In what was neither a win for Congress nor the FAA on Wednesday, the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee called in aviation experts for a hearing on Wednesday to discuss the FAA’s lack of progress. In the face of the increasing popularity of drones, especially with the holiday season around the corner, the committee voiced concern that the FAA has done nothing to curtail the potential risk of having so many drones in our airspace.
The panel before the committee included President of the Air Line Pilots Association Tim Canoll, Director of the Academy of Model Aeronautics Rich Hanson, Professor Mykel Kochenderfer of Stanford University, and the FAA’s Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker.
That is a solid lineup but it didn’t make the hearing any less frustrating to watch.
Don’t get me wrong, it was clear everyone present wants to ensure safe skies but none of the parties involved seemed to agree on how exactly this goal could be accomplished.
In fact, agreement was in short supply.
This point came to a head when Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) went on Amazon on his phone and said he could purchase Amazon’s “Best Selling UAV” for $45.90.
“But it has a shipping weight is 1.1 pound and it has a range of 50 meters. You’re surely not saying this should be registered?”, he posed to Mr. Canoll.
First of all, Rep. Farenthold is right. This product is a remote control helicopter, a toy meant for children. It is so far from a drone or a UAV, it would be like called a go-cart a sports car.
Secondly, this loaded question is emblematic of the lack of definition for the term “UAV” or “drone.”
This point that was brought up early by Mr. Canoll was the number of ‘near misses’ between drones and airliners. Mr Canoll sited an FAA report that says these sightings number in the hundreds.
“Non-commercial and recreational UAS operations appear to be the primary source…” of these so-called close encounters.
He went on to elaborate on how these drones appear to airline pilots “literally out of the blue” because they can be difficult to see.
But Mr. Hanson rebutted this claim in his opening statement saying because these objects are so difficult to see and details of the objects in these reported sightings are so thin, there is no evidence to suggest these instances were actual sightings of unmanned aerial systems. The report may say ‘drone’ but at this point, the use of this language could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the pilots.
But then when the representatives went to reference these numbers, each representative chose the language that best suited their point rather than acknowledge the lack of clarity on the issue.
There were, however, two points that everyone seemed to agree on:
For one, wherever the line is drawn between drones and toys, drones should have some kind of registration.
“Most times when you buy a piece of technology these days, even if you buy a toaster, you register your product online for warranty purposes. People do this all the time,” said Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Washington). So why can’t this be mandated for drone manufacturers?
Seems logical.
Finally, onboard technology hardcoded into the drones, such as altitude limits and geofencing could “significantly reduce” the safety risks as Professor Kochenderfer succinctly summed up.
And while most of the representatives eagerly jumped on this idea of geofencing, none of them seemed to understand this technology doesn’t exist quite yet.
“Implementing geofencing is more difficult (than altitude limits) because it relies on an up-to-date database of geofenced locations and accurate GPS locations,” Kochenderfer explained leaving the implication hanging that such a database does not yet exist.
Incidentally, NASA is working on such a project, and as Mr. Whitaker said, the FAA is working with private industry on this issue. But it is not going to be an overnight fix.
You can watch the hearing in its entirety embedded below.
Alan is serial entrepreneur, active angel investor, and a drone enthusiast. He co-founded DRONELIFE.com to address the emerging commercial market for drones and drone technology. Prior to DRONELIFE.com, Alan co-founded Where.com, ThinkingScreen Media, and Nurse.com. Recently, Alan has co-founded Crowditz.com, a leader in Equity Crowdfunding Data, Analytics, and Insights. Alan can be reached at alan(at)dronelife.com
Seems like you hit the nail on the head “… most of them are uninformed and have no idea … ”
I applaud your common sense approach to the subject. I don’t full agree on every point, but think if an approach like this can be initiated, there may be some hope.
Keep up the good work!
While this is just my two cents on the issue, I firmly believe that congress nor the FAA is entirely capable of making decisions on this as most of them are uninformed and have no idea of how to regulate the industry. The FAA has the added bias of protecting the manned flight industry. I think if the FAA has a say in the issue, RC/UAV companies and lobbyists should have an equal say in the matter.
As nothing more than a recreational/hobby RC pilot and part-time commercial UAV pilot (in Japan) it seems to me that the misinformation and misconception regarding UAV systems is the biggest problem the industry faces. Add to that the fact that the majority of UAV systems currently available are manufactured in China, safety and quality control issues are abundant.
Though nothing more than what seems like common sense, I crafted below what I believe to be adequate regulation guidelines that can and should be easily changed into law. With slight modification, and additions, these guidelines could be easily and efficiently instituted and enforced nationwide. And, while not perfect, these guidelines would allow for the general public to be adequately protected from injury or damage as well as allow the commercial use of UAV systems.
Privacy is the first issue I will address. There seems to be a lot of controversy about privacy relating to UAV use. There really is no issue. The laws as they stand today will protect you against someone invading your privacy. That being said, I think the average citizen would benefit greatly from reviewing just what rights you have and do not have when it comes to privacy. A simple way to look at it is this: If someone can view you or your property by happenstance, you have no right to privacy. I as an American have the right to stand on the street and photograph one’s home, vehicle, or property. I can even photograph or capture on video complete strangers without permission. I cannot climb a fence to see what is in your yard, but I can climb a tree that is outside of your property to do so. Basically, the only reasonable place a person can assume that they have privacy is inside their home and inside their vehicle. Furthermore, for a UAV to be close enough to photograph or video an individual such as that individual is easily identifiable, the UAV would have to be within a relatively close proximity. Anyone who has experience with UAVs knows that they can easily be heard within 100m. So, the fear of being photographed or caught on video is really a non-issue when it comes to UAVs (is no more of an issue with UAVs than with peeping toms).
1. UAV’s should be classified as GPS or BLOS guidance system equipped aircraft.
– if completely controlled by line of sight and manual input on radio controller by pilot, aircraft should be classified as a hobby-class remote controlled aircraft. Weight and payload specifications should also be considered.
2. UAV manufacturers should be required by law to pass certification checks like those of other electronics in order to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations such as but not limited to operating frequency, failsafe features, GPS systems, and identifying features (serial numbers). Further, any UAV system shall be required to include an update capable no-fly zone geo-fencing and altitude limiting technology. All systems shall be made to warn users that they are flying near to or withing a no-fly zone, and warn users that they have reached their maximum altitude. These systems though not currently advanced enough to stop misuse, they can be used as a deterrent and as evidence of deliberate misuse in the event of litigation, forcing users to intentionally override safety parameters in order to exceed altitude limits or fly within no-fly zones.
3. All systems classified as UAV’s or UAS’s shall be registered to an owner upon purchase by the entity responsible for its sale, be it the manufacturer or dealer. Registration shall resemble that of automobiles. In order to sell a UAV second-hand, this registration must be transferred to the new owner before use. Registration of UAV’s should be comprehensive and include private recreational users as well as commercial users. Unregistered UAV’s shall be treated the same as unregistered guns, the UAV shall be confiscated for use as evidence and for later disposal, and the owner shall be prosecuted.
4. Commercial use shall require an operators license. However, this license shall not be equivalent to a pilot’s license and therefore obtaining one shall be significantly easier. The required skill set and knowledge of aviation for piloting a manned-aircraft extends further than that required of UAV pilots. UAV operator licenses shall be issued after applicant displays adequate knowledge of UAV operation, safety, and regulations, as well as demonstrate the ability to safely control a UAV. Adequate knowledge of UAV operation shall include system construction, troubleshooting, calibration, safety procedures, emergency contingencies, etc. Multiple license categories shall be instituted encompassing aspects such as intended use, aircraft size, and aircraft capability. A real estate photographer utilizing a commercial UAV should not be required to maintain the same license as a company that intends to use UAVs to deliver packages to residences. As the uses and risks involved are not the same, nor should the licenses required. Licensing shall be instituted on a level basis, the highest level of license allowing all conceived civilian uses of UAVs, with lower levels imposing more restrictions.
5. All commercial UAVs shall be required to hold, at minimum, a liability insurance policy that insures uninvolved parties against injury or damage to persons or property against collisions or other incidents with UAVs. Commercial UAVs shall further be required to maintain at least two failsafe systems to prevent collisions and crashes. Such systems include automated compensation for a failed motor (ex. DJI NAZA-M, WOOKONG, A2 flight controllers), obstacle avoidance systems, parachute systems, etc. The sole purpose of these systems shall be to minimize risk of injury and damage to people and property and shall function without manual input or control signal of any kind (i.e. completely automated). Preventing damage to the aircraft shall be of secondary concern.
6. The FAA should work cooperatively with UAV/RC developers and manufacturers to amend/modify the rules and regulations of manned flight so that no communication with the FAA or ATC is necessary if flying within normal UAV parameters. In the event that a UAV operator wishes to fly within a no-fly zone or above the legal altitude limit, said operator must contact the FAA prior to the planned flight and must receive approval from the FAA and ATC before taking off. In return, the FAA and ATC shall create new policy and integrate it in such a way that approval for such activities takes no more time than that of private manned aircraft.
7. Flight logs and maintenance records shall be maintained for all commercial UAVs. Flight logs shall include location, time, weather conditions, flight overview, flight time, altitude, and distance. Maintenance records should include the date and extent of maintenance conducted.
Any thoughts?