StarDestroyer.Net BBS

From CNN

(CNN) -- A Federal Aviation Administration official warned this week about the dangers of even small unmanned aircraft, pointing specifically to a recent close call involving a drone and a commercial airliner that could have had "catastrophic" results.

Jim Williams, the head of the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) office, discussed various potential perils during a presentation Thursday to those attending the Small Unmanned Systems Business Expo. A video of his talk in San Francisco, and those of others, to those who operate, create or otherwise are involved or interested in such unmanned aircraft was posted to YouTube.

After saying "the FAA has got to be responsive to the entire industry," Williams referred to a pair of incidents in which drones caused injuries to people on the ground. One came at an event at Virginia Motor Speedway in which an "unauthorized, unmanned aircraft" crashed into the stands, and in the other a female triathlete in Australia had to get stitches after being struck by a small drone.

Then, Williams segued to a pilot's recent report of "a near midair collision" with a drone near the airport in Tallahassee, Florida. The pilot said that it appeared to be small, camouflaged, "remotely piloted" and about 2,300 feet up in the air at the time of the incident.

A bit more on this incident later in the article.

"The pilot said that the UAS was so close to his jet that he was sure he had collided with it," Williams said. "Thankfully, inspection to the airliner after landing found no damage. But this may not always be the case."

According to the FAA, the incident took place on March 22 and involved as U.S. Airways Flight 4650 going from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Tallahassee.

The pilot claimed to pass "an unreported and apparently remotely controlled aircraft ... five miles northeast of the Tallahassee airport, according to the federal agency.

Such close calls are rare, the FAA notes.

The pilot reported that the small unmanned aircraft involved looked similar to an F-4 Phantom jet, and not like a helicopter that might hold a camera that many associate more closely with drones. Such planes have gas turbine engines and can fly higher than an average drone, according to the FAA. Neither the drone in this case, nor its pilot, have been identified.

This drone was almost certainly a remote controlled model aircraft. As noted, such airplanes (and make no mistake, these are real airplane even if they're real small airplanes) can come equipped with real jet engines. They can go as fast as larger jets but they're harder to see and are not equipped with collision avoidance gear or transponders. They may or may not have cameras.

In its own statement, US Airways said that it was aware of this reported "incident with one of our express flights, and we are investigating."

Explaining why this event is significant, Williams referenced to the so-called "Miracle on the Hudson" from 2009, when US Airways Flight 1549 safely crash-landed in New York's Hudson River after striking at least one bird upon takeoff from LaGuardia Airport.

Airplane crash-lands into Hudson River

Such bird strikes are dangerous enough; a drone, even a small one, getting sucked into a jetliner's engine could be even worse, Williams said.

"Imagine a metal and plastic object -- especially with (a) big lithium battery -- going into a high-speed engine," he added. "The results could be catastrophic."

All these incidents speak to "why it is incredibly important for detect-and-avoid standards (for small unmanned aircraft) to be developed and right-of-way rules to be obeyed," Williams said. He added that such standards are in the works.

His agency reiterated this sentiment in its statement Friday.

"The FAA has the exclusive authority to regulate the airspace from the ground up, and a mandate to protect the safety of the American people in the air and on the ground," the agency said. "...Our challenge is to integrate unmanned aircraft into the busiest, most complex airspace in the world. Introduction of unmanned aircraft into America's airspace must take place incrementally and with the interest of safety first."

As to current regulations, Williams noted the FAA has appealed a federal judge's decision in a case involving businessman Raphael Pirker.

Pirker used a remotely operated, 56-inch foam glider to take aerial video for an advertisement for the University of Virginia Medical Center. The FAA then fined him $10,000 for operating the aircraft in a "careless and reckless manner."

A judge on March 6 agreed with Pirker that the FAA overreached by applying regulations for aircraft to model aircraft, and said no FAA rule prohibited Pirker's radio-controlled flight.

But on Thursday, Williams said that another judge had stayed this ruling pending the FAA's appeal.

"Nothing has changed from a legal standpoint," he said, "and the FAA continues to enforce the airspace rules."

There's not a lot of detail on the "foam glider" incident (although I suspect it wasn't really a glider but, again, an RC model equipped with some sort of engine, most likely a piston-and-prop or electric-and-prop. RC model airplanes (including jets, by the way) are restricted to 400 feet and below, and within sight of the operator. In practice, no one complains if you pop up to 500 feet but really, much past that, you start to lose sight of the sucker even if it's a large model.

If the "glider" exceed 400 feet or was out of sight of the operator then yes, it violated FAA regulations. There's also the issue of commercial use, which isn't permitted by RC model rules.

This is one of the reasons the FAA really needs to formulate rules on the unmanned aircraft of all sizes. Right now there either are no rules or no one is sure which rules apply, and some issues with safety.

Does this basically mean I could find a model aircraft out there that would be useful as a makeshift anti aircraft missile for destroying airliners as they land and take off?

Yes.

Longer answer: You'd probably have to either modify an existing model or build from scratch but it's within reach of just about anyone with minimal knowledge and between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars. You'd also have to put a little time in learning to control the device sufficiently to pull it off, but the border between "harmless toy" and "military capability" has been torn down.

I should also point out that a modern airliner is a huge machine and there is considerable difference between forcing a landing by destroying an engine or causing some damage and actually destroying one mid-air. Even so, the psychological effect of mini-drones attacking passenger planes would be significant even if the damage was minor.

Yes, though odds are against actually bringing down a major airliner unless you successfully target the cockpit with a fairly large drone, not a little quadrotor. Still no small amount of military anti drone studying is based on the idea of just making kamikaze drones to kill other drones instead of wasting money on rocket powered missiles. The threat of a small drone can be increased by adding some kind of hazardous payload, even a small steel rod would make it a lot more likely to damage something important. But planes are tough things.

Sooner then later we'll just have to start deploying much higher resolution radars at airports capable of tracking very small drones, particularly hovering drones which aren't detectable by normal pulse doppler filtering. Then it will be possible to warning airliners of this sort of hazard. The US military is already working on a suitable radar for this adapted from a phased array counterfire set. Its also intend to be used as part of a future sense and avoid system for drones in the US, in which the drones are remotely directed to evade rather then trying to put sensors on every single one of them. This would then allow its various military drones to be flown safely for training in the US outside of military ranges, but the point is also to let it support civilian craft.

Broomstick wrote:Yes.

Longer answer: You'd probably have to either modify an existing model or build from scratch but it's within reach of just about anyone with minimal knowledge and between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars. You'd also have to put a little time in learning to control the device sufficiently to pull it off, but the border between "harmless toy" and "military capability" has been torn down.

How hard would it be to say fly one into an engine?

I should also point out that a modern airliner is a huge machine and there is considerable difference between forcing a landing by destroying an engine or causing some damage and actually destroying one mid-air. Even so, the psychological effect of mini-drones attacking passenger planes would be significant even if the damage was minor.

This is what I was thinking as well.

Purple wrote:How hard would it be to say fly one into an engine?

The hard part of that is hitting the bull's eye on a target moving several hundred kph with a small object that might also be going a hundred or more kph. Modifying that is the fact a jet engine intake is a pretty big target in some respects, and if you get close enough the airstream will just suck in your drone.

I've been on a passenger jet that sucked up a bird. It does get your attention and makes for a more interesting flight. Interesting in all the wrong ways, of course, but we landed safely. That's what usually happens when a big jet has a catastrophic engine failure these days. It gets real exciting, but in the end everyone is safe on the ground.

Anyhow, I don't really want to speculate too much further into details on a public message board, or even in private really, but I think the reason it hasn't happened yet has more to do with terrorists and troublemakers being an extremely small percentage of the population as opposed to inherent difficulty in pulling it off.

Broomstick wrote:The hard part of that is hitting the bull's eye on a target moving several hundred kph with a small object that might also be going a hundred or more kph. Modifying that is the fact a jet engine intake is a pretty big target in some respects, and if you get close enough the airstream will just suck in your drone.

Hm... What if it was launched from a position facing the runway as the aircraft is taking off? Presumably that would be the ideal angle of attack.

I've been on a passenger jet that sucked up a bird. It does get your attention and makes for a more interesting flight. Interesting in all the wrong ways, of course, but we landed safely. That's what usually happens when a big jet has a catastrophic engine failure these days. It gets real exciting, but in the end everyone is safe on the ground.

What if the model aircraft was say loaded in some way? I have no idea how but presumably you could build a bomb out of one.

Anyhow, I don't really want to speculate too much further into details on a public message board, or even in private really,

I mean no offense. But I do not think the CIA is going to be breaking down our doors and taking us away over something discussed over the net. Or do you simply not want to give potential crazy people reading this ideas?

A guy I was in school with this past semester has an RC helicopter that he hooked up with a camera, GPS, and microphone and makes sure to follow all kinds of precautions to avoid shit like this. He has the helicopter set up with a callsign so that when it's in the air people can more readily see where it is, and he stays the hell away from airports with it. He was discussing it and said that legally you're supposed to some amount of communication like that with the airports. Dunno if he's mistaken and just being cautious or if that's changed at some point, but either way he's being smart about this stuff. Adding all this stuff did, of course, make it so that he needed to beef up the rotor speed which reduces battery life.

The little assholes who were doing this shit just don't care about the harm they could cause. It'd certainly be nice to see them get caught and be made an example of so others will realize that the FAA has zero sense of humor about the airways.

Will bet money that they'll find themselves with a whole new branch of rules for things like this, possibly even amateur licenses like the FCC does with their own enforcement branch for handling people that mess with stuff either accidentally or purposely.

Purple wrote:Hm... What if it was launched from a position facing the runway as the aircraft is taking off? Presumably that would be the ideal angle of attack.

Yes, that is one option...

Purple wrote:

Broomstick wrote:I've been on a passenger jet that sucked up a bird. It does get your attention and makes for a more interesting flight. Interesting in all the wrong ways, of course, but we landed safely. That's what usually happens when a big jet has a catastrophic engine failure these days. It gets real exciting, but in the end everyone is safe on the ground.

What if the model aircraft was say loaded in some way? I have no idea how but presumably you could build a bomb out of one.

Well, sure...

Purple wrote:

Broomstick wrote:Anyhow, I don't really want to speculate too much further into details on a public message board, or even in private really,

I mean no offense. But I do not think the CIA is going to be breaking down our doors and taking us away over something discussed over the net. Or do you simply not want to give potential crazy people reading this ideas?

Mostly, I don't want to be the originator (or one of them) of a detailed, step-by-step instruction manual for causing mayhem that is distributed on the internet. If I later found out someone had used the information I had posted for wrong doing, even if it was just some dumb-ass kid goofing around, I would feel somewhat responsible.

The government does have a file on me and so far they consider me quite boring and unthreatening. I'm not eager to change my profile. Nor, in the case of Something Bad Happening, do I want the media knocking on my door, in many ways I would find that worse than having a heart-to-heart with government agents.

It wouldn't be the CIA, by the way, it would be the FBI. Now, I am content that my very few interactions with the FBI in my lifetime have been cordial and polite, but I don't particularly care to become the focus of one of their investigations. I have been a member of an e-mail list that received some official scrutiny, and let's just say that they spend more time around airports than they used to since 9/11.

Nor do I object to government agents keeping an eye on such things, it is, after all, part of their job and if they can stop a crime prior to it occurring so much the better as long as the prevention efforts don't become oppressive. I absolutely love aviation in all its forms but although I use expressions like "at play in the sky" and "flying toys" the truth is none of these things are toys. Aviation done carelessly or with malice, as so many warning plaques state, "may cause severe injury or death" even at the small scale. The privilege of going for a walk in the clouds comes with responsibility.

Napoleon the Clown wrote:A guy I was in school with this past semester has an RC helicopter that he hooked up with a camera, GPS, and microphone and makes sure to follow all kinds of precautions to avoid shit like this. He has the helicopter set up with a callsign so that when it's in the air people can more readily see where it is, and he stays the hell away from airports with it. He was discussing it and said that legally you're supposed to some amount of communication like that with the airports. Dunno if he's mistaken and just being cautious or if that's changed at some point, but either way he's being smart about this stuff.

Correct - he's being smart about "stuff". In regards to the communication with airports, that has something to do with how close you are to one. You also don't want to take the chance of your radio signals interfering with those used by the larger scale aircraft, interference with traffic patterns, and so forth. Size also matters. When I was flying RC models I was in the smaller categories with fewer restrictions (and fewer capabilities) but as you get larger/faster/etc. you have more rules to follow.

The little assholes who were doing this shit just don't care about the harm they could cause. It'd certainly be nice to see them get caught and be made an example of so others will realize that the FAA has zero sense of humor about the airways.

Some of those "little assholes" are six foot tall and in their 70's, in my experience. And I'd express their attitude as between "they don't give a fuck" and "fuck you". From my experience around here, if they are sufficiently an asshole they'll discover not just the FAA but the local sheriff department indeed has zero sense of humor about the use of airspace and the safety of others. And if you crash your shit into someone's home and scare the hell out the family the head of the household will rapidly go past "amused" to "I'm coming over there to fuck you up" in which case dealing with the local law enforcement starts to look much preferable. Funny, when they think they're going to get their teeth punched out they're suddenly all about following the rules.

Gaidin wrote:Will bet money that they'll find themselves with a whole new branch of rules for things like this, possibly even amateur licenses like the FCC does with their own enforcement branch for handling people that mess with stuff either accidentally or purposely.

Already in the draft stage. (PDF file)

If the FAA employees can't handle a situation they will call in either the FBI or the military, as appropriate, so enforcement is already in place. Forget being pulled over on the freeway by the State Troopers, I know people who have been "pulled over" by F-14's carrying live ammo. One of the things I like about being the pilot in command is that you really do have absolute authority over your aircraft, but the Powers that Be hold you responsible in a way you just don't experience otherwise in daily life.

I do not mean to pry but... what reason would the FBI possibly have to investigate you?

On a related note. Just how big are these things? I mean, right up until before your post I had a mental image of your average model airplane. But these things are big enough to be intercepted by an F-14!

Broomstick wrote: Already in the draft stage. (PDF file)

If the FAA employees can't handle a situation they will call in either the FBI or the military, as appropriate, so enforcement is already in place. Forget being pulled over on the freeway by the State Troopers, I know people who have been "pulled over" by F-14's carrying live ammo. One of the things I like about being the pilot in command is that you really do have absolute authority over your aircraft, but the Powers that Be hold you responsible in a way you just don't experience otherwise in daily life.

Well, one of the things I was implying by an amateur drone license(necessary to differentiate it from pilot if I may) is that they can start slapping solid rules down and then start hitting *everybody* including the unlicensed with them. The unlicensed would just get hit harder for breaking the extra rule. I mean, treat it as it is, as drones are mostly literally something you can take out of the box and get working if you have a clue what you're doing. If you want something above a certain capability, or any capability maybe, for your own entertainment and not for profit, you should have to have an amateur license with the way that crap can happen now. But yes, help handling the drone is one thing, but then they'd probably be able to handle the pilot on the ground that was breaking the rules themselves. If said drone wandered either accidentally or purposely, it'd be handled, and it's loss would be on the owner. But then so would a rather hefty fine. People that want this as a hobby would welcome such rules just so they could say that such incidents are on the idiots and they're being careful. Same for the companies that want to make use of drone technology, though they'd be under a different more professional license. Hell they're probably hoping for such rules instead of a rather sweeping "screw-it-all" no more flying drones policy.

Purple wrote:I do not mean to pry but... what reason would the FBI possibly have to investigate you?

Post 9/11 every American with a current or past pilot license was checked by the US government. I don't think I need to explain why.

I have also applied for one or two jobs requiring a security clearance.

When my sister applied for a job at the Department of Defense they checked out our whole family, although I think that was done within the DoD.

There have been wanted and "person of interest" flyers posted at airports in pilot areas, and once in awhile you bump into government suits looking at one thing or another.

Nothing terribly sinister. But the government is keeping an eye on things.

On a related note. Just how big are these things? I mean, right up until before your post I had a mental image of your average model airplane. But these things are big enough to be intercepted by an F-14!

Actually, it was pilots in full size airplanes that I've known as intercepted. Really, there isn't a dividing line. RC models go from "pennyweight" that easily fit in the palm of your hand up to aircraft the size of the ultralights I used to fly in regards to weight and horsepower. There are a number of people such as myself who fly both remote and in-cockpit. There really is no technological bar to modifying something like a small Cessna to remote control if you really had the desire to do it. The military has converted full size airplanes to remote control for use as moving targets in training.

The quadcopters are relatively new, and have the bonus of being much more stable than earlier RC rotorcraft. The ducted rotors used in many quad (hex-, octo-, etc) copters are also safer as they reduce the chances of prop/rotor strikes. The advent of lithium batters have greatly increased the power to weight ratio for electric aircraft, which also increases capabilities. Chip mounted GPS and gyros, along with some simple on chip features make them much, much easier to fly. Smaller cameras allow for pilot point of view on a monitor, or iphone.

What technology is doing is bringing the capabilities into the price and skill range of more and more people.

So wait. There is actually nothing stopping me from homebrewing a de facto cruise missile from one of these things?

Purple wrote:So wait. There is actually nothing stopping me from homebrewing a de facto cruise missile from one of these things?

There's not even really a need to go that far. You can just accidentally fly a well made quad copter into something bad if you're not paying close enough attention. And this is just the toy. I know the document Broomstick linked is a draft, but it's why I think its biggest problem is the word amateur and setting down rules for them isn't mentioned once.

I did a lot of rc flying, and you can build a plane capable of intercepting a starting/landing airliner (~3-400kph and 100% capable of taking out an engine with a small modification) for less than 2-3000$, and even cheaper. And about half of that will be reuseable, as it never leaves your hands.

That's why you need a license and an FCC approval for models heavier than 25kg in most parts of Europe (mostly because they dont want these things to fall onto a town)

Gaidin wrote:Well, one of the things I was implying by an amateur drone license(necessary to differentiate it from pilot if I may) is that they can start slapping solid rules down and then start hitting *everybody* including the unlicensed with them.

A pilot is a pilot, whether of fixed wing, airship, rotorcraft, or drone. The FAA is already calling them "drone pilots" as well as "remote operators" and other terms.

If you want something above a certain capability, or any capability maybe, for your own entertainment and not for profit, you should have to have an amateur license with the way that crap can happen now.

The funny thing is, here in there are aircraft in the US that are capable of carrying a person aloft that require neither training nor license to use legally (although everyone hastens to add training is really, really recommended). The capabilities of these ultralights are so minimal, though, that this hasn't been much of an issue. People have killed themselves using them, but so far no accidents killing other people.

I expect the rules the fall along lines of capability and use rather than size. My styrofoam and plastic film ornithoper and my plastic film and carbon fiber rod pennyweight airplane are not large/massive/fast enough to do much damage even if they "slam" into a person at full speed (there is a potential for eye injury, to be honest, but it's unlikely). I don't see needing a license for them.

Larger and more capable ones, yes, there should be training, licensing, and regulation although on the lower end that doesn't have to be onerous. If you want to use drones for commercial purposes then yes, you should have more extensive training and licensing.

People that want this as a hobby would welcome such rules just so they could say that such incidents are on the idiots and they're being careful.

No, actually a lot of them don't want that. There is a great fear of training and licensing requirements. Last time I was out flying RC someone came up to me trying to get me to sign some sort of petition, trying to scare me with the notion that the FAA was soon going to requirement a >gasp!< private pilot license just to fly RC models! A couple of my friends standing nearby just started chuckling because, of course, I already have a private pilot license.

The fears, of course, are of the "government watching us" (the government already is to some extent), it's going to get (more) expensive, maybe some of these yahoos will be forced to follow all the rules even the ones they don't like, some of them are scared spitless of taking a test, and a sprinkling of anarchist "no government interference" types.

Same for the companies that want to make use of drone technology, though they'd be under a different more professional license. Hell they're probably hoping for such rules instead of a rather sweeping "screw-it-all" no more flying drones policy.

Well... to some extent everyone wants to do what everyone wants to do, but yes, most of the sane operators would rather opt for regulation rather than outright banning. People wanting to launch commercial ventures want the rules finalized as soon as possible because until that happens they can't really get their businesses off the ground. One issue is that a lot of people who want to operate drones are not pilots and are not clued into to how the airspace currently works. I've noted a number of incidents where there were some dangerous things occurring simply out of ignorance.

Purple wrote:So wait. There is actually nothing stopping me from homebrewing a de facto cruise missile from one of these things?

Other than the limited size and payload capacity of the average RC plane/helicopter. You're not going to be able to go into your local hobby shop and buy anything that would be any scarier than the average murderer with a gun. I'm sure there are people with the knowledge and skills to build a homemade cruise missile, just like there are people who could make an effective truck bomb, but that's going well beyond the media hype of "OMG FLYING BOMBS FOR SALE AT YOUR LOCAL WALMART".

Gaidin wrote:I know the document Broomstick linked is a draft, but it's why I think its biggest problem is the word amateur and setting down rules for them isn't mentioned once.

That's because the FAA doesn't believe in amateur pilots or operators. If you're using US airspace a certain sort of conduct is expected, nay, required. There are "sport", "private", "recreational", and similar terms used for amateur or hobbyist pilots/operators but the FAA emphasizes that people should conduct themselves in a professional manner when sharing airspace with other people. When you interact with air traffic control or an airport or whatever everyone is expected to follow the same rules and protocols. Then there's the airspace shared by both the military and the civilian population, that's another overlap where everyone has to abide by the same rules.

The model rocketry people, for example, need to contact the FAA and air traffic control both to find airspace where their rockets won't be knocked out of the sky by passing aircraft, and passing aircraft will be warned off "their" block of airspace (I have been asked to make such a detour on two occasions). If a group of ultralight pilots are taking an extended trip and want to stop at an airport or be part of an airshow they have to fit in properly with all the other air traffic. Model airplane clubs are obligated to not smash their aircraft into larger aircraft carrying people, not set fire to the neighbor's property, and not injure bystanders.

I rather doubt that you'll see "amateur" in such a group of rules, ever. It's a psychological trick on one level, but I think the trick can be effective.

Let's get real, here - my license allows me to flying into someplace like O'Hare or Heathrow. I probably should act like a professional if I do that, even if I only fly as a hobby. (Honestly, I will probably never bother, it would be like skateboarding on the Autobahn given what I fly)

Broomstick wrote: A pilot is a pilot, whether of fixed wing, airship, rotorcraft, or drone. The FAA is already calling them "drone pilots" as well as "remote operators" and other terms.


The funny thing is, here in there are aircraft in the US that are capable of carrying a person aloft that require neither training nor license to use legally (although everyone hastens to add training is really, really recommended). The capabilities of these ultralights are so minimal, though, that this hasn't been much of an issue. People have killed themselves using them, but so far no accidents killing other people.

I expect the rules the fall along lines of capability and use rather than size. My styrofoam and plastic film ornithoper and my plastic film and carbon fiber rod pennyweight airplane are not large/massive/fast enough to do much damage even if they "slam" into a person at full speed (there is a potential for eye injury, to be honest, but it's unlikely). I don't see needing a license for them.

Larger and more capable ones, yes, there should be training, licensing, and regulation although on the lower end that doesn't have to be onerous. If you want to use drones for commercial purposes then yes, you should have more extensive training and licensing.


No, actually a lot of them don't want that. There is a great fear of training and licensing requirements. Last time I was out flying RC someone came up to me trying to get me to sign some sort of petition, trying to scare me with the notion that the FAA was soon going to requirement a >gasp!< private pilot license just to fly RC models! A couple of my friends standing nearby just started chuckling because, of course, I already have a private pilot license.

The fears, of course, are of the "government watching us" (the government already is to some extent), it's going to get (more) expensive, maybe some of these yahoos will be forced to follow all the rules even the ones they don't like, some of them are scared spitless of taking a test, and a sprinkling of anarchist "no government interference" types.


Well... to some extent everyone wants to do what everyone wants to do, but yes, most of the sane operators would rather opt for regulation rather than outright banning. People wanting to launch commercial ventures want the rules finalized as soon as possible because until that happens they can't really get their businesses off the ground. One issue is that a lot of people who want to operate drones are not pilots and are not clued into to how the airspace currently works. I've noted a number of incidents where there were some dangerous things occurring simply out of ignorance.

I'm not exactly worried about the little one you might get lucky and poke someone's eye out with if the odds are just right. Nor am I worried about the RC models that don't even have a powerful enough signal the FCC already doesn't give enough of a damn to make them get a license as it is as they don't interfere with shit(and they could force them to get a license if they really wanted to be assholes). That's them just being paranoid. Let's not bring in those two branches of idiocy please because we both know policy is perfectly capable of differentiating(note the FCC and RC planes).

I'm talking about the kind of things you can accidentally fly in front of a damn plane or a helicopter. Now planes are harder unless you're flying a drone you'd likely need to be flying professionally admittedly. But once you bring helicopters into the mix things get a little more interesting to think about. Admittedly the RC models might be wrapped up in this inadvertently, but every damn amateur who wants to use a radio worth a damn has to get a license anyway so I personally wouldn't feel much sympathy if they got wrapped up in a drone/uav license. And yes, I am honestly feeling free to differentiate because it takes a little physically different to pilot a drone with a remote than it does to be physically in the pilots seat. Unless you're getting one of those huge systems that might imply you're under professional supervision and taking off from a runway, and not under an amateur license anyway. That might be different. But then if you're spending that kind of money on your hobby, we could have different levels of licensing like other amateur systems.

Once you're nearly hitting planes, I'm thinking everybody needs rules when everyone can hit something.

Honest question though, why wouldn't there be different physical requirements for a uav pilot sitting at a system on the ground than a full blown pilot sitting in the plane?

Broomstick wrote:

Gaidin wrote:I know the document Broomstick linked is a draft, but it's why I think its biggest problem is the word amateur and setting down rules for them isn't mentioned once.

That's because the FAA doesn't believe in amateur pilots or operators.

That's more a classic case of the FAA not really understanding what the fuck amateur means, given the amateur radio operators beat professional engineers to pretty much every wireless development and make it open source in their frequency range about five years before them. All amateur means on these licenses is that you don't do it for profit. Just because you don't do it for profit doesn't mean you don't conduct yourself professionally, whatever you want professionally to mean in that particular sentence.

Gaidin wrote:I'm talking about the kind of things you can accidentally fly in front of a damn plane or a helicopter.

This is not me, this is some random guy's picture I yanked off GIS. He's holding a U-Can-Do 3D, an RC model airplane of which my family owns one and a half (we had a crash).

This does not require training or license in the US. It certainly can "accidentally fly in front of a damn plane or a helicopter". If you're in a single-engine airplane and this slams into your windshield it will ruin your whole day, it would be like having a Canada goose slam into your airplane which, as the "Miracle on the Hudson" showed, can be more than just a little annoying even to a large airplane. As a bonus, the prop on the front of this thing can cause real damage, like peeling the meat off your fingers, mangling a hand, or taking someone's face off.

As an additional bonus, the fuel used contains castor oil, which contains trace amount of ricin. Very trace amounts, but detecting equipment these days is sufficiently sensitive to pick it up. This can make for additional fun for our hobbyist flyer.

Now, again, I think the fact we don't hear about that sort of accident more often is because MOST people do try to follow the rules and have no interest in causing trouble.

Admittedly the RC models might be wrapped up in this inadvertently, but every damn amateur who wants to use a radio worth a damn has to get a license anyway so I personally wouldn't feel much sympathy if they got wrapped up in a drone/uav license.

Me, neither. I started out in ultralights. I saw some nasty accidents due to people being untrained and unsafe. I don't like unnecessary rules but I have seen first hand the results of insufficient training and bad behavior.

But then if you're spending that kind of money on your hobby, we could have different levels of licensing like other amateur systems.

I know people who spend more in a year on their RC and model planes than I ever spent in a year on my general aviation flying. There are folks spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on these things. I'm happy for them, and I know of at least one instance were someone went from flying designing models to actual aircraft and spaceship design and manufacture (Burt Rutan started with RC models).

Honest question though, why wouldn't there be different physical requirements for a uav pilot sitting at a system on the ground than a full blown pilot sitting in the plane?

Bureaucrats can be lazy?

Yes, there should be different physical requirements for drone pilots vs. cockpit pilots.

Gaidin wrote:Just because you don't do it for profit doesn't mean you don't conduct yourself professionally, whatever you want professionally to mean in that particular sentence.

And that's what the FAA means. They use words like "private" to mean "non-commercial", in the end it's the same thing, but you're not likely to overturn 90 years of bureaucratic practice.

Broomstick wrote: And that's what the FAA means. They use words like "private" to mean "non-commercial", in the end it's the same thing, but you're not likely to overturn 90 years of bureaucratic practice.

Sorry about that then, I'm used to thinking in 90 years of FCC terms. It still doesn't seem like they're caring about that though, which is sort of annoying with what those things have been demonstrated to be able to do with a lower skill level.

The FAA does care about the low level operators, that's why they've resisted imposing more requirements at that level, and for some things have even loosen up (allowing controlled diabetics to fly general aviation, for example).