FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[CloFan]

I doubt there are enough active drones at any one time to saturate the system but I just put the cheapest ADS-B-out system available in my airplane and it was about three times the cost of a Mavic - just for parts and that's the add-on I had to already have a mode C transponder.

Oof. I hadn't looked into prices since I don't own or operate, but that sucks.

 

[deleted member 877]

You make my cases for a solution looking for a problem.

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.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

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.

 

[sar104]

The problem (or lack of one) is you begin your argument from the second floor. There have been ZERO confirmed collisions between drones and manned aircraft and no injuries or fatalities. Even if you credit the unconfirmed reports as being confirmed they amount to a handful with no injuries or deaths. So what are we mitigating with the $500 million dollars being spent?

We don't need to speculate about safety issues in aviation. There are real safety issues that are causing injuries and deaths. Before dollar one is spent on speculative disasters deal with the known issues that are causing injuries and deaths.

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.

 

[JAW]

Thank you for the one. Now go find a dozen more and a few that have caused and injury or death and you still won't come close to making a case for public safety in contrast to other causes of aviation accidents, injuries and deaths.

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

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

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

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.

 

[deleted member 877]

Thank you for the one. Now go find a dozen more and a few that have caused and injury or death and you still won't come close to making a case for public safety in contrast to other causes of aviation accidents, injuries and deaths.

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.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The airspace regulators are fully within their rights to clamp down hard on moron drone operators.

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.

 

[rxlawdude]

And as I read in Section XVII, it won't take affect for 24 months after (if) the law is passed. Drone owners would have another 12 months to upgrade after that.

Again, there is a difference between a LAW (statute legislated by elected people) and a REGULATION (promulgated by unelected executive branch people).

 

[Shon]

There will always be rules and there will always be ways around them. As of right now, the Mavic Mini is exempt. Period. In the future, paper airplanes, party balloons and kites may need ADS-B transponders... I guess we'll see.

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?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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.

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.

 

[Thomas B]

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...

FAA proposed rule-making.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

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.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

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

And that report covers how many years and how many countries? Add up all the general aviation accidents, injuries and deaths over the same period and geography and then lets talk about where resources should be allocated. Thank you for making my cases.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

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...

FAA proposed rule-making.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

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.

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.

 

[deleted member 877]

Lon Denard said:
There will always be rules and there will always be ways around them. As of right now, the Mavic Mini is exempt. Period. In the future, paper airplanes, party balloons and kites may need ADS-B transponders... I guess we'll see.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

He was referring to the new FAA Drone-ID proposal - not all regulations. UAS weighing less that 250 grams are exempt.

 

[deleted member 877]

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.

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?"

 

[Bob1956]

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.

 

[JAW]

Thank you for making my cases.

Happy to oblige.

 

[Drone on]

How do register your back yard as a sanctioned RC field? RC fields might start popping up like daisies soon.

Maybe so, but I would not want to fly in the same place over and over, again.