New FAA rules for unmaned aircraft systems UAS.

[jazzviper1]

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.

Th FAAs definition of drone includes all R/C aircraft not just quads and multis.

 

[BBowmaster]

It should be noted that regulation only affects those inclined to obey the law. Entitled idiots believing they can do whatever they want wherever they want because they have the money to buy the toys will always cause problems.

Example: where I live, a suburb in Michigan northwest of Detroit, has laws forbidding motorized vehicles on public roads (including residential neighborhood streets) unless both the vehicle and operator are licensed. In Michigan that means being 16yo. Go-karts, mini-bikes, quads and most dirt bikes aren’t licensed. These recreational vehicles are only to be used on private property. Parks, parking lots, and sidewalks are off limits.

Yet these vehicles are regular features in my neighborhood, typically driven by kids from 10-16, often without safety equipment like helmets.

We’re having unseasonably warm weather over this year’s holidays so the day after Christmas I saw two shiny new go-karts and one shiny new quad zooming up and down my street. Oldest kid looked maybe 14. One go-kart had a six-ish kid in the lap of a 10yo.

These traffic/safety laws have been around since I was a kid (several decades) so they’re not new. But good luck convincing the irresponsible parents that their kids don’t have a “right” to ride their new toys wherever they please.

As long as idiots can buy cheap quad-copters they will fly them where they shouldn’t and cause problems. RC aircraft were relatively difficult to fly so the average idiot would crash and ruin their pretty toy before getting into trouble. Cheap, disposable quad-copter toys are too easy to use.

 

[Steven]

This would apply to planes and helis.
I am not a drone flyer either.

The AMA already has guidelines in place for these.

 

[Steven]

It should be noted that regulation only affects those inclined to obey the law. Entitled idiots believing they can do whatever they want wherever they want because they have the money to buy the toys will always cause problems.

Example: where I live, a suburb in Michigan northwest of Detroit, has laws forbidding motorized vehicles on public roads (including residential neighborhood streets) unless both the vehicle and operator are licensed. In Michigan that means being 16yo. Go-karts, mini-bikes, quads and most dirt bikes aren’t licensed. These recreational vehicles are only to be used on private property. Parks, parking lots, and sidewalks are off limits.

Yet these vehicles are regular features in my neighborhood, typically driven by kids from 10-16, often without safety equipment like helmets.

We’re having unseasonably warm weather over this year’s holidays so the day after Christmas I saw two shiny new go-karts and one shiny new quad zooming up and down my street. Oldest kid looked maybe 14. One go-kart had a six-ish kid in the lap of a 10yo.

These traffic/safety laws have been around since I was a kid (several decades) so they’re not new. But good luck convincing the irresponsible parents that their kids don’t have a “right” to ride their new toys wherever they please.

As long as idiots can buy cheap quad-copters they will fly them where they shouldn’t and cause problems. RC aircraft were relatively difficult to fly so the average idiot would crash and ruin their pretty toy before getting into trouble. Cheap, disposable quad-copter toys are too easy to use.

You make a good point. How many times have I heard the old story of "With all that time and money spent on that thing and you crash it" probably scares away a potential slew of unqualified people.

 

[Bill Hanson]

It should be noted that regulation only affects those inclined to obey the law. Entitled idiots believing they can do whatever they want wherever they want because they have the money to buy the toys will always cause problems.

Example: where I live, a suburb in Michigan northwest of Detroit, has laws forbidding motorized vehicles on public roads (including residential neighborhood streets) unless both the vehicle and operator are licensed. In Michigan that means being 16yo. Go-karts, mini-bikes, quads and most dirt bikes aren’t licensed. These recreational vehicles are only to be used on private property. Parks, parking lots, and sidewalks are off limits.

Yet these vehicles are regular features in my neighborhood, typically driven by kids from 10-16, often without safety equipment like helmets.

That's one of the points of the proposed rules -- right now someone can interfere with first responders, harass wildlife (or illegally use a drone to scout/drive game), perform unwanted surveillance of their neighbors, mess with flight ops, or endanger people and unless you physically recover the drone or follow it back to its owner (easier said than done with a 1-2 pound drone), then the jerks doing that will continue to do so with impunity.

It doesn't matter if the damage caused by drone-aircraft collision is generally small -- if a drone is operating near an airport in an unsafe manner and the tower can identify the threat, then flight ops are going to be restricted until the interloper either is caught or (usually) flies away. I have several thousands of hours in B-52s, and the hairiest bird-strikes were small birds (flock of starlings on takeoff -- had to replace my shorts) and memorably, hitting a flock of fruit bats over the Australian outback which caused the loss of two engines and created enough structural damage to have the jet sit on the ramp in Darwin until Boeing could get a team out there.

I use a drone regularly for photography, and while most everyone I know flies responsibly, there are some who seem to revel in being able to screw with people, animals, etc. Regulation isn't going to solve everything, but unfortunately we (drone pilots collectively) have brought this upon our own heads.

 

[Winston]

A few selected comment excerpts from this extensive and rapidly growing thread:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?3489875-Remote-id-nprm-released

Links to other popular threads on that topic are shown at the bottom of each page of that thread.

First, the best comment by far IMO. Those of us who warned in 2015 BEFORE the rule was enacted that the FAA didn't have a statistically proved case for even the $5 pilot registration BS, who warned that it was a dangerous foot in the door and were told by most "Come on, it's only $5" have unfortunately been proved to be correct:

-----------

Force The FAA To Release The Safety Case

Hi All,

From the full NPRM on page 9 we have the following statement. Web link below.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-insp...2019-28100.pdf

"B. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The FAA is integrating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations into the airspace of the United States through a phased, incremental, and risk-based approach."

We need to force the FAA to release the Safety Case justifying these rules as part of their "risk-based approach".

A Safety Case has two components: A. a threat assessment for specific scenarios and B. the probability of occurrence for each threat.

A threat assessment defines each specific scenario that poses a threat to the National Airspace System (NAS).

The probability of occurrence quantifies how often such a threat occurs and the impact of each occurrence.

So, the question is what "threat" does RC Aviation pose to the NAS and what is the impact of that threat?

If the FAA cannot produce a defensible Safety Case proving that RC Aviation poses a "threat" then their arguments for mandating these rules becomes mute.

The key to preventing these rules from becoming law is forcing the FAA to prove they are necessary.

I strongly suspect that FAA has no Safety Case that clearly and cleanly goes through the hundreds of scenarios required to cover both quad copters and traditional RC Aircraft. And that is the point of forcing the FAA to release their Safety Case. If the FAA does not have every potential scenario clearly enunciated then the basis for a "Threat to the NAS" falls apart and the NPRM along with it.

GG

-----------

Second best one:

Bruce predicted this back in 2018 he goes on to say in other videos that eventually RC models be forced onto fixed sites which will be small and out of the way. As you said according to the rules fixed sites will be frozen to what they have now. We all know many of these AMA fields are located on City, county land, and even some private land almost all of them are leased. Homes will eventually be built on that land taken from RC model clubs they won't be able to compete against big developers.

Google & Amazon versus the RC hobby (we are going to lose this one)
Apr 13, 2018



Response to that by GG:

The xjet video by Bruce was widely published in the forums last year. Seems few even raised an eyebrow. So which is it. Are RC Pilots just indifferent, ill-informed or something else?

GG

-----------

Requests for establishment Application:

"A CBO (Community Based Orgainzation) requesting establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area would have to submit an application within 12 calendar months from the effective date of the final rule. The FAA will not consider any applications submitted after that date."

So basically, any flying site not established at the time the rule takes effect and up to 12 months after that, can NEVER be established. Also, if a site is taken off the list, it cannot be reinstated EVER. The exemption is for 4 years, after that it has to be renewed. If you miss the renewal, it's gone forever.

They ARE trying to shut us down by attrition!

And you have to be a CBO to apply. So much for flying in a private field.

-----------

Comment: Points to keep in mind: The FAA email said this is a proposal and they want to hear our comments. I don’t think the sky is falling just yet....

Response: So, how many times has the FAA made large wholesale changes to a Rule after it went through the NPRM process?? This proposal needs major changes to be even remotely palatable, and it all but kills the "Park Flyer"

-----------

"The FAA is also proposing to revise §48.100(a) to require a serial number for every small unmanned aircraft....<snip>...Owners of amateur-built unmanned aircraft would have to comply with the serial number requirement in proposed § 48.100(a)(5) if the unmanned aircraft are designed and produced as standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or limited identification unmanned aircraft."

-----------

So to add to this, if say an AMA club closes, the AMA will likely remove the application for that field. NO OTHER CBO will be able to use the field ever!
This regulation has so much malicious content in it!

-----------

The remote ID message of a standard remote ID UAS includes: "Latitude/longitude and altitude of the control station and UA;"

The remote ID message of a limited remote ID UAS includes: "Latitude/longitude and altitude of the control station;

So the first reaction is great, for limited, I just need a ground station and I don't need to put anything in the plane...

However, they also say:

"Limited remote ID UAS must have a built-in feature that prevents it from operating more than 400 feet from the control station."

To comply with this you need to have both an auto pilot and a GPS lock. If you are flying a camera quad, no problem, it already has return to home and a GPS module. How many model airplane / heli / or race quads have GPS and geo-fenced auto pilot?

-----------

All aircraft to be registered with a SN. This would be just like full scale home built. You would become the permanent manufacture. If you sell it, your name stays with it. If you sell or destroy it, you must notify the FAA.

You must belong to a CBO and fly at a recognized area. This would be the first time the federal government would require you to be a member of a private organization. I think this question was asked by another poster.

-----------

This is unbelievable

They expect us to register every aircraft individually . At last count I have over 25 of them and across our small club we probably have hundreds. None of which have serial numbers. How will they deal with kit planes we build or scratch built models we design and build. Will they have to be FAA certified and licensed to fly also? This is real crap and over reach. Guess we will need to lean on the worthless politicians that are supposed to be serving our best interests.

Registration is a tax in disguise $5 per plane at some, as of yet undisclosed, renewal frequency.

-----------

Only exceptions are for "FAA recognized identification area". "Community based organizations may apply for the establishment of a FRIA."

Anywhere else you need to transmit over the internet to some "Remote ID USS" service. If your UAS operates more than 400 feet from the control station, you need to transmit BOTH over the internet and via RF.

They're also banning manufacture of all UAS without remote ID, and requiring that UAS verify remote ID operation before taking off. Not sure what this means for kits; I assume BNF and ARF models would be covered.

-----------

Comment: The AMA already lost, though they either don't realize it or are pretending they don't. The process is on rails from now on. If the AMA had any integrity, they would commit organizational suicide and dissolve their charter on the grounds of incompetence.

Answer: I have reached the same conclusion.

GG

-----------

Comment: I think the true ultimate goal of the FAA is to have all RC aircraft, sUAS, use the first or second paths to compliance. They want everyone to
broadcast ID/Location or fly no more than 400 feet from themselves with only their location identified. The rest of this is all work arounds for now.

Answer: The FAA admits to this much in the NPRM. But their true ultimate goal is just to make us go away. If every time you fly your drone you're risking finding a $1500 fine in the mail a few days later, you'll likely stop flying. [a key point everyone misses - they want to make people stop flying anything weighing OVER 250 GRAMS - W]

 

[gldknght]

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.

Hmm, in case you did not realize it, Han Solo was a FICTIONAL character.

What I don't understand, is if drones or quadcopters are such a huge threat to general aviation, why not go after and punish the idiots who are posing the threat, and leave the rest of us alone?

The DJI and similar drones are relatively easy to track since they have a pretty small operational range. If I do something stupid, everyone around is going to know who did it when I land the thing in my driveway.

Also, my drone automatically disables itself when within a specified distance of certain controlled airspaces. It simply won't fly into that airspace.

This just seems to me to be typical government panic and over-reaction to uninformed noise makers without understanding of the actual facts.

 

[Andrew_ASC]

Welp a decade ago I hit a small 1 pound bird with a Cessna 152 at 65 knots on T/O. The CFI was scared. It hit the left wing root. We identified the object crossing our windscreen and about a millisecond later seemingly it slammed into wing root. I just aborted take off.

Plane wasn’t structurally damaged. We asked the mechanics. There was only a mere blood stain for laughing out loud. FAA and the mechanics were like well you can’t fly that plane for rest of day. Because FAA. Oh and it was a rental.

Dad flew Phemon 300’s professionally. Once they hit like fourteen geese at about four hundred knots there was severe damage to aircraft. They were lucky to get it on the ground in one piece to honest.

Honestly I believe the drone bull is way way way over blown and over regulated.
big 6ft industrial drones that go many thousand feet up. Yeah regulate the crap out of those or just make it where they got a Mode C transponder so ATC can see it easier. That’s what’s going to harm a plane.

A mere kids toy???? Come on.... BULL....
my suspicion is this regulation crap is because morons started crashing drones and R/C crap near the White House etc.

 

[Andrew_ASC]

This just seems to me to be typical government panic and over-reaction to uninformed noise makers without understanding of the actual facts.

This....

 

[watheyak]

Hmm, in case you did not realize it, Han Solo was a FICTIONAL character.

Yes, he's fictional character. It was meant to be humorous due to the fact that the statistics were totally meaningless and inappropriate in the context. Han Solo's point, in fact. Fictonal character or not.

The safety on the DJI drones are great and obviously most of the people flying a DJI drone aren't the problem. It's an excellent bit of self-policing. Had more of that happened earlier, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

And even a 400 size drone ingested into a jet engine causes fantastically expensive damage to said engine.

 

[Andrew_ASC]

Most jet aircraft aren’t flying at 400’ AGL. Keep 400 size drone away from airport from take off and landing approach area and use common sense. My 2 cents....

 

[watheyak]

Most jet aircraft aren’t flying at 400’ AGL. Keep 400 size drone away from airport from take off and landing approach area and use common sense. My 2 cents....

Any airplane is at 400' agl at least twice per flight.

And some people don't have common sense. Hence the discussion we're having here.

 

[Steven]

Essentially, abide by what the AMA has had for decades.

 

[Andrew_ASC]

The drone can be at 400’ anywhere as long as it’s not at an airport approach area.

Don’t park car on train track and it won’t get hit by train. Don’t hover drone at airport approach path and plane won’t hit it at 400’ agl.

The problem is there’s morons out there that want to cause collisions.

 

[boatgeek]

The problem with the “everyone should just use common sense” argument is that people haven’t. Doing stuff like landing a quad footer on the White House lawn invites regulation. Yes, FAA probably went into the NPRM with the express goal of going through the motions to get a new rule approved. That’s how it goes down in Washington. Yes their economic/safety analysis is biased. It’ll be just like the USCG one that got automatic ID systems on commercial boats. That one said that the new refs could prevent another 9/11 therefore the benefit was nearly infinite so any cost to industry is justified.

It would be straightforward to require most/all new RC vehicles to transmit their location and the location of their base station, provided that RF spectrum could be found. It would be nice if they had a range/weight lower limit, but they might not. it would be nice if they excluded fixed-wing aircraft but that may be hard to write definitions around.

And yes, stupid people will still do stupid stuff. The “we can’t ban this because people will still do it” argument is the top of a slippery slope that ends with few if any laws on the books. The goal of law is to both discourage people from doing stupid/harmful things and also hold them accountable if they do.

 

[gldknght]

Yes, he's fictional character. It was meant to be humorous due to the fact that the statistics were totally meaningless and inappropriate in the context. Han Solo's point, in fact. Fictonal character or not.

The safety on the DJI drones are great and obviously most of the people flying a DJI drone aren't the problem. It's an excellent bit of self-policing. Had more of that happened earlier, we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

And even a 400 size drone ingested into a jet engine causes fantastically expensive damage to said engine.

I agree, having worked maintenance on F-16's for the better part of 20 years. Has this ever happened? Our government should not be in the business of pro-active law making. There are already rules in place that supposedly prevent drone operation in general aviation airspace.

Again, I say go after the "current law" breakers instead of punishing the rest of us.

My drone does not have a transponder as defined by this new rule, nor does it have the capacity for a aftermarket one. So today, I'm legal to fly, but next whenever, through no fault of my own, I will not be legal? Give me a break!

 

[watheyak]

These are photos of a damage from a confirmed drone ingestion in one of the planes I fly. I wanted to post them earlier but wanted permission from the pilot flying. So to say it never happens or it wont hurt a plane is totally false.

 

[Steven]

We don't call them 'morons' we call those kind terrorists. I'm not aware they've been using hobby grade devices to 'collide' into much anything in the US.

 

[gldknght]

...And yes, stupid people will still do stupid stuff. The “we can’t ban this because people will still do it” argument is the top of a slippery slope that ends with few if any laws on the books. The goal of law is to both discourage people from doing stupid/harmful things and also hold them accountable if they do.

Actually, I am very much in favor of the "very few if any laws on the books..." mentality. I'm a huge fan of very limited government involvement in our lives. I am a big fan of aggressive punishment for idiots who deliberately break existing laws that put others in harm's way.

There is no way anyone will convince me that these transponders are a good idea, or even necessary. We should be fighting these new rules with everything we can, not just rolling over and going along with whatever regulation the Faa wants to control us with.

 

[gldknght]

These are photos of a damage from a confirmed drone ingestion in one of the planes I fly. I wanted to post them earlier but wanted permission from the pilot flying. So to say it never happens or it wont hurt a plane is totally false.

View attachment 402068 View attachment 402069 View attachment 402070 View attachment 402071 View attachment 402072

How do you know that was a drone? Where are the photos of the remains of the drone? Was the drone actually seen prior to impact? I assume that was either on take off or landing, airspeed somewhere in the range of 150 to 200 mph? Seems like spotting an 18" drone at those speeds would be next to impossible. So again, how do you know it was a drone?

I've seen damage done to an F-16 engine that was very similar to those photos caused by small stones and chunks of concrete on runways and parking ramps. I wish I had a dollar for each of the many "fod walks" I've helped with over the years picking up those loose bits to prevent such damage!

 

[NateB]

We typically fly between 700' - 2000' agl depending on our pilot, mission, and distance. However, when we land at scenes we perform a high and low recon searching for any issues that the firefighters don't see, report, or don't realize are potential issues. Drones from rubberneckers are one problem, but fortunately not too common. It will still cause a delay in patient care until someone finds the idiot and makes them land.

 

[NateB]

How do you know that was a drone? Where are the photos of the remains of the drone? Was the drone actually seen prior to impact? I assume that was either on take off or landing, airspeed somewhere in the range of 150 to 200 mph? Seems like spotting an 18" drone at those speeds would be next to impossible. So again, how do you know it was a drone?

There was another incident where a Blackhawk Helicopter hit a drone, damaging a rotor. They found drone parts with serial numbers in parts of the engine.

https://www.rotorandwing.com/2017/1...rone-pilots-lack-safety-regulation-knowledge/

 

[gldknght]

We typically fly between 700' - 2000' agl depending on our pilot, mission, and distance. However, when we land at scenes we perform a high and low recon searching for any issues that the firefighters don't see, report, or don't realize are potential issues. Drones from rubberneckers are one problem, but fortunately not too common. It will still cause a delay in patient care until someone finds the idiot and makes them land.

That's a bad situation, but I still don't see how this new rule will prevent those idiots from continuing to do that. If those "rubberneckers" don't comply with existing rules, they probably are not going to comply with the new rule, and probably won't install a transponder in their drones, right?

 

[Andrew_ASC]

Actually, I am very much in favor of the "very few if any laws on the books..." mentality. I'm a huge fan of very limited government involvement in our lives. I am a big fan of aggressive punishment for idiots who deliberately break existing laws that put others in harm's way.

There is no way anyone will convince me that these transponders are a good idea, or even necessary. We should be fighting these new rules with everything we can, not just rolling over and going along with whatever regulation the Faa wants to control us with.

And my argument would be like yours for hobby toys. I take the other stance on large drones. Believe it or not the AIR FORCE wasn’t even required to put transponders on Predator UAV’s the size of Cessnas... That was kinda very creepy to me to be honest as a student pilot at one time. Because a mid air with a predator drone would essentially be the same as one with a real plane. Whenever we got notified by ground stations of predator flights anywhere in the area we just moved our flight training areas around elsewhere. And that was in Memphis Class B airspace where everything needed a mode C transponder just so ATC could see and ident it better with radar. That was mid 2000’s.

And now the FAA wants to freak out if a drone is over 250 grams. Lol.

 

[NateB]

That's a bad situation, but I still don't see how this new rule will prevent those idiots from continuing to do that. If those "rubberneckers" don't comply with existing rules, they probably are not going to comply with the new rule, and probably won't install a transponder in their drones, right?

Most likely it won't affect them from flying the drone around accident scenes, but it does give LEO more leverage to get them to stop.

 

[gldknght]

There was another incident where a Blackhawk Helicopter hit a drone, damaging a rotor. They found drone parts with serial numbers in parts of the engine.

https://www.rotorandwing.com/2017/1...rone-pilots-lack-safety-regulation-knowledge/

So this guy was already not operating within existing rules. How will more regulation prevent this?

 

[gldknght]

Most likely it won't affect them from flying the drone around accident scenes, but it does give LEO more leverage to get them to stop.

How?

 

[Andrew_ASC]

So this guy was already not operating within existing rules. How will more regulation prevent this?

It doesn’t. As dad would joke it makes the mouth breathing chest beater twats happy. You know those kinds of people that think the government should regulate the air they breathe.

 

[Steven]

Perhaps it's a situation like Prohibition, you can make it illegal all you want but the mice are always able to take the cheese.

 

[boatgeek]

How?

It doesn’t. As dad would joke it makes the mouth breathing chest beater twats happy. You know those kinds of people that think the government should regulate the air they breathe.

Well, if the drone transponder reports both its location and the location of its base station, you follow the GPS coordinates to the base station linked to the problem drone and slap some cuffs on the nimrod.