Is the FAA the Right Federal Agency to Regulate Uncrewed Aviation?

[mavic3usa]

Good article with some valid points:

Is the FAA the Right Federal Agency to Regulate Uncrewed Aviation?

The intent of this question is meant to promote a healthy conversation within our industry about the existing regulatory approach. There are important distinctions between drones and traditional aircr

www.commercialuavnews.com

 

[Bad Santa]

I would say, with the government structure we have in place now, yes.

Why?

Because they already have all the tools at hand to monitor airspace.

Doesn't matter if a craft is manned or not, the damage from an airborne collision is the same.

Though I don't agree with all of their rules and regulations, specifically the need for licensing craft as small as they do and restricting flights that occur under 400ft (for craft operating for business), I still believe they are the correct authority.

 

[GFields]

I would say yes!

 

[BigAl07]

I agree with @Bad Santa above. Very good points sir.

Why would you want ANOTHER entity controlling any aspect of AVIATION? Imagine adding another Govt Entity to make rules and then those rules have to somehow integrate into FAA rules. . . . We just think it's complicated now . . .

 

[Cafguy]

I am sure the FAA is just Thrilled with having to regulate Drones. Its not as if they have nothing better to do.They are the folks that regulate airspace tho so I would say they are the right choice. as to if they are doing a good job of it or not, well that's pretty open to Debate.

 

[Vic Moss]

Yes, the FAA is absolutely the correct agency to regulate drones.

Drones are part of the NAS, and the FAA is in charge of safety in the NAS. No other agency has anything close to the knowledge base necessary to control the NAS. And if you separate drones from the FAA, then you'll add another level of confusion because you're still need to coordinate UAS regulations with manned regulations.

And to use the author's own example, if we remove drones from the FAA because they are "flying computers", then we need to remove Tesla automobiles from under the DOT because they are "driving computers".

Not to mention how long it would take to spool up and entire new agency under the DOT/FAA framework.

No, removing drones from FAA authority would be a nightmare, and is a stupid idea.

 

[dart106]

I agree with @Bad Santa above. Very good points sir.

Why would you want ANOTHER entity controlling any aspect of AVIATION? Imagine adding another Govt Entity to make rules and then those rules have to somehow integrate into FAA rules. . . . We just think it's complicated now . . .

Agree. The very last thing we need in the United States, is another Federal Agency of Bureaucracy.

 

[MARK (LI)]

If the FAA is not the right agency...which is?

 

[Prop Wash]

I agree that the FAA IS the right agency!

Some of the points in the article seem weak to me.
A) drones are flying computers. Yeah, they are, but in modern manned Aviation, there is a LOT of computing power in Boeing or Airbus aircraft.
B) Should a person be able to get a license to fly a craft he's never flown before vs more in-depth training to fly a manned aircraft including many hours of flight time to finally get to a A380 (noted in article). The difference here is unmanned vs manned flight. Would I want a pilot in the left chair of my airliner to have just got his license, but never flown it? Oh heck No! But he/she has people in the tube behind them. A UAV pilot is standing on the ground, nobody aboard the UAV. If it crashes to the ground or in a tree, the craft is the only thing that could be damaged.
The above is strictly my opinion.

 

[Bad Santa]

If the FAA is not the right agency...which is?

Space Farce? They aren't really doing anything anyhow. /satire