kkoran
Pattern Altitude
How much is this driven by the FAA's plans for drone air traffic management vs. the desires of the security apparatus?
Drone ID not popular
- Thread starter PeterNSteinmetz
- Start date
woodchucker
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
woodchucker
It wasn’t a spectator. He was out practicing and she was walking in a park with her kid.
FYI: Drone integration into the airspace has been part of the Next Gen plan since the beginning. There were also side discussions on Part 101, 103, 105, and 107 at one time but with the ADS-B deadline past, it was time to get back on the next path. However, just like ADS-B is needed only in certain airspace the same will probably be for drones also. But if the drone ID requirement is more along the lines of "national security" I would expect something to come out of the DoJ or DoD with the DoT providing the path to compliance. Regardless this NPRM is worded differently than some of the previous work group reports I've read. Will be interesting to see what comes out of it in this form, if anything.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Like most things regulatory, it would really be best if the FAA at least attempted some kind of cost benefit analysis. Since there are a lot on unknowns and lacking good studies, much is essentially educated estimates.
But they could at least try and figure out what is the actual risk mitigated by their proposed regulations, how many lives or serious injuries might be saved, and what it is going to cost to implement. Then figure out if the value you are placing on a life implicitly is even on the correct ballpark.
When people have done this for the TSA the implicit value per life is 100x higher than that available with other safety interventions (which implies one is misallocating the resources if the goal is safety). I suspect the same would be true for drone ID.
But they could at least try and figure out what is the actual risk mitigated by their proposed regulations, how many lives or serious injuries might be saved, and what it is going to cost to implement. Then figure out if the value you are placing on a life implicitly is even on the correct ballpark.
When people have done this for the TSA the implicit value per life is 100x higher than that available with other safety interventions (which implies one is misallocating the resources if the goal is safety). I suspect the same would be true for drone ID.
Morgan3820
Ejection Handle Pulled
You think a lot.
denverpilot
Tied Down
The Magnum post in another thread led to this funny scene I had forgotten. 
Brad Z
Final Approach
14 of the 87 pages of the final rule was devoted to cost benefit analysis. See the regulatory evaluation section. Obviously there are tons of assumptions but you can't say they didn't attempt an analysis.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Interesting. I looked and I can't find anything that constitutes a proper cost-benefit analysis of the sort I described, where you figure out what is the costs per life or injury avoided. I am looking at FAA-2019-0001. Please correct me if I missed it.
The executive summary provides three scenarios of estimated costs (which are considerable, ranging from $584M as the base scenario). Some benefits are mentioned later monetarily, such as the costs of airport closures because people are trying to enforce regulations about drones or are worried about them, but even here, there is no attempt to estimate the frequency of such events, with and without drone id, and then compare to the costs. There are NO estimated numbers of lives saved or injuries avoided. No actual comparison of costs versus primary benefits of the proposed intervention.
So while one can perhaps claim that they did do some cost estimation, they made NO attempt to weigh in a quantitative way the value of the primary benefits versus the costs. That is what a serious cost-benefit analysis does.
If this is the idea of the FAA for a cost-benefit analysis they are seriously not thinking about what they are doing, which is supposed to be enhancing safety. This just completely misses the point from an overall cost-benefit point of view. I guess one could generously say they did "attempt an analysis", but then I think one would have to conclude they are grossly incompetent (or don't want to do a proper analysis because it would likely show that the effective cost per life saved in this proposal is grossly out of proportion to any reasonable number).
Did it even cross the minds of the FAA regulators that they should have to justify spending about 1/2 billion dollars of other people's money in terms of what they are doing? I think they tend to operate as "safety at any cost", which is just not possible in the real world.
I don't mean to bash on the FAA exceptionally here. None of this is particular to the FAA, in fact it is completely consistent with what Mises pointed out in "Bureaucracy" is one of the primary problems with regulatory schemes -- the incentives are just not there to behave in a rational manner.
Brad Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,058
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad Smith
If the FAA was to isolate only quads, camera carrying model aircraft and commercial drones to regulation I wouldn’t mind. It’s when they lump all RC aircraft together and call them all drones (an insult) and place unnecessary restrictions on all of them is when I have an issue. It’s incredible that the Federal AVIATION Administration doesn’t have intelligence enough to accurately identify the problem and finds it easier to make blanket laws that punish the innocent. Now THAT is a crime!
Last edited:
Fracpilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2019
- Messages
- 494
- Display Name
Display name:
Fracpilot
smv
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,661
- Display Name
Display name:
smv
Good thing this kind of thinking was not around in 1995 when I used a bunch of rubber bands to strap a 35mm auto-advance film camera to the top of my balsa flyer to get arial views of the area around the flying club in Franklin, VA.
Grum.Man
En-Route
If they want to restore order ban the sale of Gyros and Digital transceivers. People who actually took the time and money to learn to fly aren’t the problems. Go back to good ol FM radios to limit the range and pretty much back to line of sight. Truth is the new gyro technology is the real culprit. Digital radios were around for a while before this became an issue.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Look, most of the commercial operators (myself included) are NOT the problem. The best of the drone photos are down at lower levels (50' even, for real!) where they really aren't in the way of anything, and from my experience most are being professionally flown by operators who don't want to hurt anything. It's mostly amateurs, newcomers, and thrill-seekers that are the problem, and regs aren't the solution for those guys. This new gotta connect to the internet deal is actually a huge problem in some of the most useful drone operations scenarios, which is crazy. Oh that, and the thought that next you'll have to install the same thing on a 1940s Cub, Taylorcraft, etc... and tell the feds every part of the path down low you want to fly. If they succeed with the drones, that's next.
kurttruk
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- May 3, 2015
- Messages
- 59
- Display Name
Display name:
kurttruk
The issue is people operating them where they shouldn’t. This is the blades of a medevac helicopter at a hospital in NC. They had to wait 25 minutes for it to leave the area before they could start up. Not sure what the answer is but if I had a loved waiting on this chopper I’d be more than ****ed.
Grum.man has the best plan, Ban the sale of the gyros and let learn the old way.
Grum.man has the best plan, Ban the sale of the gyros and let learn the old way.
Attachments
Last edited:
Shepherd
Final Approach
According to my best efforts at research, there have been a total of 5 people killed by model planes in the last 50 years.
The most recent being the one mentioned above.
The next was Roman Pirozek Jr who decapitated himself with a very large helicopter down in Staten Island a few years ago.
Tara Lipscombe, in the UK. Walked into the path of a guy trying to land.
Two were killed way back in the early days of radio control when the equipment malfunctioned. No names mentioned.
That's it. That's all I can find.
Of injuries to model flyers, the vast majority are self inflicted. Fingers, hands in props, etc.
BTW: The AMA covers every member with up to one million dollars in insurance if they are flying at an AMA approved site or sanctioned event.
None of what is going on has anything to do with safety.
The sole reason for this idiotic law is to clear the way for Amazon and other companies to do delivery by drone.
The most recent being the one mentioned above.
The next was Roman Pirozek Jr who decapitated himself with a very large helicopter down in Staten Island a few years ago.
Tara Lipscombe, in the UK. Walked into the path of a guy trying to land.
Two were killed way back in the early days of radio control when the equipment malfunctioned. No names mentioned.
That's it. That's all I can find.
Of injuries to model flyers, the vast majority are self inflicted. Fingers, hands in props, etc.
BTW: The AMA covers every member with up to one million dollars in insurance if they are flying at an AMA approved site or sanctioned event.
None of what is going on has anything to do with safety.
The sole reason for this idiotic law is to clear the way for Amazon and other companies to do delivery by drone.
That gyro also allows me to fly a 2 ounce Piper Cub at 20' altitude in my local park. I've flown R/C since 1975 and the ability to be able to do so without dealing with all the baggage has brought a lot of fun back into being able to do so when the mood hits and I can drive down the street and do it.
Education would be far more effective than regulation.
DaleB
Final Approach
New gyro technology is not the culprit, and banning them would be neither practical nor effective. The "culprit" is the people who think it's perfectly OK to do anything they want, anywhere they want, any time they want, with no regard whatsoever for anyone else on the planet. The whole "I do what I want, screw anyone who thinks it's not OK" mentality. The attitude is pervasive, and until it becomes unacceptable to enough people we'll continue to have problems with this and a lot of other things as well.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,022
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Put one in a model rocket triggered by a 555 timer circuit - flew it out of local parks. That probably makes me a terrorist.Good thing this kind of thinking was not around in 1995 when I used a bunch of rubber bands to strap a 35mm auto-advance film camera to the top of my balsa flyer to get arial views of the area around the flying club in Franklin, VA.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
No. Severely punish those caught doing wrong, make it a huge problem, let the honest folks go about their business.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha..................................... Are you serious? Comments on the NPRM? And you think the FAA listens to notice of proposed rulemaking feedback? Are we daft?
Go ask the Ultralight community if the FAA listened to their comments, suggestions, or concerns before they forced Sport down their throats....... The FAA does want it wants to do.......Period. They have no oversight, and could care less about what you, I, or anyone else thinks.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 7,000
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
rEgUlAtOrY cApTuRe's a b---- ain't it.
kurttruk
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- May 3, 2015
- Messages
- 59
- Display Name
Display name:
kurttruk
Any idea how to do that? I think that is the issue.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Does anyone have data regarding what the extent of the problem with drones is? Anyone been killed or seriously injured by these? If not, what is the potential and how many close calls? Or does "model airplanes" here include drones?
Of course, this is exactly the sort of information the FAA should have had in their cost-benefit analysis part of the NPRM.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_records/uas_sightings_report/
FYI: the NPRM requirement and its reasoning are part of The Administrative Procedure Act. It should not be equated to any private-sector financial/cost benefit analysis. The NPRM cost analysis portion, which is the same used for ADs, etc, is merely an "impact" cost to the general flying public. A review of the APA and its other guidance will give you more details.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
Gotta start by prosecuting the known stuff that is not being done.
smv
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,661
- Display Name
Display name:
smv
The only way I could figure out how to mount my camera was dead center on the wing and facing straight up. This did two things. It made the airplane fly like a brick, and it forced me to fly that brick inverted in order to get pictures of anything more than the sky and clouds. Since it was a simple airplane, I had Channel 6 available for a servo to swing back and forth to trigger the auto-advance shutter button when I wanted it to take a picture.
I still have that airplane but it has been damaged a time or two in a few across-the-world moves over the years (VA-GU-HI-MT).
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,022
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,022
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Good thing this guy is not in the US (based on accent, could be wrong), he would be TOTALLY effed under the proposed rules...
Brad Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,058
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad Smith
In the final rule, if you want to avoid a RID you will probably be limited to flying at sanctioned fields only and to a maximum altitude of 400’ AGL. Any camera equipped drones/airplanes will be RID equipped and bear the full weight of any limitations the gov. can come up with.
It be will a bad day for sailplane flyers as no fun is to had when limited to 400’ AGL. Some of the bigger ships at 3 to 4 meters can easily be flown at 1500 to 2000 feet. Also, my favorite sport of slope soaring may be a thing of the past. The number of slope soaring pilots and the harmless nature of their activity is too insignificant for big gov. to even consider when they put pen to paper and exercise their power over the people. Those of us concerned about the new proposed rule making have written our letters and voiced our concerns and have exercised the only power we have. Now we just sit back to wait and see what level of stupidity the uninformed bureaucrats will come up with.
It be will a bad day for sailplane flyers as no fun is to had when limited to 400’ AGL. Some of the bigger ships at 3 to 4 meters can easily be flown at 1500 to 2000 feet. Also, my favorite sport of slope soaring may be a thing of the past. The number of slope soaring pilots and the harmless nature of their activity is too insignificant for big gov. to even consider when they put pen to paper and exercise their power over the people. Those of us concerned about the new proposed rule making have written our letters and voiced our concerns and have exercised the only power we have. Now we just sit back to wait and see what level of stupidity the uninformed bureaucrats will come up with.