WSJ Article: Drone Flights Face FAA Hit

[lintroller]

It's behind a paywall, but you can read the whole article by searching the title "Drone Flights Face FAA hit" on Google News. The Article is dated November 23, 2014.

Here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/articles/drone-flights-face-faa-hit-1416793905

"Highly anticipated federal rules on commercial drones are expected to require operators to have a license and limit flights to daylight hours, below 400 feet and within sight of the person at the controls, according to people familiar with the rule-making process."

As an enthusiast, I'm troubled by some of the restrictions mentioned in this article. Anybody else more knowledgeable care to chime in?

 

[Noël]

It was posted before.
See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30134

 

[MadMitch88]

"Highly anticipated federal rules on commercial drones are expected to require operators to have a license and limit flights to daylight hours, below 400 feet and within sight of the person at the controls, according to people familiar with the rule-making process."

Flying below 400 ft. is a good general rule --- but how does one define "within sight of the person at the controls"?

If I use a very powerful set of binoculars --- and my bird has a very bright strobe on it --- I could probably fly it out to 2 miles away at twilight hour and still maintain "visual sight". Will this hold up in court?

The final rule will have to state some absolute distance to eliminate ambiguity --- just like the 400' AGL rule.

 

[Morgon]

Flying below 400 ft. is a good general rule

I'm not sure I can agree. Why such an arbitrary height? 1,000 makes more sense, given the right equipment and conditions, and gives flexibility without being overly restrictive. Ever flown at 500ft? If you have, you'd understand.

Obviously you're not going to fly 1,000 ft near an airport, but you presumably aren't flying more than 200ft near an airport (or at all), depending on the tapered ceilings that companies like DJI are instituting in their firmware. More responsibility and accountability on the part of the pilot needs to happen, not government hand-holding.

 

[IrishSights]

"Highly anticipated federal rules on commercial drones are expected to require operators to have a license and limit flights to daylight hours, below 400 feet and within sight of the person at the controls, according to people familiar with the rule-making process."

Flying below 400 ft. is a good general rule --- but how does one define "within sight of the person at the controls"?

If I use a very powerful set of binoculars --- and my bird has a very bright strobe on it --- I could probably fly it out to 2 miles away at twilight hour and still maintain "visual sight". Will this hold up in court?

The final rule will have to state some absolute distance to eliminate ambiguity --- just like the 400' AGL rule.

UK CAA rules state unaided LOS under 400ft. Its been the rules here for years now. I have found the rules not a bother to comply with at all, ive never known anything else. I can understand the reaction coming from open skys though. Even responsible pilots of full size aircraft have rules to comply with because of risk. Same for drone pilots, its inevitable. From an overseas perspective I find it a bit disappointing as to the lack of lobbying effective strength with the FAA.

 

[MadMitch88]

Flying below 400 ft. is a good general rule

I'm not sure I can agree. Why such an arbitrary height? 1,000 makes more sense, given the right equipment and conditions, and gives flexibility without being overly restrictive. Ever flown at 500ft? If you have, you'd understand.

Why does 1,000 ft. make more sense? Not that I'm totally against it if you're far away from any airports --- but here in the USA I've seen plenty of small private aircraft, police choppers, and Medevac helis flying below 1,000 ft. and even under 400 ft. Increasing the UAV ceiling to 1,000 ft. would lead to more potential collisions with these low-flying manned aircraft.

Besides, most people take aerial video to see details on the ground and NOT the sky. Staying closer to the ground means you get higher resolution details of all that cool stuff.

 

[stevet]

Their needs to be some set of rules of course the FAA cant seem to make them, I believe their will be open comments soon about this proposal. I do think something should be done for safety and if your wanting to use your drone for commercial purposes I think you should have some sort of license + insurance..