FAA Drone ID Proposal:
- Thread starter bcfd29
- Start date
- Status
Not at all. Rather I believe the FAA is looking at stats such as drone sales volumes versus how many drones are registered along with the ever increasing numbers of drones in active circulation. From this they can reliably predict that the risk (consider what you now know about how risk is managed) of accidents caused by UAS is likely to increase.
They are taking action now to hopefully mitigate future risk. As always IMHO.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Cost is the main reason all light aircraft and helis (here in Australia) aren't required to have ADS-B at this time.
Drones will have some other type of monitoring, perhaps aeroscope type tech based firstly at all NFZs like airports, military bases, busy urban regions etc.
FAA and other such airspace authorities are all bringing in similar drone legislation, rules vary slightly in terms and values on some rules.
But most seem to be taking this proactive legislation focus, and have a reactive enforcement capability, for now.
This will change as new tech can be brought into operation, when they will probably one day get an alert someone is say flying downtown Hong Kong at 250m alt, and if they can't catch them in the act, they will certainly be able to get info on the pilot and follow up at their home, or if visiting a country at their hotel or at the departure gate.
Drones will have some other type of monitoring, perhaps aeroscope type tech based firstly at all NFZs like airports, military bases, busy urban regions etc.
FAA and other such airspace authorities are all bringing in similar drone legislation, rules vary slightly in terms and values on some rules.
But most seem to be taking this proactive legislation focus, and have a reactive enforcement capability, for now.
This will change as new tech can be brought into operation, when they will probably one day get an alert someone is say flying downtown Hong Kong at 250m alt, and if they can't catch them in the act, they will certainly be able to get info on the pilot and follow up at their home, or if visiting a country at their hotel or at the departure gate.
There have been three confirmed collisions, the one in the US being the most well known - the collision between a Phantom and a Black Hawk over New York. And in any case, there is no reason to ignore this particular safety issue just because you can think of other safety concerns.
Ask and you shall receive. 12 confirmed, 8 suspected, 2 fatalities
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > (Suspected) drone collisions with aircraft
Aviation Safety Network: Aviation Safety Network: Databases containing descriptions of over 11000 airliner write-offs, hijackings and military aircraft accidents.
aviation-safety.net
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
I've read through a lot of that before, and still the title says it all "(Suspected) drone collisions with aircraft".
The foundation too exists only because it can cite cases of safety issues, so it records anything it can to make it look needed.
The 2 fatalities were from a related hobby, an impact between a motor glider and a 10kg / 2.4m wingspan model aircraft impact.
Accident occured at 219 m and 285m agl, the Grob aircraft should have been at an altitude of at least 600 m agl.
I'm all for safe skies, and think eventually we will have some system that any airspace authority can use to track rouge drone operators of all descriptions, autonomous, commercial, and hobbyist.
Let's hope we are not unnecessarily restricted by paranoia in the meantime.
For obvious reasons its not just about accidents. Think about all of the other stupid stuff like drones hanging around fires and accident scenes, impeding first responders' efforts to save lives and property. The airspace regulators are fully within their rights to clamp down hard on moron drone operators.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Of course, but it needs to be proactive, not reactive enforcement.
So it doesn't drag all the rest of the conscientious pilots down with it.
This is where the autonomous recording of flights at high risk areas will come into good effect.
Regulation and licensing is the obvious first step.
GOVCOs then need to step up and get the right tech going to monitor ALL drone brand flights at high risk areas.
The UK will likely be one of the first large countries to have a chance at this, US and Australia are still sorting out and implementing their systems.
From what I've gleaned from reading here and other such online, the UK GOVCO is planning on getting the Police to check licencing etc when they spot a drone pilot.
Far from enough, let's hope all major controlled airspace is first off the mark to install tech to track any drone flying there, as a good first step.
Following that, major city urban environments, maybe a series of mobile units a small dept can use to do random checks.
Obviously installing permanent equipment will be costly and take time, maybe years.
Again, there is a difference between a LAW (statute legislated by elected people) and a REGULATION (promulgated by unelected executive branch people).
Shon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2019
- Messages
- 306
- Reactions
- 306
I'm afraid that just isn't true... other than registration with the FAA, the Mavic Mini is subject to all the other FAA rules and requirements.
Speaking of balloons, mylar balloons just caused a major power outage near my location...I wonder how many drones have caused major power outages or fires?
Likely to increase from 1 to 5 with no injuries or fatalities? The idea that 1-2 pound drones flying at 400' are anywhere near the threat posed by manned aircraft that are involved in real accidents where injuries and deaths are occuring is ludicrous. Why take action and spend hundreds of millions of dollars based on speculations. Address the real causes of aviation accidents, injuries and deaths before dealing with speculations about what might happen.
You done need an all pervasive $500 million dollar system to deal with the rare occasions where an idiot flying a drone at an accident scene impedes rescue efforts. That's like opening a fire hydrant because you need a sip of water. Yea, you'll get your sip while wasting resources that could be better used elsewhere.
Please! All members should contact DOT and FAA with their input ASAP.
Make your voice heard, reasonably through channels established. Those who are registered with FAA should have received the FAA email requesting same.
It may be futile if you do.... it’s absolutely futile if you don’t.
Check out this comment from a post above...
www.dropbox.com
just as how to do, not to debate stance... now is the time to stand together and flood them with individual letters. I believe this is a stronger approach than a single letter from members.
Make your voice heard, reasonably through channels established. Those who are registered with FAA should have received the FAA email requesting same.
It may be futile if you do.... it’s absolutely futile if you don’t.
Check out this comment from a post above...
Dropbox
www.dropbox.com
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Please! All members should contact DOT and FAA with their input ASAP.
Make your voice heard, reasonably through channels established. Those who are registered with FAA should have received the FAA email requesting same.
It may be futile if you do.... it’s absolutely futile if you don’t.
Check out this comment from a post above...
just as how to do, not to debate stance... now is the time to stand together and flood them with individual letters. I believe this is a stronger approach than a single letter from members.Dropbox
Perhaps outline the best points to make, questions etc.
It's important for a community such as this to create a like list of concerns or ideas.
I hope things go the right way there, as many places worldwide may follow the US lead.
He was referring to the new FAA Drone-ID proposal - not all regulations. UAS weighing less that 250 grams are exempt.
As I tried to explain to you (but you're evidently not taking any notice), it's more than speculation - a lot more. Repeating yourself over and over again is not going to convince anyone to take your point of view if they don't already agree with you.
What makes you think that there is nothing in place to "address the real causes of aviation accidents, injuries and deaths?"
Another thought I'm having is these rules are so Draconian it isn't about safety at all that's just the BS cover story. It all about sweeping every drone, model airplane, kite and birthday balloon from the low sky so the commercial drones won't be interfered with. Eventually they'll come after small time 107 drone businesses. If your drone doesn't remote ID as Amazon or Fed-Ex you're illegal.
Maybe so, but I would not want to fly in the same place over and over, again.
- Status
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
Air 3s Video settings tested - D-Log vs. HLG- Started by DroneZone Samui
- Replies: 1
Forum statistics
