FAA finally sets rules for piloting small drones
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I think the plaintiff of a trespass action because jimbob flew a drone over his property isn't going to have any real damages, and usually attorney fees aren't recoverable for most torts. Congratulations Joe property owner, you just paid a lot more than you're going to get back even if you do win.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
I looked over the PDF and the categories and as someone else pointed out, each category references covered props. Huh?
If this is just related to copter like drones I could understand, but I feel there is some confusion in what the FAA considers drone and what may be considered radio controlled aircraft.
I own a small scale Piper Acher RC plane. It does clearly weigh over .55 (what? the PDF does not state lbs or grams) and it did not come with a prop guard nor is there any way to retrofit something. There are many thousand RC airplanes (fixed wing, propeller driven or glider) that exceed the .55 restriction and I do not see any reference to them. I tend to fly my RC planes on my own property as I have enough acreage to fly in.
Other than registration by human operators, I figure these rulings will impact manufacturers more and they will be the one making the most noise if they don't like the rules.
If this is just related to copter like drones I could understand, but I feel there is some confusion in what the FAA considers drone and what may be considered radio controlled aircraft.
I own a small scale Piper Acher RC plane. It does clearly weigh over .55 (what? the PDF does not state lbs or grams) and it did not come with a prop guard nor is there any way to retrofit something. There are many thousand RC airplanes (fixed wing, propeller driven or glider) that exceed the .55 restriction and I do not see any reference to them. I tend to fly my RC planes on my own property as I have enough acreage to fly in.
Other than registration by human operators, I figure these rulings will impact manufacturers more and they will be the one making the most noise if they don't like the rules.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
Not a lawyer. Don't work for the FAA. Helicopter pilot. Disclaimer done.
If the aircraft being flown meets the criteria for not needing a transponder, it doesn't need a transponder. If you add "stickers" or paint to it, it's still that same aircraft.
The battery question is a good one... as the powerplant is part of the aircraft. So in my opinion, if the plain old UAV in a RTF mode is under the limit you're good to go. If adding the batteries to make it RTF puts it above that weight, in my opinion you need the transponder.
Don't even get me started on how stupid all of this is to begin with... just offering my opinion. If you want real "clarification" you can write the FAA. Good news: if you're right they'll agree with you and all of us will have more rights. Bad news: they may clarify it in a way that f***s us all.
Again, all my opinion. I am not a lawyer. I do not work for the FAA.
Upvote
0
(5
/
-5)
Actually, no. The term “aircraft” is firmly defined in the FARs. The FARs are not some special thing. They are just the titles under the United States Code that pertain to aviation.
And yes, weight at time of flight is what matters, period, by explicit definition in the rest of the FARs, and doesn’t need to be “implied,” anyway, as written. How can you possibly read that cited sentence any other way?
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
I think the long term solution is an online database that can show the location of drones in near real time, particularly should they fly over 500 AGL. The airspace is a shared resource and part of being a good neighbor is to show other aircraft where you are.
But it will take a long time before drones are sophisticated enough to do this in mass, so rules like this are good enough for now.
But it will take a long time before drones are sophisticated enough to do this in mass, so rules like this are good enough for now.
Upvote
-7
(2
/
-9)
With.
Aircraft regulations are always based on weights presumed to occur during flight. There are even regulations about weight distribution inside an aircraft (for obvious center of gravity reasons). Drones especially so since they're pure kinetic energy flying around. The more weight it carries, the higher the potential energy, the greater the damage exerted if it hits something. Since it can't fly without a battery, the battery would count as part of the weight specification.
So, yes, and yes, I'd think. The listed weight of the drone may not protect you if the drone misbehaves and smacks something and damages it, resulting in a "weigh-in". If the weight of the drone was enough to require a module, it would need to have one.
And it would STILL have to have one if you ever flew it over crowds regardless of its weight.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
Last year a cousin of my wife spotted a drone (with camera) peeking in through the windows of her house while she was home alone. I would want the option to somehow force such a drone down (undamaged) so the owner would have to acknowledge the incident and be held accountable...that sort of behavior goes beyond simple "trespass."
Upvote
18
(27
/
-9)
"Drones" are so dangerous that they're being regulated into extinction, but at least i can still do something safe like carrying a loaded AR-15 into the local Wal-Mart. Freedom!
Everyone talks about this rule as if it's aimed at "drones", mostly because any pinhead can buy a cheap quadcopter and do something stupid to annoy his neighbors or the authorities.
Unfortunately, the rule has significant collateral damage. The combination of the "transponder" and "400-foot max altitude" rules will essentially destroy model soaring as a hobby.
Model sailplanes have no motors or cameras at all. A sailplane can soar for hours at a time, but not when weighted down with a transponder. And sailplanes use thermals for lift, but thermals get bigger and "liftier" as they get higher, so it's common to fly a sailplane at 1000 feet or so.
I guess it's a Good Thing that they're limited to an altitude of 400', because my planes won't be able to get any higher when carrying a transponder.
Anybody want to buy $30k worth of model sailplanes?
Everyone talks about this rule as if it's aimed at "drones", mostly because any pinhead can buy a cheap quadcopter and do something stupid to annoy his neighbors or the authorities.
Unfortunately, the rule has significant collateral damage. The combination of the "transponder" and "400-foot max altitude" rules will essentially destroy model soaring as a hobby.
Model sailplanes have no motors or cameras at all. A sailplane can soar for hours at a time, but not when weighted down with a transponder. And sailplanes use thermals for lift, but thermals get bigger and "liftier" as they get higher, so it's common to fly a sailplane at 1000 feet or so.
I guess it's a Good Thing that they're limited to an altitude of 400', because my planes won't be able to get any higher when carrying a transponder.
Anybody want to buy $30k worth of model sailplanes?
Upvote
13
(30
/
-17)
3 miles of viability for nighttime flying on a drone that weighs a half pound seem excessive to me. That's just a gut reaction, hopefully someone can speak to that, but I'm just thinking about how bright any old flashlight I have is compared to how much it and its lithium battery weigh. It seems this could exclude a certain size drone from being able to fly at night at all.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
Something I'm not sure of, do any of the new rules imply that a drone can't fly unless it can connect to the Internet? While I don't currently have a drone, I do hike and bike in places where there is zero cell phone/internet connectivity (and I carry a personal locator beacon just because of that). And these are the sorts of places where I would be interested in flying a drone.
---
As was pointed out below (in a nice way) I can't read and that the internet option was deleted - so this question is really moot.
Please don't keep down voting me because of my lack of reading skills
---
As was pointed out below (in a nice way) I can't read and that the internet option was deleted - so this question is really moot.
Please don't keep down voting me because of my lack of reading skills
Upvote
-6
(6
/
-12)
You’d be surprised at how far away you can see a fairly low-powered LED.
Navigation lights aren’t flashlights or headlight equivalents. They’re the colored lights you see on the sides of aircraft or watercraft that let OTHER aircraft know your aircraft’s orientation, for collision avoidance purposes.
I do, however, question the utility of such lights on a tiny drone, where, from 3 miles away, they’re going to look like a single point of yellow light (red plus green equals yellow), to me, flying at several times the drone’s speed, with tons of other likely light noise near the ground making it further indistinguishable from or completely drowned out by said noise (traffic lights, cars, homes, etc).
On a larger drone? Sure. The nav light thing really should be based on size, not mass, IMO. Put a strobe on them, like any other plane, for basic collision avoidance. Nav lights are gonna be useless.
Edit to add:
I suppose, with proper reflector design, the lights would be directional enough to be discernable from each other, but that doesn't fix the problem of sighting them against ground light noise. Nor does it really help you in any meaningful way, anyway, unless the lights change color depending on the direction the drone is actually moving, since they can move in any direction at any time. You'd need a bunch of them around the perimeter of the drone or, otherwise, artificially restrict them to only be able to move up, down, and "forward," with respect to the orientation of the nav lights, for this to be a viable aid to anyone, anywhere. The more I think about it, the more useless nav lights on small drones sound, and the more useful a simple anti-collision strobe is about all that they should have required, under a certain size.
Upvote
17
(20
/
-3)
For the record, the glow of a cigarette can be seen from five miles away on a moonless night by human eyes. One of those wilderness survival facts I learned decades ago when people were still stupid enough to be smoking in the woods at night. Toss in one of those panels of micro-LED's and you can probably send signals to the ISS from a Earth-bound drone.
I'd imagine the ultra-bright flashing LED's they have these days would work just fine to be seen from a mere three miles away without impacting battery life in any significant way. A lot of drones come with lights already attached and flashing, and they're the really light-weight ones.
I don't see lights on a half pound drone being impractical or insurmountable.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
Presuming your drivers license was issued by a U.S. state, it's honored by all fifty states, and Canada. That's mostly streamlined. If you have issues with your local DMV then your issues are with the administration of the license.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
Keep in mind that the requirement for “no exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin” is specifically for “routine operations over people.” It doesn’t sound like you’re planning to operate your unmanned aircraft regularly over human populations, so I don’t think that portion of the rules would apply.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
normally butters
Ars Praefectus
Weight and balance calculations are done very carefully for commercial aviation, but there are still a couple gray areas that the FAA would rather not get into despite some evidence they should. By far the best example is passenger weights. Under FAA rules, an adult male passenger weighs 200 pounds including carry-on baggage and clothing. The loadsheet uses ballpark average passenger weights, not actual weights.
This has become an issue in the past, particularly with small aircraft, like the overloaded Beechcraft that crashed on takeoff from Charlotte (Air Midwest 5481), but also with charter flights like Arrow Air 1285, which stalled on final approach in part because it was loaded with troops from the 101st Airborne Division and their gear, which weighs a lot more than 200 pounds per man. A charter flight for the NY Giants might be another example where the flight crew should really question the FAA average passenger weight.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
Internet isn’t required and isn’t even an option. As the article notes, they got rid of the network-based Remote ID concept in the final rule. This would have required updating your location (and your drone’s location in the air) to the FAA in real time over the Internet.
Instead it’s a “broadcast” based system, which means your drone/unmanned aircraft will need to have some kind of broadcast transmitter capable of sending out its location and yours on the ground, in real time, for local law enforcement use if deemed necessary. Which means it’ll need to be a standardized broadcast format that law enforcement can easily monitor.
If your drone doesn’t have a Remote ID broadcaster built in (and I’m still trying to figure out if any do now), then you’ll need to get an external “broadcast module” to attach to the drone that sends out a similar signal. Since a broadcast module won’t necessarily talk to your drone and base station and won’t know your exact location on the ground, scanning through the final rule, it looks like one requirement for using a “broadcast module” is that the operator must maintain line-of-sight with the drone at all times.
I’m guessing that’s so law enforcement can at least assume the operator can be found within a certain limited radius of the drone... if the operator is obeying the law, that is.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
You have way more faith in police, lawyers and bureaucrats using common sense than I do. If a rule can be used by administrations to harass people, it will. Would you trust Trump's FAA to use common sense? Then you don't want this penny ante rule to give rise to enforcement actions.
Upvote
2
(12
/
-10)
Would have been nice if the FAA just forced low powered ADS-B on drones. Then airplanes could pick it up on already established tech and not possibly need yet another expensive radio. Admittedly, in most cases we probably aren't going to pick up RemoteID before slamming into the drone (assuming it's being flown irresponsibly) but it'd be nice for when we're practicing slow flight at lower altitudes or in airport traffic pattern and someone is ignoring the law.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
Misery loves company. The world at large is being introduced to FAA regs.
When ADS-B out requirement took effect (January 1st this year actually) the least expensive way to retrofit an aircraft was an ADS-B transmitter which screws into a navigation light socket and draws power from it. (And still acts as a navigation light because 14 CFR 91.205 is still a thing.) This minimum cost solution was $8000. Goes up from there if you want an ADS-B out integrated with avionics.
Join the wallet pain club. Everyone is welcome.
When ADS-B out requirement took effect (January 1st this year actually) the least expensive way to retrofit an aircraft was an ADS-B transmitter which screws into a navigation light socket and draws power from it. (And still acts as a navigation light because 14 CFR 91.205 is still a thing.) This minimum cost solution was $8000. Goes up from there if you want an ADS-B out integrated with avionics.
Join the wallet pain club. Everyone is welcome.
Upvote
3
(11
/
-8)
This won't solve that. People flying illegally definitely won't keep positional transmitters active and/or accurate.
At some point (very soon), drones will be fire-and-forget levels of cheap, where selling 1 good photo or video will far outweigh the cost of abandoning a drone on an illegal flight path rather than risk recovering it. Not that some idiots won't try to save a penny anyway, but even so...
Upvote
10
(14
/
-4)
Federal aviation laws pre-empt state “air trespass” laws, so that lawful operation through airspace over private property is consistently, well, lawful.
However, there are state laws (such as invasion of privacy laws) which federal aviation laws expressly do not pre-empt. If someone flies a drone over your property, that’s lawful. If they use it to take photos or video of you within your private enclosed property, that may still be a criminal offense.
For example, in Texas (of course) there is an extremely strict criminal statute forbidding using drones to photograph people on their private property:
Interestingly, it’s a criminal offense to take each image, and also a criminal offense to “possess, disclose, display, distribute, or use” each image. But it is a defense to the law if you destroy the image as soon as you learn it was taken illegally. So people who didn’t know they were dealing in illegally taken images can avoid prosecution... by dumping the images as soon as they learn they’re illegal. If they keep using them after that point, they assume criminal liability themselves...
There are exceptions to the rule (in subpart 423.002), but they were thoughtfully created enough that they don’t allow for taking photos through people’s windows without their permission.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
I will of course admit to not having read plenty of parts of the FARs that apply to ATPs because I am not an ATP (yet...some day, maybe). BUT, at least in smaller planes, you bet your caboose I’m having as accurate as possible information before I, as pilot in command, decide if we’re even leaving the ramp, because it matters a whole lot more, the smaller the plane is, since each person or item is a bigger proportion of the overall weight.
But even that’s not gonna be perfect, either. I’m not gonna weigh each passenger, obviously. I will, instead, use the weight on their license plus or minus a decent estimate based on how they physically appear. Baggage is absolutely going on a scale if I’m flying you, though, especially if it goes in a more rearward compartment.
One thing the FARs do say, though, in all cases, is that it is the pilot in command’s ultimate authority (even though various operations are explicitly allowed to be offloaded). So, in that regard, it’s de jure unambiguous, but that really only helps when pointing the finger after the fact, rather than actually preventing the situations altogether.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I wonder if they’ll combine this information with what’s already being fed through the ADS-B data.
If you’re equipped with ADS-B IN, like on a G1000 or something, that’d make it visible to you, anyway, since the ground station would be relaying that data.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If you have been flying them at 1,000 feet you have already been breaking the law.
Upvote
11
(14
/
-3)
This won’t be true. Not because drones won’t be cheap, but because manufacturers aren’t going to make and sell drones for the US market that don’t comply with the new FAA regs.
You’d have to import drones from other countries illegally, and they’d have to be brands of drone manufacturers disreputable enough that the manufacturer doesn’t care about getting in trouble with the FAA for not geofencing its drones to US compliance within US borders.
That suddenly isn’t such a cheap and simple operation anymore. Sure, people with money and motive to evade detection (like drug cartels) will do it for awhile. But you know what will become a screaming red flag for law enforcement to go chase after immediately? Unmanned drones popping up with no Remote ID.
Upvote
3
(6
/
-3)
So, I have a smol drone which I bought as a curiosity and because it's under the weight limit. It's about as basic as it gets, the only automatic things it can do is attempt to take off and hover at a preset non-configurable height, and attempt to land gracefully by reducing throttle.
When the rule says "propeller guards" though, is the simple circular shroud enough, or are they expecting full encasement of the rotors? The props are pretty small and while I'm not about to stick my finger in them to find out, I kinda doubt they'd actually cut skin. It would take a fairly freaky accident (or deliberate stupidity) for the blades to even hit someone.
Also... I'm probably not going to bother anymore, if I would need to put new guards on it, the guards put it over the weight limit and then I'd need to register it and then also get a transmitter for it. Drones under the weight limit are so light Mando could breathe on it (without taking his helmet off) and blow it a mile away.
When the rule says "propeller guards" though, is the simple circular shroud enough, or are they expecting full encasement of the rotors? The props are pretty small and while I'm not about to stick my finger in them to find out, I kinda doubt they'd actually cut skin. It would take a fairly freaky accident (or deliberate stupidity) for the blades to even hit someone.
Also... I'm probably not going to bother anymore, if I would need to put new guards on it, the guards put it over the weight limit and then I'd need to register it and then also get a transmitter for it. Drones under the weight limit are so light Mando could breathe on it (without taking his helmet off) and blow it a mile away.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Ok the paint question is valid, but the battery question is stupid.
Obviously, the weight limit applies to a device as it weighs in-flight, or it’s not relevant. If you can fly it without a battery, then I guess it doesn’t apply.
Now the weight reference for planes refers to without fuel, so if you prefer a gas-powered drone...
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
-Magnets
-Rockets
-Rocket-magnets
-Magnetic rockets
-Trebuchets
/s
More realistically, I think propellers are still viable, but they'd have to be the kind that are embedded in the body of the drone. Like this one.
There are also models people are working on that are bladeless. Like this thing. Or this.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
This hobby is getting slowly killed. I am not interested in flying at some model park. The beauty is in exploring places to fly. Getting a foamie to a slope to get some ridge lift or trying to catch a thermal on a hot day. Trying to get the perfect nature/landscape shot from a stabilized camera drone. Flying a technically demanding long range flight on a system you yourself put together.
Most of these are either already illegal or they will soon be. You won't be able to fly anywhere interesting or in a manner that's interesting. Until now, at least for me, lot of the regulations weren't really enforced. So if you weren't doing stupid things like crashing into people or houses etc., you were mostly left alone. Once the location/id broadcasting is mandated and constant surveillance arrives, this will change.
I'm definitely exiting this hobby.
Most of these are either already illegal or they will soon be. You won't be able to fly anywhere interesting or in a manner that's interesting. Until now, at least for me, lot of the regulations weren't really enforced. So if you weren't doing stupid things like crashing into people or houses etc., you were mostly left alone. Once the location/id broadcasting is mandated and constant surveillance arrives, this will change.
I'm definitely exiting this hobby.
Upvote
-2
(15
/
-17)
Any covering of the propellers will decrease efficiency and negatively affect performance.
Upvote
-2
(3
/
-5)
If you prefer gas-powered, it’s still takeoff weight that matters. So you’d need to only fill it up to just under the limit. Filling it to over the limit would be a violation.
This is a viable strategy in a real airplane, too, when you’re slightly overweight, but don’t need full tanks to reach your destination plus required reserves. You can literally drain fuel from the tanks to remove weight to put you inside the envelope for the particular category you need the plane to fly in.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
EaseOfUseFan
Ars Scholae Palatinae
I frequently trout fish in areas with NO remote data abilities, not even cellular. I'm glad to see that comments pointing this out have had an impact in the rule-making process.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
It is hard to imagine that there are areas without cellphone coverage... yet there are plenty, and they're right where drone operation is actually likely - mountainous wilderness and rural areas. So technically both approaches are pure nonsense.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
The authorities will just subpoena the buyer and ask who sole them the picture. The evidence is the picture itself.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Federal judge dismisses case against Kentucky 'Drone Hunter'
Published Mar 24, 2017
"A federal judge in Kentucky has dismissed a lawsuit against William Meredith, a self-proclaimed 'Drone Hunter,' who shot down a $1500 drone that was flying over his property.
The pilot, David Boggs, sued Meredith last year claiming that his drone was flying in legal airspace as determined by the FAA and therefore was not trespassing. A 1946 Supreme Court decision asserted that a property owner's rights extend up to 83 feet in the air."
https://www.dpreview.com/news/582366948 ... one-hunter
The FAA claims control of air space from the ground up, but not ownership.
Property owners DO have rights including air space rights.
I have no illusions about the Amazons and Googles eventually succeeding in lobbying the FAA and Congress to write rules and laws essentially giving them (the corporations) eminent domain to all air space from the ground up.
But, the law is NOT clear on that at this point. And, the FAA rules regarding uncontrolled air space below 400 feet are few and far between, regarding drones.
(As an aside, my opinion is the corporations are equally interested in eliminating private and recreational drone owners from flying altogether by regulating them out of the air, sure as a load of buckshot.)
Published Mar 24, 2017
"A federal judge in Kentucky has dismissed a lawsuit against William Meredith, a self-proclaimed 'Drone Hunter,' who shot down a $1500 drone that was flying over his property.
The pilot, David Boggs, sued Meredith last year claiming that his drone was flying in legal airspace as determined by the FAA and therefore was not trespassing. A 1946 Supreme Court decision asserted that a property owner's rights extend up to 83 feet in the air."
https://www.dpreview.com/news/582366948 ... one-hunter
The FAA claims control of air space from the ground up, but not ownership.
Property owners DO have rights including air space rights.
I have no illusions about the Amazons and Googles eventually succeeding in lobbying the FAA and Congress to write rules and laws essentially giving them (the corporations) eminent domain to all air space from the ground up.
But, the law is NOT clear on that at this point. And, the FAA rules regarding uncontrolled air space below 400 feet are few and far between, regarding drones.
(As an aside, my opinion is the corporations are equally interested in eliminating private and recreational drone owners from flying altogether by regulating them out of the air, sure as a load of buckshot.)
Upvote
3
(7
/
-4)
This final rule only requires local broadcast (it could end up being Wi-Fi Direct / 2.4GHz based, looking at some of the proposals submitted during the rulemaking process). It needs to have enough range for nearby law enforcement hunting a drone to pick up the signal on portable equipment, it doesn’t need the range to reach the nearest airport tower, and broadcasting above-ground at such high power could create interference for people on the ground anyway.
Drones are still expected to maintain spatial separation, drones subject to these rules aren’t going to be in your airspace (and if they violate your airspace, these rules will be used to hunt down the violators). Commercial drones that are equipped with ADS-B OUT will be exempt from having a Remote ID under this rule.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Well yeah. Per the FARs, I'm not permitted below 500 feet AGL in a sparse area, anyway, or 2000 feet AGL in most wilderness areas, so we should already be well-separated, out away from an airport.
But people fly drones into controlled airspace on a daily basis, and MAN I'd sure appreciate TCAS alerting me to some asshat's drone over the numbers that the tower hasn't spotted (situation I've been in before). Some of these things are small and light-colored, making them hard to spot til they buzz by your left wing.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
I’m not arguing with that, I get what you want, and it’s not a bad thing to want.
I’m just saying, the idea here isn’t to make something compatible with ADS-B or TCAS. It’s to make something that helps LEOs quickly identify and locate anyone who strays into the approach and landing area of your airport, and deal with them.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I get ya, for sure. Just wishing.
Seems like a missed opportunity, since anything operating within controlled airspace would surely be able to reach a tower, whether it be from the drone itself or relayed from the controller.
Edit to add:
And I'm sure, once drones are compliant with this regulation, a tower would likely monitor for them and alert pilots in their airspace anyway. I mean they alert you to birds, if they notice them. It's just that anything at all that reduces the workload on ATC and pilots is generally a good thing. There's already enough to think about when behind the yolk.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)