New FAA Proposed sUAS Rules 14 Jan 2019

[dirkclod]

A member just posted this in Mavic and don't see it here so am C&Ping it here /
Today on the FAA website:
On January 14, 2019, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao announced proposed new rules and a pilot project to allow unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or more commonly called drones, to fly overnight and over people without waivers under certain conditions and to further integrate drones safely into the national airspace system.

Secretary Chao's Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Remarks

DRAFT NPRM--Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People (PDF)
These proposed changes to Part 107 would attempt to balance the need to mitigate safety risks without inhibiting technological and operational advances.

DRAFT ANPRM--Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (PDF)
The FAA will seek public input to identify major drone safety and security issues that may pose a threat to other aircraft, to people on the ground or to national security as drones are integrated into our national airspace.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

A great step forward, assuming this is legit, and I have no reason to believe is not. Looks like common sense has finally arrive at the feds UAS office.

 

[dronecyclops]

This is good news was concerned what with all the negative news lately

 

[Phaedrus]

Going to be interesting how the different drone manufacturers look at doing the required testing and certification. Looks like prop guards will be a must all around. Maybe some new designs will come out of it.

 

[Earnest Ward]

As reported by U.S. News & World Report, the new rules would likely be dependent on adoption of a nation-wide Remote ID system - which should/could be released in proposal form by May. Looks like we're in for another exciting year!

https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...les-on-drone-flights-over-people-and-at-night

 

[philsmith76]

I’m guessing the 3mi visibility lighting and parachute(parazero) types of businesses are about to take off.

The prices for drones as we know them are about to skyrocket as “certified” aircraft are likely to be much more expensive.

The .55lb and under drone manufacturers will cram some amazing tech into their aircraft and it will be a very crowded field.

 

[Phaedrus]

Given that FAA will likely want remote ID before this happens it looks like it will take some time for this to be fully implemented.

 

[Bob]

We all need to give the FAA input when they want public opinion.

 

[Phaedrus]

We all need to give the FAA input when they want public opinion.

Yep. They want it too and are required to take them into account. That's why there is a mandated comment period in the rules process.

 

[Darren Gahan]

A member just posted this in Mavic and don't see it here so am C&Ping it here /
Today on the FAA website:
On January 14, 2019, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao announced proposed new rules and a pilot project to allow unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or more commonly called drones, to fly overnight and over people without waivers under certain conditions and to further integrate drones safely into the national airspace system.

Secretary Chao's Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Remarks

DRAFT NPRM--Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People (PDF)
These proposed changes to Part 107 would attempt to balance the need to mitigate safety risks without inhibiting technological and operational advances.

DRAFT ANPRM--Safe and Secure Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (PDF)
The FAA will seek public input to identify major drone safety and security issues that may pose a threat to other aircraft, to people on the ground or to national security as drones are integrated into our national airspace.

I'm in Canada and the new regulations that are coming into effect in June will eliminate anyone from doing commercial operations "near" people unless they have a $20,000 or more "approved" drone. There are no reported incidents of commercial drone operations harming the public. I can understand a need for safety, but the new requirements have nothing to do with 'actual" safety. I have been operating for the last 2 years with s SFOC and had zero incidents or accidents. I know there are thousands of "illegal" operations that have been done from unlicensed real estate agents, and again when I look at TCCA (equivalent to TSB) there are no reported accidents involving injury to people, and I'm guessing thousands of these missions have been conducted near or over people.

The .55lb drones (250 grams or less in Canada) can pose a greater risk than a Phantom 4 if you consider that "potential" risk of injury is based not only on weight, but velocity. A smaller drone spreads out the impact over a smaller area, thus could actually do more internal damage and have further and deeper penetration to a human body.

The government required tests that the manufacturers must submit protect us how? The Airbus A320 was certified and safe to fly, until flight 1549 proved otherwise.

Maybe the Mythbusters could do some research and see what is actually dangerous in a real life situation, and use that data for the new regulations, thus allowing what are already proved through evidence to the contrary, a safe drone to operate "near" people by a commercial operator. Lets hope the FAA doesn't be as stupid as Transport Canada. AND interesting and in the same category, in Canada e-Bikes are unregulated, unlicensed and HAVE injured and killed people. I'm 1000 times more likely to be hurt by an e-bike while operating my drone for real estate photography, than a member of the public is in danger of getting hurt by my drone while I'm operating it commercially.

 

[JDSimpson]

I think AUVSI has submitted some good comments and recommendations to the FAA's RID NPRM. See attachment.

 

[R.Perry]

I believe we will see some positive changes in the near future, they may not be positive for everyone, but for the commercial side and those of us that want to obey the law and operate in a safe and responsible manner I think it will be good, however there may be some significant costs to potential upgrade requirements such as parachutes and transponders.
If we should go to transponders in the future then will come the requirement to have communication capabilities with ATC.
If that should happen, I wonder how ATC would handle it, and what their input to the FAA might be?

 

[AH-1G]

If it comes to a point that drone pilots need to communicate with ATC on a regular basis, I would hope there would be a very specific frequency for drone pilots.

 

[Fred Garvin]

If it comes to a point that drone pilots need to communicate with ATC on a regular basis, I would hope there would be a very specific frequency for drone pilots.

Nope.....gonna be on the CTAF announcing “I’m 100’ above the old park down the street from where that red barn used to be”......but only when you’re flying by......

 

[AH-1G]

Lol, that's what I'm afraid of!
I think there needs to be a "communications class" in person at a flight school not on line!
Let me ask, are they going to require you to contact ATC, and Center too, except when your out of range of of center????
Food for thought;
Example: when flying to "XO6" airport I need to contact Tampa Center (not ATC). So if I'm flying a drone in Tampa Center's area, do I need to contact them of my intentions?????
VFR vs IFR???

 

[R Martin]

Lol, that's what I'm afraid of!
I think there needs to be a "communications class" in person at a flight school not on line!
Let me ask, are they going to require you to contact ATC, and Center too except when you out of range of of center????
Food for thought;
Example: when flying to "XO6" airport I need to contact Tampa Center (not ATC). So if I'm flying a drone in Tampa Center's area, do I need to contact them of my intentions?????
VFR vs IFR???

At this point, it's all just speculation. No-one (including the FAA?) has a clue what is going to shake out. They just released the initial version of an NPRM governing flight over people and one more I haven't begun reading. The public comment phase of the remote ID and BVLOS NPMR just closed out yesterday. All you can do at this point is wait and see what decision the FAA makes in the next few years.

 

[Jetech]

Given the history of the FAA I imagine once they work out the certification and operating standards they will move on to the drone maintenance aspect. They could possibly require all U. S. Based repair facilities to become certified repair stations. It will work downward from there to the individual operators and what maintenance type work they will be allowed to do on their own drone. They seem to be moving in the direction of certified aircraft so I look for many changes coming.

 

[R Martin]

Given the history of the FAA I imagine once they work out the certification and operating standards they will move on to the drone maintenance aspect. They could possibly require all U. S. Based repair facilities to become certified repair stations. It will work downward from there to the individual operators and what maintenance type work they will be allowed to do on their own drone. They seem to be moving in the direction of certified aircraft so I look for many changes coming.

That would make sense. It would make more sense to do that first which would make a lot of the other discussions a moot point. If we are held to the same standards, then we should be able to operate the same. Either way, it is going to be an added expense which is probably not going to go over well in the rec sector.

 

[Fred Garvin]

I can’t see there ever being a requirement to call one of the centers.....flight following would have zero interest in us.

”American 1270 be advised there’s a drone operating 33,600’ below you”......

Operating in Surface Controlled Airspace within a proximity to operations that 400’ could be a factor.....yes.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Another thread gone screeching into the weeds...