An Interview with “The Drone Lawyer,” Brendan Schulman

(Source: 3drobotics.com‘s Roger Sollenberger)  

Brendan Schulman, “the drone lawyer,” is Special Counsel in the Litigation Department at the law firm Kramer-Levin, where he heads the firm’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems practice. He successfully defended Raphael “Trappy” Pirker in the first-ever federal case involving the operation of a commercial drone in the United States.

He has two decades of hands-on experience with unmanned aircraft technology, and has been quoted in hundreds of news media outlets on the topic of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and is frequently invited to speak on the topic. He counts 3D Robotics among his many clients.

A few days ago I spoke with Brendan at length about the current state of drone laws in the U.S.

The FAA just announced it will issue exemptions for filmmakers to begin using drones for cinematography on set. Can you explain what these exemptions mean?

Earlier this year the FAA said that it would start to consider exemption requests for limited commercial use of drones. The first set of applicants were cinematographers, some of whom will now be granted exemptions. However, an FAA exemption alone doesn’t give a filmmaker the right to fly, but rather the ability to apply for permission to fly. Each job still needs to get approved for specific sets, locations, etc.

A bunch of burdensome regulations also apply: The FAA requires a flight crew of three people; one of the crew must be an FAA licensed pilot; and the 400 ft. flight ceiling is measured from the ground up, meaning you couldn’t fly a foot above a 400-foot rooftop, if you wanted to film that from above. Essentially these filmmaking operations are being treated as if they’re full, manned aircraft operations.

But they’re replacing those manned operations.

Exactly. I think what the filmmakers are doing is actually using the drone more like a camera crane or boom, not flying very high very often. Obviously a drone doesn’t pose nearly the same hazard as a full-size helicopter, but the FAA treats it that way. And these regulations make it more burdensome to take aerial cinematography than to get into an ultralight vehicle and fly yourself in an actual airplane. No licensing required there.

For me, the real worry about these stiff filmmaking regulations is that the FAA is courting a very real risk to innovation. Making it this burdensome will outweigh and possibly torpedo possible future benefits. But it really doesn’t surprise me that this is their starting point. We’ve seen for a long time that the FAA has a very conservative approach to any new technology, and this reflects that philosophy.

For instance, the FAA has been working on integrating Next-Gen Air Traffic Control systems for over a decade now; they’re way behind and way over budget. The agency is simply not historically good at adapting to new technology, and for good reason in the context of passenger travel. But personal drones are simply not in the same category as an airplane. We need a new paradigm for this new technology, because new technology simply doesn’t exist in current frameworks; I mean, look at Über, Airbnb, digital music, smartphones, the list is endless. So the question here is, if drones aren’t engaged in transportation, why are we in the same framework as transportation?

Sure. But there are legitimate concerns about safety, such flying over crowds and populated areas, near airports. What risks are there?

I think very little, actually: There’s no one on board, the products are decreasing in weight and size, the technology is improving, the safety mechanisms becoming more advanced. Obviously pilots should exercise caution when flying drones in more complex environments, such as near crowds. But we should also acknowledge that if there’s an injury it would surely be minor, not anything near what might be inflicted by a manned copter or airplane.

We can support this claim, in fact, because we’ve accumulated decades of knowledge and experience with injuries related to model aircraft. And not only are injuries highly unusual, they result in only bumps and scrapes. There have been only two reported deaths in connection with model aircraft activity, and very few serious injuries, most of which involved people stunt flying too close to themselves with large and aggressive copters. Drones have a slower rotor speed, smaller propellers, and on-board safety mechanisms like Return to Launch. Serious safety concerns are comparatively minimal. It doesn’t make sense that the FAA should devote its resources to bumps on the head.

Obviously there’s a desire to prevent collision with a passenger airplane. We’re all interested in preventing that possibility. But right now we’re talking about flying in isolated areas, like on farms, and on movie sets—there are no planes flying through there. We should build on the decades of experience of safe use of model airplanes by hobbyists in terms of avoiding manned air traffic.

Continue Reading at 3drobotics.com…