"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
05/12/2014 at 15:22 • Filed to: planelopnik
0
10|
"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
05/12/2014 at 15:22 • Filed to: planelopnik | 0
| 10 |
It seems amazing that it takes such a powerful government bureaucracy so long to write rules for unmanned aircraft. How hard could it be to simply modify the existing regulations all ready in place for manned aircraft. Then again; powerful government bureaucracy.
According to Jim Williams, head of the FAA's unmanned aircraft office,
...small unmanned aircraft rulemaking- applicable to those under 55 pounds - is expected to begin by the end of this year, the entire rulemaking process for significant rules takes 7 to 10 years.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
For Sweden
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 15:23 |
|
How hard could it be to simply modify the existing regulations all ready in place for manned aircraft.
EXTREMELY difficult. If you know a good way to regulate see-and-avoid on unmanned vehicles, let me know.
yamahog
> For Sweden
05/12/2014 at 15:32 |
|
This is why we can't have flying cars. Not in the future, not ever.
|
For Sweden
> yamahog
05/12/2014 at 15:33 |
|
We have flying cars; they're called airplanes.
|
Chris Clarke
> For Sweden
05/12/2014 at 15:34 |
|
I could come up with a handful of ideas. There's currently way to regulate see and avoid on unmanned aerial birds. Seems like this would be more of an implementation issue, rather than a rule writing issue.
-redefine airspace classifications
-limit areas where drones are allowed to fly
-limit speeds
-require all drones to transmit location information
-require all drones to receive traffic information
-require all drones to have failsafe emergency landing programming
-more
|
For Sweden
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 15:37 |
|
-that doesn't give me any information
-that's the law right now
-below the 250 knot limit below 10,000 feet?
-They do this now; it's called a transponder. That doesn't help avoid however
-Do you have a system for that? The FAA does not
-Land where?
|
Chris Clarke
> For Sweden
05/12/2014 at 15:56 |
|
-this would be the most time consuming. Possibly creating a new airspace designation, lets say, "Class H" which limits areas and altitudes that drones are allowed to operate.
-Yes it is.
-An example would be light sport aircraft have a manufacturers limitation on weight and performance. Like many other government regulations, we could simply pick an arbitrary number, say 50 mph max.
-Transponders don't transmit location information. Its just a beacon that radar can pick up. ADS-B on the other hand includes GPS position information and can both send and receive traffic information. If the drone is required to receive ADS-B, and/or instructions from ATC, it can calculate conflict resolution.
-See above. System mandate is currently set for the year 2020.
-Land on the ground, with a parachute.
This is a quick list, but I could spend a few hours to refine it. There are obviously many more considerations, but not 7-10 years worth.
f86sabre
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 16:05 |
|
The FAA is very, very slow at developing new and revising existing rules. Lots of things to consider and there is a good bit of politics involved.
|
Chris Clarke
> f86sabre
05/12/2014 at 16:21 |
|
I realize that these new rules are not "That simple," but I have a feeling that bloated bureaucracy and politics must add the largest amount of time.
Jayhawk Jake
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 16:53 |
|
I think it's justifiable. This is going to be really, really, really hard to figure out.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Chris Clarke
05/12/2014 at 16:58 |
|
Airspace and communication devices are one thing, but what's going to be really difficult is defining rules for these airplanes without hindering their use.
Whether it feels like it or not, the FAA's goal is to keep the skies safe without hurting aviation. This is a monumental task for drones because the variety in the airplanes and the missions they'll be used for is vast. Far more vast than aviation today.
It'd be really easy for the FAA to just say 'you can't fly a drone over cities or above X altitude or X speed', but that would be too much, it would hurt aviation on the whole and kill off what could potentially be a multi billion dollar industry.
7-10 years may seem like a long time, and frankly it's probably longer than it should take, but I want this to be done properly because the ramifications of not setting these rules up properly are monumental