the rule" is designed based on large amounts of statistical data, so that the cost and benefit of different rules were weighed against each other and the optimal decision was made. That's engineering.
But most government rules don't work
Re: (Score:2)
For example, when it comes to drone flights, why should drone flights be encumbered by general aviation at all? Why are low-flying executive joy rides more valuable than energy efficient, low cost commercial drones?
Because General Aviation is a lot more than low-flying executives and it's been around and well regulated since the 1930s. Drones and GA can coexist. Why do you argue as if it's an either or situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Because GA pilots do. They don't want competition for the few paying jobs there are flying a small plane (including aerial photography), so they push for these crazy rules which mean you need a full airworthiness certificate, a pilot's license, a flight plan, and all those other bits of bureaucratic minutia t
Re: (Score:3)
That's not quite how it works: the company should have the option to go to court, just like you should have the option of contesting your traffic ticket in court.
Re: (Score:2)
They do. Once they've exhausted administrative remedies and posted a bond for the entire fine amount. I'm sure the courts will get around to the case before they go bankrupt for lack of liquidity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's tough to love the FAA when, for most of us, we associate the TSA with flying.
I agree with this, but they're not related. The FAA does a fabulous job of keeping air travel safe and it's because of rigorous enforcement of best practices combined with deep analysis of every fault or potential fault. As a libertarian I think I have the bona fides to say that this is a great example of what government should be doing and how it should do it.
That said, the drone industry moves way, way, way quicker than the airplane industry and the FAA simply hasn't been ready to handle it. I don't ac
Re: (Score:2)
1) There's a lot more of them now.
2) They are more newsworthy now. A pilot saying "I saw a model airplane when I was approaching the runway" wouldn't have made the news before drones were in fashion.
3) Quadcopters are under the same regulations as other model aircraft. Namely no commercial use, period. The FAA loves to fine or threaten aerial photographers for this.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA regulates pilots, planes, airports, and airspace.
The TSA is security theatre and a government jobs program.
There is nothing in common betwixt the two.
Their is an "A".
Were you endangered? (Score:5, Insightful)
SkyPan operated the 43 flights in the New York Class B airspace without receiving an air traffic control clearance to access it, the FAA alleges. Additionally, the agency alleges the aircraft was not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment. The FAA further alleges that on all 65 flights, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration, and SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations. SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property, the FAA alleges.
If you have flown to New York and Chicago between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014 you might have been endangered by this company. It operated drones which were not airworthy, it operated drones without the transponder to alert the ATC about its altitude, location and speed. These machines are too small to show up in radar. Without a transponder they are nearly invisible to radar.
New York is where both engines of USAir flight were hit by soft bodied geese weighing less than 20 pounds each and forced the plane to crash land in the Hudson river. The drones have hard metal parts and hard plastic. They would do far more damage to the plane.
Re:Were you endangered? (Score:5, Insightful)
It operated drones without an Airworthiness Certificate. Note quite the same thing as (not airworthy).
Note that very few, if any, of the RC model aircraft that have been flying since before most of you were born had Airworthiness Certificates, and yet there was no screaming, wailing, and tearing of clothes.
Problem seems to be that EVVVVIIIIILLLL!!!! word "drone", not the actual physical object in question....
Re: (Score:3)
Note that most of those "RC model aircraft that have been flying since before most of you were born" also didn't fly in restricted airspace, or commercial flight lanes. This has nothing to do with it being a drone and everything to do with how it was being flown. It would be the same situation of some RC flyer decided to be a douche in the same way. Except he'd probably also be facing jail time.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. There's so much class B and otherwise restricted airspace around all the way to ground level in most metropolitan areas that tons of hobbyists are flying in it. For instance, all of the District of Columbia and most of Northern Virginia. I fly in New Jersey 15 miles from Manhattan, and I'm just barely outside the class B limit.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA may really have to change how it does Class B airspace. Right now it's 'to the ground' because it's easy and there really wasn't any reason not to do that. They may have to carve out low altitude corridors for drones only.
Of course, that effort just might be in a race with the heat death of the Universe, but it's a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
New York is where both engines of USAir flight were hit by soft bodied geese weighing less than 20 pounds each and forced the plane to crash land in the Hudson river. The drones have hard metal parts and hard plastic. They would do far more damage to the plane.
No, a drone would probably not damage a plane in the manner of the 'Miracle on the Hudson'. Even if a drone took out a single engine, all planes and pilots are certified to fly on the remaining powerplant. The problem is that the US Air plane ran into a flock of geese which took out both engines simultaneously. At least so far, drones have not been flocking (that would be scary.
I do think that one answer to this is to develop small, low power transponders that will fit on a drone. Should be possible and
Re: (Score:2)
At least so far, drones have not been flocking (that would be scary.
erm. http://www.popsci.com/watch-fl... [popsci.com]
Sorry for scaring you. Search Google for a real horror show.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the jumbo jet be forced to leave course because of the drone? The transponders are useful for last-ditch safety measures, but they don't replace not having the drones in the way of the airplane. What do you, as the pilot, do when there's several drones in front of you and you can't maintain safe separation from them all?
Re: (Score:2)
New York is where both engines of USAir flight were hit by soft bodied geese weighing less than 20 pounds each and forced the plane to crash land in the Hudson river. The drones have hard metal parts and hard plastic. They would do far more damage to the plane.
As this is an obvious design flaw in the plane with or without drones, perhaps the FAA should consider mandating suitable filters on the engine intakes for commercial planes, instead of trying to ban anything that might cross a plane's path.
Is 'unauthorised' flight defined clearly enough? (Score:2)
Drone manufacturers aren't the problem (Score:3)
It's not the manufacturers, it's the users. Those of us who fly rockets - and all the traditional RC aircraft pilots - know the regs and we stick to them pretty damned closely because it's safety. The manufacturers are selling a product, and while it needs to be airworthy and safe to operate, they have no control over where it's operated.
I can only fly certain impulse rockets near my house because of air traffic restrictions. That doesn't mean manufacturers should make bigger engines - it just means if I w
Don't Fly Here Map (Score:2)
mapbox has a really useful map https://www.mapbox.com/drone/n... [mapbox.com]. FAA have a really simple description https://www.faa.gov/regulation... [faa.gov]
It shows the exclusion zones around the airports. Defined as Class B airspace.
The rules are fairly simple. Ground or above is controlled airspace. ATC must know and must be able to know where your aircraft is. You could possibly argue that below the treeline/building line should be considered safe, but the rules are clear.
Likely the company repeatedly flew in the area
Re: (Score:2)
Ground or above is controlled airspace.
So literally throwing a football or Frisbee around in Class B airspace is illegal?
How about walking? That's also above the ground.
Re: Don't Fly Here Map (Score:2)
If you consider those as aircraft and the faa would likely consider them aircraft then yes.
Obviously not.
A drone is a craft capable of sustained flight in a 2 mile hemisphere.
Below treeline for something that is capable of flying up a mile in the sky is clearly an aircraft. A ball is unlikely to go above tree line, unless you are catapulting, in which case if you go high or into the flight path your could probably run into issues. Ballistic aircraft, possibly?
Some of the autonomous drone people I know h
Setting a dangerous precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the problem: If you allow the FAA to get away with this crap, then you have lost the war and have given up power to yet another byzantine bureaucracy. This five-mile rule is ridiculous for several reasons: 1) Airports generally don't have 360-degree approach patterns (heliports notwithstanding and even they have approach and departure rules), 2) No airport pattern is lower than 800 feet except on final and departure legs which are clearly defined and those don't need 5 miles, 3) Where did they come up with that figure for the fine and who gets the money?
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose you've read up on the history and rationale behind Class B airspace? No? You should.
TL;DR - planes don't always go where they planned to go. Emergencies crop up. During said emergencies, the pilots are busy with the emergency and not terribly interested in looking for random balloons, Cessnas, drones and other rif raf. Radars tend to work best if they have a clear sweep of the sky. Five miles at several hundred miles per hour is a very short time frame.
And other important technical issues.
It'
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am a pilot and I remember when the airspace was shaped like an upside-down wedding cake. Made a lot more sense. Now it's devolved into a case of "Screw it, we don't want to have to think about it so we're taking all the space." I believe a better compromise exists. For example: at smaller regional airfields, the traffic is very light and usually small therefore they don't need as much space. Ultimately, you can't ever legislate against somebody deciding to do something stupid. However, the
Re: (Score:2)
vehicles have gone from tiny foam based vehicles
You have that backwards. Tiny and foam based is only about 10-15 years old (thanks to lithium polymer batteries and electronic miniaturization). Vehicles used to be large, 2m+, and powered by a 2kg, 1kw loud methanol or diesel powered motor.
As advertised on slashdot [youtube.com]
The problem is (Score:2)
The US and Canada plans to increase no-fly areas around airport to 9 or even 20 miles for civil UAVs. It means basically banning civil drones. While there was not a single serious accident yet involving a civil drone. In the whole world,
You left out the word (Score:2)
Not a single test was ever done (Score:2)
All we need is a testing facility and frangible design of civil UAVs. After a collision with the speed of more than 150 - 200 km/h UAV should just fall apart as if made from sand. Problem solved.
They have GPS anyway (Score:2)
Of course someone would hack
there dead wrong hear (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's ridiculous. You even hear of people getting lengthy prison sentences just for driving a car! Do we need these kind of government regulations??
True, they happened to be driving their car at great speed through a crowd of pedestrians on the side walk, but still. As long as we can phrase criminally reckless behaviour as innocent sounding activities, the government should keep their nose out of it!
Re: (Score:2)
And no one is better at phrasing reckless behavior as innocent-sounding activities than drone operators.
Re: (Score:2)
Go try rocketry as a hobby. Then come back and bitch.
We worked it out, though it took time - and we had to deal with BOTH the FAA and BATFE. Be an adult and work with the FAA to keep both drones and air traffic safe. Be lucky you don't have to sue the BATFE.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep your toy away from my property and away from planes. Quit trying to cast your fucking hobby as some sort of virtuous enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry: your property will only be invaded by low-flying delivery drones, not toys. Take joy in the fact that they all carry transponders and have certificates, while you watch and listen to them buzzing over your patio like a swarm of locusts.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a high power pressure washer ready. No need for bullets, and the effect will be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that taking down a drone that flies through FAA-defined navigable airspace (in your backyard) will be a felony. In fact, it might be treated the same as shooting down an aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Large enough to carry a camera and autonomous control guidance system.
Re: (Score:2)
The company operated the UAVs in class B airspace over New York City. It's not "away from an airport" but is less than 5 miles from LaGuardia Airport, and is also the densest metropolitan area in the country. One of the issues was a series of flights over 432 Park Ave, which is the second-tallest building in NYC at nearly 1400 feet. The company took their 360* VR images up to 1400 feet, as well some separate aerial shots from a helicopter that were legal.
It's not illegal to fly over NYC. But if you plan to
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would encourage the spread of an "act first, apologise later" mentality. If the breaches committed by SkyPan were severe and endangered safety, then the simple fact that they have now altered their behaviour should not excuse them from penalties in respect of their earlier breaches.
This is true in any area of law, but is particularly true in safety-critical areas. It only takes one drone getting sucked into a jet engine to endanger or end the lives of hundreds of people. What you absolutely do
Re: (Score:2)
That is an impressively paranoid screed.
You really should stay in the basement, but keep up on the Vitamin D pills, you'll need them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it is serious, it is just the Liberal version of the conservative troll. He attributes incorrect policies to a political movement, then demonizes them for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, drones that didn't qualify as model aircraft (non line of sight or for commercial purposes) were completely forbidden. The current regulation sets up a system by which you can have commercial drones if they have a special experimental airworthiness certficate, transponder, flight plan, the special permission of the FAA, and they're flown by a licensed pilot.
Re: (Score:2)