Where you can and can't fly a drone

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30387107

by jakobsbiz • 12 years ago

35 24 12 years ago

bbc.com

ibz• 12 years ago

You can fly them anywhere if you're the US.

aerocapture3• 12 years ago

Actually, you can't (https://www.faa.gov/uas/).

And I think this simple ignorance illustrates the looming problem for the UAV community. As a commercial pilot and experimental aircraft owner, I can tell you that if the UAV community does not start to self-police these types of excursions, either by education or with software solutions (like the GPS-limiter mentioned in the article), then the regulating bodies will do it for them.

Most HN readers would agree that there is huge potential for UAV technology, but one needs only to look at the glacial progress of certified aviation technology in both the US and Europe to see that over-regulation can and does stifle innovation.

For readers familiar with the differing regulations in the US for experimental category amateur-built aircraft vs. certified light aircraft, you've seen the wide gap between what is possible to do with technology and what is legal to certify. In most cases, an aircraft built in your garage is far superior in display and sensor technology than your average certified airplane. This trend has only recently started to self-correct.

The point is, US organizations such as the EAA and AOPA do a tremendous amount of work to educate their members and to lobby Congress to ensure that what limited freedoms we have are maintained. I think the UAV community needs something similar or their industry will get regulated to death -- especially after the first drone gets ingested into a jet engine.

RobinL• 12 years ago

Note the absence of the word 'in' ;-)

zobzu• 12 years ago

there's no such thing as "UAV community" in this case. the vast majority of stupid flights are made by the general public getting a "drone" in some shop and flying it in "funny locations" such as airports.

These have no idea what they're doing and do not participate to forums/communities/etc thus are difficult to regulate.

Blaming it on the UAV community is actually also being ignorant. The actual community is literally spammed by posts about flying safe/where to fly/etc.

I think that a decent analogy to these drone pilots are laser-pointer owners pointing at airplanes. That's totally retarded, doesn't achieve anything exciting - it only risk other ppl's life with low chance of getting caught. Just like drones attempting to "film" 747's landing and the like.

matthewmcg2• 12 years ago

There are some UAV-focused lobbying organizations:

* The Small UAV Coalition (Amazon, AirWare, etc.) http://www.smalluavcoalition.org/

* Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (trade association): http://www.auvsi.org/home

Lots of individual universities, media companies, and tech companies have also been lobbying for UAV use.

There is also the Academy of Model Aeronautics, which is focused on hobby flying, including "drones."

spilk• 12 years ago

They are banned within all National Parks, thankfully.

sean-duffy• 12 years ago

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones have long crossed over from just being used in the military and specialist commercial sphere.

That's an interesting perspective, because I'd say if anything they've passed from the enthusiast and hobbyist sphere into the commercial/military one.

arethuza• 12 years ago

Where do you draw the line though - there have been military remotely operated or autonomous vehicles (munitions, reconnaissance drones, targets) since at least WW2.

Edit: I guess it all depends on the definition of "drone"...

BillinghamJ• 12 years ago

Why does the presence of a camera change the rules for distance? The article says that CAA is only making safety rules, not anything relating to privacy.

4ndr3vv• 12 years ago

Think the implication is that a drone with a camera is being flown FPV (ie with live video feed to the pilot), rather than being a movie camera that records for playback later.

As such, you don't need to stipulate that there is a line of sight as you fly using the camera / video feed.

Edit: whoops. i read that 150m part _completely_ wrong, cheers vp

votingprawn2• 12 years ago

Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) flown under FPV are defined under a separate exemption from Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft (SUSA), although the rules broadly overlap. Additionally for FPV the CAA mandate you must have a competent observer who can maintain unaided visual line of sight with the aircraft at all times.

I suspect their 150m surveillance rule is part privacy, and part a belief that if you're trying to film something/somebody with a camera you pose a higher risk than if you're just flying past them.

thomasfromcdnjs• 12 years ago

We've been collecting data through quotes we receive on https://dronehire.org and eventually going put out an interactive map of commercial drone activity. We've been around for a while now and can tell you that commercial drone activity is increasing rapidly.

rikkus• 12 years ago

I haven't checked the exact circumstances of the 'drone' being near a aeroplane, but if it was more than 50m away from the 'vehicle' at all times, it would appear that what happened was not forbidden.

I think that even if nothing against the CAA rules happened, they should probably be tightened to give a large perimeter around airports.

The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a likely common use - looking where you can't see. That's a bit of a shame for those wishing to get excellent photos or video of landscape features, buildings, etc. I can see why it would make the CAA nervous, but a real time video feed to the operator is surely close enough to 'line of sight' or making it more like a manned aircraft?

votingprawn2• 12 years ago

I haven't checked the exact circumstances of the 'drone' being near a aeroplane, but if it was more than 50m away from the 'vehicle' at all times, it would appear that what happened was not forbidden.

Even if they hadn't been operating beyond the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) conditions (they were apparently at 700ft, CAA accepts VLOS to be below 400ft), I wouldn't be surprised if the aircraft was in breach of other rules, such as operating an FPV/Surveillance aircraft over a congested area, or within an aerodrome traffic zone.

The rule requiring line of sight is interesting, as it forbids what seems a likely common use - looking where you can't see.

I think you'd be surprised at how much of a "non-issue" this is (excuse the awkward grammar). UAVs are my profession and I do a lot of surveillance and data acquisition work, and I can't remember ever _needing_ to fly out of VLOS. Real time video feeds give you a great view of what is going on in front of the camera, but not of what is happening around the aircraft. As advanced as UAVs have become they are not infallible and, as unlikely as it may seem, you should be prepared for your flying blender to fall out of the sky at any moment.

We were operating just a few days ago and the crew list was: pilot, pilot's spotter/assistant, payload operator, and three spotters. This may seem like overkill but a 7kg object falling from 50m can do some serious damage, and that is assuming the blades stop spinning on the way down.

fit2rule2• 12 years ago

The mass media are just champfing at the bit to write the story "Drone brings down Airliner" at some point on the horizon. The predictability of an event is directly proportional to the # of humans who are involved in the telling of that events' story. So, one of these days, we're going to see a damaged airliner, and the real facet of this current event is that we - who choose to use this technology - must be prepared for the eventuality that the story-tellers stories become reality.

kenrikm• 12 years ago

Sadly it's likely to be a Phantom that gets ingested into a jet engine first. The low barrier to entry means you have more people who don't understand the rules/safety implications flying them.

fit2rule2• 12 years ago

It is the RC FlyingThings' own long-September.

matthewmcg2• 12 years ago

This article states that "the Federal Aviation Authority bans the flying of unmanned aircraft, including hobby drones, above 400ft."

This is incorrect. The 400ft "limit" is a guideline for safe separation from manned aircraft (which are generally restricted from operating below 500ft).

It is true that the Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9, 1981) restricts operation above 400 feet, but this is document is explicitly non-binding and has never been given the force of law. A hard 400' limit was considered and rejected in both the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the FAA's pending Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

If you are interested in the details of pending U.S. legislation, I suggest following the Academy of Model Aeronautics' Government Relations blog: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/

Where you can and can't fly a drone

Related Stories