Stop Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations Within The National Airspace System

[Larry Dighera]

Petitioning US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration
Stop Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations Within The National Airspace System

Dear fellow airmen and airline passengers,

Please take a moment to make our skies safer, and sign the petition:

<http://www.change.org/petitions/us-department-of-transportation-federal-aviation-administration-stop-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-operations-within-the-national-airspace-system>


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are currently unable to comply with the
fundamental basis for collision avoidance within the National Airspace System:
See and Avoid.

Here's the federal regulation:

CFR Title 14 Aeronautics and Space SUBCHAPTER F--AIR TRAFFIC AND
GENERAL OPERATING RULES PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT
RULES
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

Currently the FAA permits UAV operations within the same airspace as airline
operations. That creates a public hazard to US air commerce.

While the FAA does require a ground observer or chase-plane for such UAV
operations, the fact is that the private UAV operators often fail to comply
with that requirement, thus posing a mid-air collision hazard.

Because UAVs were designed for military use, these blind UAVs, incapable of
complying with the regulations all other users of the National Airspace system
must observe, should only be permitted to operate within Restricted military
airspace, and not jeopardize public safety.

Current UAV operations pose a public hazard to airline travelers and other
flyers. It is irresponsible for the Federal Aviation Administration to permit
blind UAV operations within the same airspace used by manned aircraft that are
required to see-and-avoid. Stop this dangerous practice NOW!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please E-mail your family and associates, and Tweet to get the word out. Send
this link: <http://chn.ge/1enQSPd>.

I was personally involved in an incident with a UAV that was reported by Joshua
Approach as being at my altitude and five miles ahead. The UAV pilot failed to
respond to repeated ATC calls, and I was forced to change altitude to avoid the
pilotless aircraft. A subsequent FOIA request failed to indicate any observer
chase aircraft in the vicinity, and there's no way a UAV spotter on the ground
could have seen us from over a mile below.

It's my understanding, that there is a bill before Congress to deploy more of
these blind hazards along our southern boarder, and there are six "UAS test
areas" being developed within the NAS. We've got to do something to stop this
potentially deadly encroachment by deep-pocketed military contractors with
powerful lobbying power.

Make your voice heard. Sign now: <http://chn.ge/1enQSPd>.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Larry Dighera

[Skywise]

Please be careful when defining what you want and don't
want. The UAV regulations have an impact on "hobby" R/C
flying operations.

I agree with your concerns about the big UAV's and 'real'
airplanes. But I don't want the legit r/c hobby impacted
by overzealous and illdefined kneejerk regulations.

I haven't flown r/c for a few years due to lack of $$$,
so I don't know the current status, but a few years ago
there was major concern that the then proposed FAA regs
for UAV would eliminate R/C flying because technically
an r/c airplane is a UAV.

Brian
--
http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/index.php - Earthquake prediction & Earth
Sciences
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 23:40:12 GMT, Skywise > wrote:

>Please be careful when defining what you want and don't
>want. The UAV regulations have an impact on "hobby" R/C
>flying operations.
>
>I agree with your concerns about the big UAV's and 'real'
>airplanes. But I don't want the legit r/c hobby impacted
>by overzealous and illdefined kneejerk regulations.
>
>I haven't flown r/c for a few years due to lack of $$$,
>so I don't know the current status, but a few years ago
>there was major concern that the then proposed FAA regs
>for UAV would eliminate R/C flying because technically
>an r/c airplane is a UAV.
>
>Brian

Hello Brian,

Thank you for your comments.

It would seem you are correct about the impact of UAV/UAS regulations on
low-level UAS operations:

Beer Delivery By Drone Stopped By FAA

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2732-full.html?ET=avweb:e2732:218609a:&st=email#221369A>
Minnesota brewery's airborne solution to the preventable yet apparently
prevalent problem of running out of beer while ice fishing has been shot
down by the FAA. Lakemaid Brewery's clever use of a six-rotor drone to
whisk the frosty brews to their icebound customers runs afoul of the
agency's current ban on the commercial use of unmanned aircraft.

It is my understanding, that currently, non-commercial UAS operations below
400' AGL are okay with the FAA, and as long as they're outside of Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace, I have no problem with that.

But when moneyed military-profiteer interests succeed in bullying the FAA to
relax their most basic safety regulations, See-And-Avoid, the hazard they
create to human-occupied flights is dangerous, and unacceptable. I'm sure
you'd feel the same way if a flight your family was aboard was downed by a MAC
with a UAS unable to comply with regulations.

Please take a moment to make our skies safer, and sign the petition at this
link: <http://chn.ge/1enQSPd>.

Best regards,
Larry

[Arouet]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 07:15:56 -0800, Larry Dighera wrote:

> <http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2732-full.html?ET=avweb:e2732:218609a:&st=email#221369A>
> Minnesota brewery's airborne solution to the preventable yet apparently
> prevalent problem of running out of beer while ice fishing has been shot
> down by the FAA. Lakemaid Brewery's clever use of a six-rotor drone to
> whisk the frosty brews to their icebound customers runs afoul of the
> agency's current ban on the commercial use of unmanned aircraft.

Unless you are the CIA running drugs.

<ahem>
--
William "Bear" Bottoms on Mena, AR

"Our notoriety came from two things. Our smuggling operation was
probably the most sophisticated technically speaking of the time
Had it not been for Ollie North, arrests would have been made
then. We actually brought in about 25 loads of 300 kilos each.
7,500 kilos total approximately."

The title "most notorious drug smuggler" would more likely fit.
William "Bear" Bottoms Interview, 1997

[Larry Dighera]

Here's some updated information on UAS from the FAA
<http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240>:

Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
February 26–

There are a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about unmanned aircraft
system (UAS) regulations. Here are some common myths and the corresponding
facts.

Myth #1: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet

Fact—The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally
must stay at least 500 feet above the ground

Myth #2: Commercial UAS flights are OK if I'm over private property and stay
below 400 feet.

Fact—The FAA published a Federal Register notice in 2007 that clarified the
agency’s policy: You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that
you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3
miles from an airport, away from populated areas.) Commercial operations are
only authorized on a case-by-case basis. A commercial flight requires a
certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval. To date, only
one operation has met these criteria, using Insitu's ScanEagle, and
authorization was limited to the Arctic.(
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=73981)

Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.

Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an
aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness
certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight
demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator
to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date,
only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been
certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state
and local governments, and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of
Waiver or Authorization (COA). The FAA reviews and approves UAS operations
over densely-populated areas on a case-by-case basis.

Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require
FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model
aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas.

Myth #4: There are too many commercial UAS operations for the FAA to stop.

Fact—The FAA has to prioritize its safety responsibilities, but the agency is
monitoring UAS operations closely. Many times, the FAA learns about suspected
commercial UAS operations via a complaint from the public or other businesses.
The agency occasionally discovers such operations through the news media or
postings on internet sites. When the FAA discovers apparent unauthorized UAS
operations, the agency has a number of enforcement tools available to address
these operations, including a verbal warning, a warning letter, and an order to
stop the operation.

Myth #5: Commercial UAS operations will be OK after September 30, 2015.

Fact—In the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation, Congress told the FAA to come
up with a plan for “safe integration” of UAS by September 30, 2015. Safe
integration will be incremental. The agency is still developing regulations,
policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects
to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this
year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial
operations.

Myth #6: The FAA is lagging behind other countries in approving commercial
drones.

Fact – This comparison is flawed. The United States has the busiest, most
complex airspace in the world, including many general aviation aircraft that we
must consider when planning UAS integration, because those same airplanes and
small UAS may occupy the same airspace.

Developing all the rules and standards we need is a very complex task, and we
want to make sure we get it right the first time. We want to strike the right
balance of requirements for UAS to help foster growth in an emerging industry
with a wide range of potential uses, but also keep all airspace users and
people on the ground safe.

Myth #7: The FAA predicts as many as 30,000 drones by 2030.

Fact—That figure is outdated. It was an estimate in the FAA’s 2011 Aerospace
Forecast. Since then, the agency has refined its prediction to focus on the
area of greatest expected growth. The FAA currently estimates as many as 7,500
small commercial UAS may be in use by 2018, assuming the necessary regulations
are in place. The number may be updated when the agency publishes the proposed
rule on small UAS later this year.

Page last modified: February 26, 2014 11:39:18 AM EST








On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:11:09 -0800, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
>Petitioning US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration
>Stop Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations Within The National Airspace System
>
>Dear fellow airmen and airline passengers,
>
>Please take a moment to make our skies safer, and sign the petition:
>
><http://www.change.org/petitions/us-department-of-transportation-federal-aviation-administration-stop-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-operations-within-the-national-airspace-system>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are currently unable to comply with the
>fundamental basis for collision avoidance within the National Airspace System:
>See and Avoid.
>
>Here's the federal regulation:
>
> CFR Title 14 Aeronautics and Space SUBCHAPTER F--AIR TRAFFIC AND
> GENERAL OPERATING RULES PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT
> RULES
> § 91.113 Right-of-way rules
> (b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
> an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
> flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
> operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.
>
>Currently the FAA permits UAV operations within the same airspace as airline
>operations. That creates a public hazard to US air commerce.
>
>While the FAA does require a ground observer or chase-plane for such UAV
>operations, the fact is that the private UAV operators often fail to comply
>with that requirement, thus posing a mid-air collision hazard.
>
>Because UAVs were designed for military use, these blind UAVs, incapable of
>complying with the regulations all other users of the National Airspace system
>must observe, should only be permitted to operate within Restricted military
>airspace, and not jeopardize public safety.
>
>Current UAV operations pose a public hazard to airline travelers and other
>flyers. It is irresponsible for the Federal Aviation Administration to permit
>blind UAV operations within the same airspace used by manned aircraft that are
>required to see-and-avoid. Stop this dangerous practice NOW!
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Please E-mail your family and associates, and Tweet to get the word out. Send
>this link: <http://chn.ge/1enQSPd>.
>
>I was personally involved in an incident with a UAV that was reported by Joshua
>Approach as being at my altitude and five miles ahead. The UAV pilot failed to
>respond to repeated ATC calls, and I was forced to change altitude to avoid the
>pilotless aircraft. A subsequent FOIA request failed to indicate any observer
>chase aircraft in the vicinity, and there's no way a UAV spotter on the ground
>could have seen us from over a mile below.
>
>It's my understanding, that there is a bill before Congress to deploy more of
>these blind hazards along our southern boarder, and there are six "UAS test
>areas" being developed within the NAS. We've got to do something to stop this
>potentially deadly encroachment by deep-pocketed military contractors with
>powerful lobbying power.
>
>Make your voice heard. Sign now: <http://chn.ge/1enQSPd>.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Best regards,
>Larry Dighera

[Larry Dighera]

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2752-full.html?ET=avweb:e2752:218609a:&st=email#221562NBC>

NTSB Slaps FAA On Drone Regulation (Updated)

Update: On Feb. 7, the FAA announced that it has appealed the dismissal of its
civil penalty action against commercial drone operator Raphael Pirker to the
full National Transportation Safety Board. The appeal has the effect of staying
the law judge's decision until the full Board rules.

NBC News
<http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/faa-fine-against-drone-photographer-dismissed-n46506>
reported that a National Transportation Safety Board law judge dismissed a
civil penalty action brought by the Federal Aviation Administration against a
commercial drone operator. In 2011, photographer and reported skilled hobbyist
Raphael Pirker flew his Zephyr II drone over the University of Virginia campus,
recording photos and videos, which he sold to the university. In 2012 the FAA
brought a civil penalty action against Pirker, fining him $10,000 for a number
of violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations, including what attorneys
refer to as the FAA’s standard complaint: operating an aircraft in a careless
and reckless manner. Following a motion by Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman,
to dismiss the penalty based on questions regarding the FAA’s authority to
regulate drones, the NTSB ruled in Pirker’s favor. Civil penalty actions of
this sort are brought by the FAA and heard through an administrative law
process before an NTSB administrative law judge with appeal rights to the full
Board of the NTSB and a portion of the U.S. federal court system.

The order dismissing the penalty action included the statement that “at the
time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no
enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation, applicable to model aircraft or for
classifying model aircraft as an [Unmanned Aircraft System].” The NTSB’s ruling
“mean[s] that if you have this kind of aircraft [the FAA] is not going to be in
a position to fine you," Ryan Calo, professor of law at the University of
Washington, told NBC News. He expects the FAA will act to close the gap in
their regulation ability, or file an appeal. "I don’t think it’s time to let a
thousand drones fly, it’s time to watch and see how the FAA reacts," he said.
On Feb. 26
<http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Debunks-Drone-Myths221521-1.html>,
the FAA placed a strongly worded posting on its website
<http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240> asserting that it does
currently regulate commercial UAS operations and that they are prohibited
without FAA approval. Unless reversed on appeal, the NTSB ruling overcomes that
assertion, at least until the FAA enacts new regulations. Congress has directed
the FAA to come up with a plan for “safe integration” of UAS into the national
airspace system by Sept. 30, 2015. The FAA has said that such integration will
be incremental.