New FAA rules for unmaned aircraft systems UAS.

Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by jazzviper1, Dec 26, 2019.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. Dec 26, 2019 #1

    jazzviper1

    jazzviper1

    jazzviper1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    35
    Just got an email from the FAA about a new proposed rule for drones/UAS, going to require some form of transponder. It will have big impact on R/C flying, which is one of my other hobbies. How long till they come at rocketry?

    https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/remote_id/
     
  2. Dec 26, 2019 #2

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    Amateur Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    780
    RC planes had a great run of self-regulation until the quadcopter revolution. Too many idiots making too many bad choices, et voila the FAA lends you a helping hand, forever.

    This is why I'm such a downer on e.g. YouTube videos showing people winning stupid rocketry prizes. We can expect this exact future if we don't help people learn good habits.
     
    Banzai88, grouch and Rob702Martinez like this.
  3. Dec 26, 2019 #3

    Steven

    Steven

    Steven

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    230
    Gets out model trains...
     
  4. Dec 26, 2019 #4

    watheyak

    watheyak

    watheyak

    Barnstormer

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Arizona
    I feel this is unfortunate but necessary. I also don't think it will be as detrimental as you might think. With the advent of ADS-B, such transponders could be small and inexpensive, perhaps even included the the receiver.

    If it stops clowns from flying their quad-copter on short final and on glideslope, I'm all for it. Then again, I fly an airplane more often than I drive a car, so my opinion is pretty biased. And I'm sure it will be just as unpopular.
     
  5. Dec 26, 2019 #5

    NateB

    NateB

    NateB

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NE Indiana
    I agree, it has become necessary. There has been too many close calls with quad-copters and manned aircraft. In our industry, many helicopter ambulance crews have dealt with people flying them around scenes, preventing a safe landing. We cruise at 150kts, bird strikes have come through our wind scree, I'd hate to see what a quad-copter would do to us. I can't say I have heard of any issues with rockets or other RC aircraft besides quads.
     
  6. Dec 27, 2019 #6

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    George Mason University
    Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace?
    Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data
    March 2016

    https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Dourado-Wildlife-Strikes-MOP-v1.pdf

    In December 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced a new interim final rule that for the first time imposed regulation on the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) as model aircraft. In the name of a safe national airspace, the new regulations require operators of drones weighing more than 250g (0.55 pounds) to register with the agency.

    Yet many drones weighing more than 250g are little more than toys. Do they really pose a risk to the airspace? To explore this question, we examine 25 years of data from the FAA’s wildlife strike database. Although aircraft collide with birds many thousands of times per year, only a tiny fraction of those collisions result in damage to the aircraft, much less human injuries or deaths. The most serious reported incidents typically involved flocks of large birds. Since the addition of UAS to the airspace is similar in many respects to an increase in the bird population, we conclude that the risk to the airspace caused by small drones (for example, weighing up to 2kg, or 4.41 pounds) flying in solitary formation is minimal.

    ESTIMATING THE PROBABILITY OF A COLLISION

    Our analysis has been based on actual bird strikes, not near misses or simple sightings. We find in general that small UAS under 2kg pose a negligible risk to the safety of the national airspace. We estimate that 6.12x10-6 collisions will cause damage to an aircraft for every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time. Or to put it another way, one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time. We further estimate that 6.12x10-8 collisions that cause an injury or fatality to passengers on board an aircraft will occur every 100,000 hours of 2kg UAS flight time, or once every 187 million years of operation. This appears to be an acceptable risk to the airspace.


    ---------------

    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Federal Aviation Administration
    14 CFR Parts 1, 47, 48, 89, 91, and 107
    [Docket No.: FAA-2019-1100; Notice No. 20-01]
    RIN 2120–AL31
    Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
    ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
    SUMMARY: This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft into the airspace of the United States while also enabling greater operational capabilities.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf

    Excerpts:

    The FAA does not agree with the recommendation that model aircraft, referred to throughout this proposal as limited recreational operations for consistency with 49 U.S.C. 44809, should be excluded from the remote identification requirements. Unmanned aircraft used in limited recreational operations required to register under part 47 or part 48 would be subject to the proposed remote identification requirement. The agency is, however, proposing a means for such aircraft to operate without remote identification equipment. Under the proposed rule, UAS would be permitted to operate without remote identification equipment if they are operated within visual line of sight and within an FAA-recognized identification area.

    B. Process to Request an FAA-Recognized Identification Area

    Under the proposed § 89.210, a request to establish an FAA-recognized identification area would have to be submitted within 12 calendar months from the effective date of a final rule and would have to include certain specified information, including at a minimum:

    1. The name of the CBO requesting the FAA-recognized identification area.
    2. A declaration that the person making the request has the authority to act on behalf of the CBO.
    3. The name and contact information of the primary point of contact for communications with the FAA.
    4. The physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area.
    5. The latitude and longitude coordinates delineating the geographic boundaries of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area.
    6. If applicable, a copy of any existing letter of agreement regarding the flying site.

    The process to request establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area would include an FAA review of each application to verify safety, security, and eligibility criteria are met. The FAA could require additional information or documentation, as needed, to supplement the request for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area. Under § 89.215, the Administrator may take into consideration the following matters when reviewing a request for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area:

    1. The effects on existing or contemplated airspace capacity.
    2. The effect on critical infrastructure, existing or proposed manmade objects, natural objects, or the existing use of the land, within or close to the FAA recognized identification area.
    3. The safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft.
    4. The safety and security of persons or property on the ground.

    The FAA would maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification areas at https://www.faa.gov.

    -----

    The FAA also proposes to revise the registration requirements in part 48 to remove the provisions that allow small unmanned aircraft to register as model aircraft under a single Certificate of Aircraft Registration and to require the individual registration of each aircraft, regardless of its intended use. This means that every small unmanned aircraft registered under part 48 would need to have its own Certificate of Aircraft Registration. The FAA estimates additional costs for recreational flyers to amend the part 48 aircraft registry to register each unmanned aircraft owned and update each individual registration to include make, model, and serial number. The FAA estimates the 10-year present value costs to affected recreational flyers is about $1.1 million...

    -----

    Model aircraft organizations currently operating flying sites are affected by this rulemaking. These organizations would be required to submit a request to the FAA to have an established flying site approved as an FAA-recognized identification area. Based on membership of AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics), it is estimated that each flying club has, on average, 78 members.
     
  7. Dec 27, 2019 #7

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    Posted on YouTube on Jul 21, 2018:

     
  8. Dec 27, 2019 #8

    timbucktoo

    timbucktoo

    timbucktoo

    Well-Known Member Staff Member Global Mod

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    Messages:
    6,786
    Likes Received:
    755
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cocoa Beach
    I am not a drone flyer so call me biased and it wouldn't hurt my feelings!
     
  9. Dec 27, 2019 #9

    Steven

    Steven

    Steven

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    230
    Not a drone flyer myself, I'll stick to airplanes and helis. Even control line airplanes have a level of satisfaction.
     
    Banzai88 and lakeroadster like this.
  10. Dec 27, 2019 #10

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    Amateur Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    780
    Birds aren't usually made of carbon fiber and aluminum, so....
     
    NateB likes this.
  11. Dec 27, 2019 #11

    NateB

    NateB

    NateB

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NE Indiana
    https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2017-0186

    Studies show that drones will do more damage than a bird of the same size. The bird that broke through our windscreen was a Loon, so a larger sized bird. We have had other bird strikes with no damage and some with minor.

    In the last year or two there was a Blackhawk that struck a DJI Phantom being flown in violation of a TFR and outside of line of sight from its pilot. It took a chunk out of a rotor blade and left a few parts embedded in the helicopter. They made a safe landing, but were then grounded until repairs were made. A tail rotor blade being damaged would have been worse.
     
  12. Dec 27, 2019 #12

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    People, please THINK! It DOESN'T MATTER how much damage will be caused by comparison with birds if the statistical ODDS of a collision or injury due to same are nanoscopic as shown by the study I quoted from and linked to. Then consider the number of deaths and/or injuries WORLDWIDE which have occurred due to confirmed aircraft collisions with UAVs since the 2015 panic requiring registration. How many? Some small confirmation of those statistical odds calculations based upon 25 years of FAA bird strike data? Then watch the PROPHETIC 2018 video I posted to see what this is really all about.

    To avoid all of this as far as I understand the regulations as they currently stand and will remain even after that pending FAA cr*p is enacted while also avoiding having to pay $75 per year to join an organization with apparently no ability to protect your hobbyist rights (the AMA) in order to fly at an FAA-approved (in accordance with the pending FAA rules) RC club field which will nearly always require AMA membership and that you register regardless of whether your aircraft weighs less than 250 grams or not:

    1. Don't fly anything weighing over 250 grams. No need to register.
    2. Don't fly within five miles of an airport, helipad, or active aircraft (like firefighters).
    3. Don't fly over 400 feet altitude.
    4. Don't fly out of visual range.
    5. If you fly FPV, you must have a spotter.
    6. Don't fly over people.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  13. Dec 27, 2019 #13

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    You never hear about these because unlike "drone strikes" they aren't incredibly rare:

    WILDLIFE STRIKES TO CIVIL AIRCRAFT IN THE UNITED STATES, 1990–2018


    https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/media/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2018.pdf

    This report presents a summary analysis of data from the National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD) for the 29-year period 1990 through 2018. A sample of 19 significant wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the USA during 2018 is also included as Appendix A. Appendix B explains how to report strikes and the role of the Smithsonian Institution Feather Lab in identifying bird and other wildlife species that are struck.

    The number of strikes annually reported to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) increased 8.7-fold from 1,850 in 1990 to a record 16,020 in 2018. The 2018 total was an increase of 1,356 strikes (9 percent) compared to the 14,664 strikes reported in 2017. For 1990–2018, 214,048 strikes were reported (209,950 in USA and 4,098 strikes by U.S.-registered aircraft in foreign countries). In 2018, birds were involved in 94.7 percent of the reported strikes, bats in 3.2 percent, terrestrial mammals in 1.8 percent, and reptiles in 0.3 percent.

    Although the number of reported strikes has dramatically increased, the number of reported damaging strikes has stabilized since 2000. Whereas the number of reported strikes in USA increased 169 percent from 5,872 in 2000 to 15,799 in 2018, the number of damaging strikes declined 8 percent from 741 to 684. The decline in damaging strikes has been most pronounced for commercial aircraft in the airport environment (at <1,500 feet above ground level [AGL]). Damaging strikes have not declined for general aviation (GA) aircraft.

    In 2018, 69 percent and <1 percent of the 16,020 strike reports were filed using the electronic and paper versions, respectively, of FAA Form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report. Eight percent of the reports were submitted via the Air Traffic Organization Mandatory Occurrence Reporting system.

    The number of USA airports with strikes reported increased from 335 in 1990 to a record 714 in 2018. The 714 airports with strikes reported were comprised of 423 airports certificated for passenger service under 14 CFR Part 139 and 291 GA aviation airports. From 1990 - 2018, strikes have been reported from 2,047 USA airports.
     
  14. Dec 27, 2019 #14

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    Amateur Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    6,064
    Likes Received:
    780
    A statistical argument is all fine and dandy, but birds don't tend to aggressively congregate where pilots are trying to perform rescue maneuvers.

    I might further add the ones that live long enough to gain enough mass to be somewhat hazardous also necessarily have a functioning preservation instinct -- not so your average quad operator.
     
    Banzai88 likes this.
  15. Dec 27, 2019 #15

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    737 Pilot on Airliners vs. Drones - Calm Down
    8 Aug 2015

    https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

    Much ado has been produced by the media about the hazards of drones flying in proximity to airliners, but I’m happy to report: it’s much ado about nothing.

    The hazard presented by unwanted objects in an aircraft’s flight path is nothing new. In fact, each year hundreds of bird strikes are dutifully and without fanfare reported by airline pilots as is required by law. [actually, it was over 16,000 in 2018 in the US alone - W]

    What’s new is the opportunity for media and aviation “pundits” to claim more screaming headlines by overstating the drone hazard.

    First, consider the typical, average weight of the plentiful waterfowl populating the bird sanctuaries neighboring JFK, LGA, ORD, DFW, SEA, PDX, LAX, SAN, DCA, SFO, BOS and most Florida airports to name but a few. The weight varies from the 10-13 pound goose to the heavier seabirds like pelican which can weigh up to 30 pounds.

    Although the the media and some wannabe aviation pundits claim there are “drones of 50-60 pounds,” the fact is, the new, popular hobbyist drones are marvels of lightweight miniaturization, weighing a fraction of that.

    Now, consider the exposure: while the new hobbyist drones begin to enjoy an increasing level of retail sales, the bird hazard numbers literally in the millions. By sheer numbers alone, bird conflicts and even bird strikes dwarf the number of drone “sightings” by airliners, but they’re simply no longer news.

    Plainly stated, the traveling public – and thus the media – understand the exposure, accept it, and like the National Highway Traffic Safety traffic death toll, ignore it.

    Trundle out the “new menace” of drones and heads turn, headlines accrue, news ratings uptick, and those who know little about jetliners begin to smell fear.

    So let’s even go beyond the hazard and foresee an actual impact with a drone. I once flew from Pittsburgh to DFW with duck guts splattered all over my cockpit windscreen after hitting what maintenance technicians estimated to be a ten pound duck. There were two primary consequences I had to deal with.

    First, I had to look through duck guts for two and a half hours. They partially slid off, but most froze onto the window at altitude and stayed. Second, the crew meal enroute was less appetizing with the backdrop of frozen duck guts. That’s it.

    None of the birds went into either engine. No aircraft systems were affected. Nobody (besides Pittsburgh tower) knew until after landing when we filed the required reports.

    This is a pretty good predictor of what might happen if the rare, statistically minute chance of a drone-aircraft collision were to occur: likely, nada.

    Yes, there always the potential for engine damage when a “bird,” man made or real, is ingested by an engine. Nonetheless, of all the birds – man made or real – populating the skies around every major airport, drones are a minuscule fraction of the whole group that air travelers sensibly overlook day to day.

    So why not focus on that reality rather than the shrieking media and aviation “experts” offering unlikely and often, absurd “what ifs?”

    The answer is, the latter sells news, while the former undercuts the self-appointed aviation experts in and out of the media.

    So the choice is yours. You can embrace the misguided drone hysteria served up by the news and “experts,” or apply the same logic you do to every daily hazard – including the drive to the airport – which is: drive carefully, and don’t sweat the small stuff.

    Anything else is much ado about nothing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  16. Dec 27, 2019 #16

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    See FAA data listed above about bird congregations. Also see the 737 pilot's take which I just posted. Also see the excellent Smithsonian Channel documentary all about the hazards of birds meeting aircraft:

    https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/bird-vs-plane-miracle-on-the-hudson/0/3467432

    Finally, on using statistical odds to determine what to fear... watch out for that meteorite! :)
     
  17. Dec 27, 2019 #17

    grouch

    grouch

    grouch

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    564
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    In a past life I had to issue checks to repair bird strike damage to all sorts of aircraft. Birds cause a lot of damage both physically and financially. I have paid some serious coin to have leading edges repaired or replaced to all sorts of aircraft ranging from C172's to Citations and anywhere in between. I did not once ever had to deal with a drone strike. FYI, it is not uncommon to have a bird strike claim exceed $300K total claim value.
     
  18. Dec 27, 2019 #18

    Steven

    Steven

    Steven

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    230
    In the end, go and fly rockets as usual.
     
  19. Dec 27, 2019 #19

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for that "ground truth" data. Check these out:

    Radome strikes:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=rad...XXF80KHSNjDMcQ_AUoAnoECAwQBA&biw=1097&bih=541
     
  20. Dec 27, 2019 #20

    K'Tesh

    K'Tesh

    K'Tesh

    OpenRocket Chuck Norris

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2013
    Messages:
    13,551
    Likes Received:
    629
    Back when I was in the USAF, I saw what a sparrow can do to a jet's intake at 400 knots. We were lucky not to have had a fodded out 2 million dollar engine. It penetrated about 4 or 5 inches into the edge of the intake with a hole that was about 3" in diameter. Drones typically weigh a hell of a lot more, and are a lot less compact than a 3" long bird.

    As long as a few jokers keep proving how they're unfit for the technology available, I suspect that the rules for everyone are going to increase in number and severity.
     
    NateB likes this.
  21. Dec 27, 2019 #21

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    Eventually, if your launch site is in a main flight path of future low altitude delivery drones, your launch site might need to be approved and registered by the FAA just like the pending FAA authorized RC flying fields. Waivers might still do, but would be required to fly anything over a certain mass (250 grams?) over zero feet in altitude. Just like RC pilots your hobbyist rights simply won't cut it against commercial lobbies. Watch that video I posted above of a key hearing leading to the FAA proposed rules I posted a link to above to see that in action.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  22. Dec 27, 2019 #22

    NateB

    NateB

    NateB

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NE Indiana
    I care because it is my life and my coworkers lives and our livelihoods. Yes, absolutely we are more likely to hit a bird than a drone. Bird strikes are not uncommon and I can think of a handful alone. Drones aren't as common, but they are more common for us to encounter than other aircraft. Damage done is expensive to repair and delays patient care if we are out of service.

    Flying around in helicopters dangerous enough due to forces we can't control. Thanks to the idiots flying their drones where they aren't supposed to, it becomes more dangerous. The FAA is reactionary and regulations are written in blood. If people were following the rules for UAVs and the industry was self regulating better, than we would not even be having this discussion. As it stands, the FAA is looking to intervene before more incidents occur.
     
  23. Dec 27, 2019 #23

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    IIRC since it's been years since I've seen it, there's a NASTY canopy busting bird impact video recorded from the affected cockpit of a T38 or F5 in that Smithsonian bird strike documentary.
     
  24. Dec 27, 2019 #24

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    When one takes into consideration the low statistical odds of drone/manned aircraft collision along with what is actually contained in the above video, the FAA's main goal appears to be to create a safe place (controlled airspace) for commercial interests flying in the future in low level airspace previously the domain of hobbyists. Think "delivery drones" so people never have to travel far from their Wall-E floaty chairs. Scr*w the interests of hobbyists...
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2019
  25. Dec 27, 2019 #25

    NateB

    NateB

    NateB

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NE Indiana
    I like the idea of large amounts of unmanned delivery drones even less than the irresponsible hobbiest. I think they will be like a swarm of gnats for us to avoid. It will be interesting to see how their transponder signal shows up in the instruments as well. Too much noise is just as bad as not seeing them.
     
    timbucktoo likes this.
  26. Dec 27, 2019 #26

    Steven

    Steven

    Steven

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    230

    Poor editing but this thing is a handful to fly.
     
    grouch likes this.
  27. Dec 27, 2019 #27

    boatgeek

    boatgeek

    boatgeek

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    2,229
    Likes Received:
    671
    Drones were unregulated until people started doing stupid stuff. When you have medical airlift helicopters or firefighting aircraft grounded because people are flying quadcopters in the area, nobody should be surprised that the FAA is going to bring the hammer down. Yes, requiring transponders for all or most drones is a blunt instrument, but that's what happens when a some of the flying public are grossly irresponsible. Yes, it's a small minority, but it has a serious impact. Here are just a few links to stories about firefighting aircraft grounded by drones. You can find lots more plus plenty of medevac aircraft stories with a simple Google search.

    So yeah, there are relatively few stories of drone strikes on aircraft, but there are all kinds of incidents where they cause havoc without ever touching another aircraft.
     
    dhbarr, timbucktoo and NateB like this.
  28. Dec 27, 2019 #28

    Winston

    Winston

    Winston

    Lorenzo von Matterhorn

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    590
    Gender:
    Male
    Oct 7, 2019
    Why The Skies Aren't Filled With Delivery Drones ... Yet

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliver...filled-with-delivery-drones-yet/#721584d13bc9

    "The FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and private industry are also collaborating on their own versions of an air traffic control system for drones in unregulated, low-altitude airspace."

    From the FAA email about the proposed rules:

    "These efforts are the foundation for more complex operations, such as beyond visual line of sight at low altitudes, as we move toward a traffic management ecosystem for drone flights separate from, but complementary to, our air traffic management system."
     
  29. Dec 28, 2019 #29

    watheyak

    watheyak

    watheyak

    Barnstormer

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Arizona
    To suggest that planes hit birds all the time to little fanfare is a totally false statement. There is much fanfare.

    The company I work for has already had one confirmed drone incident, costing perhaps into the millions, luckily nobody was hurt.

    Quoting statistics is a poor argument. Han Solo said so.
     
    NateB likes this.
  30. Dec 28, 2019 #30

    jazzviper1

    jazzviper1

    jazzviper1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    35
    This would apply to planes and helis.
    I am not a drone flyer either.
     

Share This Page

Group Builder