New FAA rules for unmaned aircraft systems UAS.

[Ez2cDave]

At best, on a good day, my drone only has about 25 minutes of flight time, so it won't fly more than roughly 15 miles (I've never actually had a reason to clock it's top speed). It's not the receiver or the transmitter range I was talking about.

These Drones, apparently, have flight times of, AT LEAST, 3 hours . . .

https://libertyhub.com/colorado-authorities-stumped-by-massive-nighttime-drone-formations

QUOTE :

"The drones stay about 200 feet to 300 feet in the air and fly steadily in squares of about 25 miles, he said. There are at least 17 drones; they emerge each night around 7 p.m. and disappear around 10 p.m., he said."

END QUOTE :

Dave F.

 

[roc_boy]

Again this has less to do with safety and more to do with corporations securing nearly ALL low altitude airspace for themselves. This will eventually effect civil aviation as well. Ultralights and powered parachutes do not have collision avoidance systems and barely show up on radar how are amazon delivery drones going to avoid colliding with them?

I believe jazzviper is quite close to the truth. (A little background, I'm a long time modeler and career FAA ATC with over 33 years service). IMHO, the RC community has two factors working against it's future.

(1) Electronic flight controller capabilities (fixed wing and heli/multirotor). GPS navigation and autonomous operation, available off the shelf, with open source support, at very low cost, which literally anyone can buy online from sources worldwide. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no putting it back. The US "homeland security" powers-that-be recognize the risks this technology represents should it be used in a bad way, and are performing their duty in dealing with it.

(2) Big money lobbyists representing commercial "drone" interests have the government's attention, with the goal of the FAA granting them access to the National Airspace System, including operations below 400 AGL.

Unfortunately, the RC hobby community is just a drop in the bucket of the big picture, for both of these factors. A few thousand hobbyists in the US lose their hobby? "Well, I'm sorry, that's too bad..." is the response I expect we'll get from the feds. The best we can do is make phone calls and write letters, maybe we can get some scraps thrown to us.

I don't expect rocketry to suffer the same fate, at least not launches operating in conjunction with an activated altitude waiver. The low risk continued to be presented (no active guidance) and relatively limited impact to National Airspace System operations (relatively very small radius), I expect and would hope that "they will leave us alone".

Tony

 

[Winston]

FAA awards UPS certification to start package delivery via drones
With the certification, UPS hopes to "put drones to new uses in the future."
1 Oct 2019

https://abcnews.go.com/US/faa-award...art-package-delivery-drones/story?id=65982693

The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration gave the initial green light for UPS to start delivering packages via drones on Tuesday.

The UPS's Flight Forward company was awarded an air carrier and operator certification for drones following the success of a pilot program in North Carolina that delivered health care supplies, including blood, with drones around a hospital campus in Raleigh.

"This is a big step forward in safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems into our airspace, expanding access to healthcare in North Carolina and building on the success of the national UAS Integration Pilot Program to maintain American leadership in unmanned aviation," Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao said in a statement.

The certification also means that UPS will be able to operate drones beyond the visual line of sight -- meaning that the drone operator will not have to keep an eye on a drone while it is delivering to its destination.

While initially used to transport medical supplies, UPS says it plans to expand its drone delivery services and uses, first to other hospitals and then to other industries as well.

"This is history in the making, and we aren’t done yet," David Abney, UPS's CEO said in a statement. "Our technology is opening doors for UPS and solving problems in unique ways for our customers. We will soon announce other steps to build out our infrastructure, expand services for healthcare customers and put drones to new uses in the future."

 

[Winston]

01 Jan 2020
U.S. Commercial Drone Deliveries Will Finally Be a Thing in 2020
Practical commercial deliveries will take off, albeit with intense regulatory scrutiny

https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace...ne-deliveries-will-finally-be-a-thing-in-2020

...DJI, the world’s leading drone maker [Chinese - W], has promised that from here on out it will equip any drone it sells weighing over 250 grams (9 ounces) with the ability to receive ADS-B signals and to inform the operator that a conventional airplane or helicopter is flying nearby. DJI calls this feature AirSense. “It works very well,” says Brendan Schulman, vice president for policy and legal affairs at DJI—noting, though, that it works only “in one direction.” That is, pilots don’t get the benefit of ADS-B signals from drones.

Drones will not carry ADS-B Out equipment, Schulman explains, because the vast number of small drones would overwhelm air-traffic controllers with mostly useless information about their whereabouts. But it will eventually be possible for pilots and others to determine whether there are any drones close enough to worry about; the key is a system for the remote identification of drones that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is now working to establish. The FAA took the first formal step in that direction yesterday, when the agency published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on remote ID for drones.

Before the new regulations go into effect, the FAA will have to receive and react to public comments on its proposed rules for drone ID. [BS... public input will be ignored just as it was with the overwhelmingly negative response to RC pilot registration - W] That will take many months. But some form of electronic license plates for drones is definitely coming, and we’ll likely see that happening even before the FAA mandates it. This identification system will pave the way for package delivery and other beyond-line-of-sight operations that fly over people. Indeed, the FAA has stated that it does not intend to establish rules for drone flights over people until remote ID is in place.

 

[Winston]

Just as we had the FAA-inspired 2015 Christmas drone apocalypse hysteria and the DJI drone crashing on the White House lawn flown by an employee of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency just prior to the FAA's RC pilot registration ruling, we have these fleets of large mystery drones supposedly flying over remote areas of CO and WA concurrent with an even more significant and far more restrictive drone ruling by the FAA. Interesting.

 

[KC3KNM]

I still don't believe it's package drones that are the sole catalyst here. There's a big push for "urban air mobility" which is shaping up to include everything from autonomous drones to eVTOL aircraft. From where I'm at the hype around urban flight isn't dissimilar to when everyone wanted in on the internet before the dot-com bubble.

It's looking like there's going to be a lot of stuff in the air in some tight-ish urban areas and to not have a way to know what's flying (and where) would be insane. Though, I'm pretty sure R/C aircraft wouldn't have much attention at all if not for drones and the dumb stuff going on with them.

 

[Ez2cDave]

With all of that impending commercial Drone traffic, it's inevitable that people will start shooting them down to get the packages they are carrying. That will make eBay a very busy place, as people sell off the goods they have obtained.

Dave F.

 

[grouch]

Funny, I was poking through a RC airplane magazine at the Noble tonight and was thinking the entire time....your days are numbered.

 

[grouch]

Oh and I almost forgot, I scored a sweet mid 70's vintage OS 20 control line engine that has never been run. Yea buddy, my flying days shall continue.

 

[Winston]

FAA GETS EARLY EARFUL ON DRONE ID
CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY, COST
January 9, 2020

The FAA published on December 31 a detailed and long-awaited proposal to create a system to track and manage every flight by millions of drones, and many stakeholders responded swiftly: The online document logged more than 100,000 views and 1,000 comments within three days of its publication.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/january/09/faa-gets-early-earful-on-drone-id

Initial feedback on the drone identification and tracking notice of proposed rulemaking was decidedly negative. Many if not most of the first 1,000 comments voiced concern about remote pilot privacy, new limitations on where and how drones can be flown, and financial costs both known and unknown. The FAA set a March 2 deadline for public comment.

---------

CES 2020: Citing "mystery drones," US Transportation Secretary advocates new rules
The mysterious drones flying over Colorado and Nebraska offer a "timely illustration" of why drones should be equipped with remote IDs, the administration official said.
9 Jan 2020

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ces-2...transportation-secretary-advocates-new-rules/

As part of its efforts to safely integrate drones into US air space, the Federal Aviation Administration last month proposed a new rule that would require Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to be identifiable remotely. To understand why such a rule is needed, one only has to look to the sky in Colorado and Nebraska, where "mystery drones" have been flying in formation at night, US Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said Wednesday.

The "mystery drones," she said at CES 2020, are "certainly a timely illustration of why remote IDs are needed."

 

[Ez2cDave]

The FAA published on December 31 a detailed and long-awaited proposal to create a system to track and manage every flight by millions of drones . . .

Like I said before, here it comes and Drone flyers have brought it down upon themselves and, likely, others ( RC hobbyists ) . . . Rocketry will not be far behind, I'm afraid !

Dave F.

 

[jazzviper1]

Like I said before, here it comes and Drone flyers have brought it down upon themselves and, likely, others ( RC hobbyists ) . . . Rocketry will not be far behind, I'm afraid !

Dave F.

As stated several times, the SAFETY aspect is just smoke for the commercialization of low altitude airspace. This will also ADD to the danger for small and ultralight civil aircraft whom also fly in that airspace.
The FAA cant even keep maned civil aircraft from hitting each other as few of them as there are. Check the NTSB stats for your self, way more maned vs maned than maned vs drone, and there are less civil maned aircraft than drones.
The AMA is urging all of it's members to negatively comment on this proposed rule, and it would behoove all NAR and Tripoli members to do the same.
This isn't about pointing fingers, the proposed system will do little for safety it is for commercial interests not for us.

 

[cerving]

Where I live in SoCal there are five major airports within 30 miles, and probably at least 20 municipal airports, of which at least 4 are within 10 miles. I don't know how they're going to handle hundreds of these things flying in the same low airspace as general aviation... it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It's not the big jets that are going to be impacted most, it's the guys in Cessna 172's because these things are going to swarming all over the largely residential areas around the GA airports.

 

[Ez2cDave]

There is no such thing as a "parasheet".

Sure there is . . . They're all over the bottom of every Parakeet cage !

Dave F.

 

[les]

Again, what's needed here is for someone to soberly sum up what's wrong with the proposed rules point by point, showing that it's an over-reach that won't actually stem the problem, then get all the hobbyists that care to sign on and forward to their lawmakers, then get the anti-government types to make it go viral and get 100x the number of people to protest. I'm not much of an RCer but for gosh sakes soon even flying a kite will be off limits due to Amazon and others' desire to control the airspace. I'm not into the details enough to author it, but I will submit commentary someone else supplies if it is done in a positive and productive manner.

I fully agree. Can someone, maybe from the AMA, put together a response that others can copy and send to their representatives?
Let's get away from "it's driven by Amazon" or "the government / media are trying to create hysteria / control our lives"
There are too many instances in the world where the few "bad people" ruin things for everyone. In many ways, this is another case. No matter how good 98% of the users are, the last few percent can create enough of a problem that authorities will step in (even if the authorities are just using those examples as an excuse - not saying one way or the other). Partially, the situation is being created by the continue improvements in technology. Unfortunately, rules do need to keep up with the times as well.

So what are some issues that should be looked into for this? Should the weight limit be higher? Altitude limits? Should people be able to build their own drones /RC aircraft? Do we need better definition of what a drone is? What is different from an RC aircraft, an RC helicopter, or a quad rotor "drone"?

Can we please get something constructive going to respond to the FAA and/or send to our elected representatives that can help the situation???

 

[Steve Shannon]

I fully agree. Can someone, maybe from the AMA, put together a response that others can copy and send to their representatives?
Let's get away from "it's driven by Amazon" or "the government / media are trying to create hysteria / control our lives"
There are too many instances in the world where the few "bad people" ruin things for everyone. In many ways, this is another case. No matter how good 98% of the users are, the last few percent can create enough of a problem that authorities will step in (even if the authorities are just using those examples as an excuse - not saying one way or the other). Partially, the situation is being created by the continue improvements in technology. Unfortunately, rules do need to keep up with the times as well.

So what are some issues that should be looked into for this? Should the weight limit be higher? Altitude limits? Should people be able to build their own drones /RC aircraft? Do we need better definition of what a drone is? What is different from an RC aircraft, an RC helicopter, or a quad rotor "drone"?

Can we please get something constructive going to respond to the FAA and/or send to our elected representatives that can help the situation???

They already did:
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2020/01/03/template-comment-on-uas-remote-id/

 

[Ez2cDave]

Let's get away from "it's driven by Amazon" or "the government / media are trying to create hysteria / control our lives"

Agreed . . . It doesn't matter who's "driving the bus", if it runs you over, as the end result is the same !

Dave F.

 

[Ez2cDave]

FAA Asks Public To Report Strange Drones

https://threepercenternation.com/2020/01/faa-asks-public-to-report-strange-drones

January 7, 2020

A multi-agency task force is asking for the public’s help following a closed-door meeting on Monday at the Morgan County Sheriff’s office. Dozens of Colorado and Nebraska state officials met with the Federal Aviation Administration to talk about recent drone sightings.

Shortly after the meeting, the Phillips County Sheriff’s Office in Holyoke, Colorado, asked for help locating the command vehicle. “We are looking for a closed box trailer with antennas or a large van that does not belong in the area.”

The FAA released a separate statement. “We take every drone-sighting report seriously. Multiple FAA divisions are working closely with federal, state and local stakeholders to try to determine whether the reported sightings in Colorado and Nebraska are drones and, if so, who is operating them and for what reason.”

Swarms of mysterious copters have been flitting over remote regions of northeastern Colorado and southwestern Nebraska for the past three weeks. They make residents “very nervous and anxious.”

They concern the investigators too. The sheriff of Morgan County, Dave Martin, will lead the task force.

Yuma County Sheriff Todd Combs posted support on Facebook. “There are many theories about what is going on, but at this point, that’s all they are. I think we are all feeling a little bit vulnerable due to the intrusion of our privacy that we enjoy in our rural community, but I don’t have a solution or know of one right now. All I can say is don’t live your life in the fear of the unknown.”

The cryptic flights, starting right after sundown, aren’t breaking any laws but the elaborate and expensive equipment isn’t being used by any of the locals, or law enforcement either.

“They’re pretty loud – basically they sound like flying lawn mowers,” Sedgwick County Sheriff Carlton Britton relates. His biggest concern is that a drone “could impede medical helicopters that fly into the remote area to transport patients to Denver,” some 180 miles away.

 

[NateB]

...

“They’re pretty loud – basically they sound like flying lawn mowers,” Sedgwick County Sheriff Carlton Britton relates. His biggest concern is that a drone “could impede medical helicopters that fly into the remote area to transport patients to Denver,” some 180 miles away.

A Flight for Life pilot reported seeing a drone 100' below them while on a mission on Wednesday. None of the news articles mention how high the ambulance was flying at the time and if the drone was in it's legal airspace or not. Since no impact occurred, it is hard to say if the FAA or NTSB will have an official word. We might hear something from our safety officer if the agency shares the incident report from the pilot.

 

[beeblebrox]

Also, keep in mind this is a proposed rulemaking, not the final rule. You can write in to request changes. FAA has to read every comment and respond to them.

Your comments are more likely to be heard if you are:
(a) Specific about what needs to change and why it should be changed, and
(b) Polite and professional

Comments that tell the FAA that they're a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes will be pitched in the round file, as will ones that say that everything about the process is wrong and they need to start over. You will get bonus points if you read the NPRM and address how the concerns FAA raises as the reasons for making the rulemaking change will be better served by your changes.

If you care about this issue by writing in a comment. You can do it in about 5 minutes (though you can also take more time), and the NPRM will tell you how to submit comments. It's like voting--don't complain about the results if you didn't raise your voice during the process.

The FAA then is kind of like Vogon Bureaucracy...

 

[Ez2cDave]

Unidentified drones are everywhere, and the FAA has a plan
Remote transponders could make for more responsible flying and safer skies.

https://www.popphoto.com/story/news/drones-securite-faa-transponders

QUOTE :

By Rob Mark
January 6, 2020

Both commercial and recreational drone operators will be required to comply with the upcoming Part 89 identification and tracking rule.Pixabay
This story originally featured on Flying Magazine.

Unmanned aerial vehicles—drones, as we all like to call them—have dramatically affected the world over the last decade with their ability to handle tasks considered either too dangerous or too mundane for humans. Public safety drones, for instance, are capable of heading into the teeth of a brush fire to gather critical intelligence, a place where sending a human firefighter is simply impossible.

Drones are so easy to operate that nearly anyone can fly one with minimal training, one reason millions have been sold around the world. Still relatively unregulated, drones have in recent years, however, begun appearing where they’re often not welcome, creating both safety and security concerns that have worried the aviation industry since day one.

The FAA is now taking the first steps it believes will reduce the risk of drones to the flying public with a notice of proposed rulemaking that went live on the last day of 2019 calling for transponder-like devices aboard all UAVs to identify these aircraft and each individual flight to ATC and possibly other aircraft in the air. The proposal will create a new regulation, FAR Part 89, that expects commercial and recreational UAS operating in the US—with very few exceptions—to be compliant with new remote identification requirements within three years of the effective date of the final rule. The agency states, “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.” This increased situational awareness, especially to pilots, is expected to become even more important as the number of UAS operations in all classes of airspace increases.

The agency said, “Full implementation of remote identification relies on three interdependent parts that are being developed concurrently. The first is this proposed rule to establish operating requirements for UAS operators and performance-based design and production standards for producers of UAS. The second is a network of Remote ID UAS Service Suppliers (Remote ID USS) to collect the identification and real-time location information from in-flight UAS. Part three involves collecting technical requirements for standards-setting organizations to develop to meet the performance-based design and production requirements in this proposed rule.”

The FAA will entertain public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days following the December 31 official publishing date in the federal register.

END QUOTE :

Dave F.

 

[Winston]

On the government's lack of rights to control airspace to the surface over private property. This should prevent the FAA's requirement for transponders on hobbyist aircraft below 365 feet... but you don't hear about it:

United States v. Causby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

Thomas Lee Causby was a land owner less than a half mile from the end of the runway of Lindley Field, an airstrip in Greensboro, North Carolina.[2] During World War II, the United States military flew planes into the airstrip and as low as 83 feet (25 m) above Causby's Farm[2] thereby interfering with the productive use of the Causby farm. Vibrations and sounds caused by the aircraft prevented use of property as a chicken farm, killing over 150 chickens. After losing in lower courts, the Government maintained their claims to fly through all the airspace with impunity.

The United States Supreme Court rejected the government's claim to 'possess' the space down to ground level.[10] The Court held low altitude flights to be "a direct invasion of [the landowner's] domain",[11] and that a "servitude has been imposed upon the land" by the occupancy of the private space.[12] The Court also recognized that a claim of property ownership indefinitely upward "has no place in the modern world."[13][14][15] Thereby rejecting "ad coelum"

The court held the public's right of flight does not extend downward to the earth's surface. finding "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise, buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" …“The fact that he does not occupy [space] in a physical sense -- by the erection of buildings and the like -- is not material. As we have said, the flight of airplanes, which skim the surface but do not touch it, is as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it."[16][17]

On remand, the Court of Claims was tasked with defining the value of the "property interests" that had been taken from Causby by flyovers. Because the lowest plane flew at 83 feet (25 m), and because flights above 365 feet (111 m) were considered within the public easement declared by congress, the Court needed to determine the value owed the Farmer for public use of his airspace between 83 and 365 feet (25 and 111 m). The Court did not need to compensate the farmer for use below 83 feet (25 m), because the planes did not fly below that height. [18]. Compensation was owed based on the occupancy of the property and not damage to chickens.

 

[Winston]

Idea for a project after passage of the transponder rule required for anything 250 grams or over flying at any altitude down to ground level: create a 251+ gram hovercraft, disk shaped, central fan for air cushion, two props to provide differential thrust for directional control. "Fly" a fraction of an inch over paved areas without transponder.

 

[grouch]

I watched a flying wing drone guy on Tube the other day fly from one Hawaiian island to another, a distance of about 25 miles all FPV. He was a proud boy. All I could think of was he didn't have a visual spotter. I've said it once, I'll say it again....the drones have gotten out of hand.

 

[Marc_G]

I watched a flying wing drone guy on Tube the other day fly from one Hawaiian island to another, a distance of about 25 miles all FPV. He was a proud boy. All I could think of was he didn't have a visual spotter. I've said it once, I'll say it again....the drones have gotten out of hand.

How big was this drone, size or weight?

 

[grouch]

It's not large but I didn't think that mattered. I thought you had to have a line of sight spotter at all times while flying a 1st person UAV.

 

[Winston]

From the video notes on YouTube:

Horizon Hobby get's it

Phone screen grab of one of the best videos yet regarding the FAA's RID NPRM. Unfortunately just a few hours after publishing this video on 2/7/19 Horizon pulled the video. Apparently money talks.

I'm told the FPV community became enraged that Horizon Hobby had "throw them under the bus". In truth the FPV community had laid down in the path of the bus by disregarding rules - especially the rules to only fly within LOS and have a spotter. Perhaps Horizon could have done a better job of separating Beyond Visual Line of Sight operations from Line of Sight (with spotter) operations such as drone racing -- but the fact remains that they hit the nail on the head with this video.

 

[Winston]

The FAA's comment period is allowed ONLY to comply with the rules, NOT because they actually give a damn about your wishes or will change their predetermined actions, just as they ignored public input on their foot-in-the-door pilot registration requirement in 2015:

FAA Denies Comment Period Extension for Remote ID Rule

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...s-Comment-Period-Extension-for-Remote-ID-Rule

January 30, 2020 - The FAA this week denied requests filed by EAA and others, including AMA and AOPA, for a comment period extension to a controversial notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) mandating remote ID (RID) for unmanned aerial systems (UAS). EAA had requested a doubling of the 60-day period provided by the FAA, which released the lengthy NPRM on New Year's Eve.

EAA is concerned that among other consequences, the NPRM as written could have a serious detrimental impact on traditional model aircraft. Traditional modeling has been a popular gateway to aviation for generations of enthusiasts, and has maintained a remarkable safety record over that period, with very little need for regulation.

In denying the request, the FAA stated the urgency of the "safety and security objectives" of the NPRM were such that any delay caused by a comment period extension would be inappropriate, citing "public safety and national security concerns."

AMA Drone Report 02.13.20: Huge NPRM Response, Horizon Hobby, FAA UAS Symposium

 

[Ez2cDave]

As predicted, the actions of a relatively small number of drone operators is bringing undue hardship to all RC aircraft operators.

 

[Winston]

As predicted, the actions of a relatively small number of drone operators is bringing undue hardship to all RC aircraft operators.

Not really. Their stupid and rare behavior (compared to the number of RC flyers) just provided the statistically totally unsupported pretense of some kind of huge hazard to aircraft which was eagerly jumped on by a media looking for any sensational story while not doing any kind of investigative journalism whatsoever to determine of it was justified. Note what I underlined in my FAA Denies Comment Period Extension post. That's what this has been all about since the 2015 pilot registration move to prevent the 2015 Christmas drone apocalypse (airliners falling out of the sky, dogs and cats living together!) which, predictably, never materialized then and since and not because RC pilots registered, but because it was statistically provable BS. Note that immediately after that "emergency measure" registration was enacted in 2015 they shut down all RC flying of anything within 30 miles of DC and only DC.