Still time to comment on proposed RPA regulations

ManyDecadesGA says

April 5, 2015 at 4:48 pm

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01]
RIN 2120–AJ60
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

UAV NPRM is Seriously Fundamentally Flawed – The proposed set of rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems as specified in Docket No.:FAA-2015-0150 is entirely inappropriate, ineffective, conflicting, over-specified, and in cases unnecessary.

The FAA proposal fails to properly balance the risks involved with valid needs for operations of both UAVs, as well as other existing airspace users. It fails to properly address risks to individuals, property, and structures on the ground. The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the future of NextGen, and with global airspace operator and ANSP requirements, as related to needed equipage for critical CNS elements. Accordingly, the NPRM should be rescinded, and remanded back to a NON-FAA group for complete fundamental redrafting.

The FAA operating concept for integration of UAVs into the national and global airspace system is completely wrong, and won’t effectively, economically, and safely work now, or ever.

Since typical UAVs have a slower velocity distribution than other manned vehicles, FAA’s idea of limiting mass of drones to two ill-conceived breakpoints and maintaining visual contact, or alternately using “Detect Sense and Avoid” for drones each will not work, and cannot work, ever, except for a small group of nearly the same velocity vehicles over very short range. That’s why bugs and birds splat on an aircraft’s windshield (even after they detect the aircraft, sense the aircraft, and pull 12 g’s trying to avoid the aircraft). It’s a basic law of physics that the faster vehicle ultimately controls the dynamics of a collision, or of avoiding a collision, to the first order. Accordingly, FAA’s concept for managing drones visually, or by “detect, sense, and avoid” won’t effectively work. Further no concept of “model” versus “non-model”, or “Commercial vs. Non-Commercial” or “Air Transport versus Non-Air Transport” is relevant to a dangerous collision of a UAV with an aircraft. No adequate provision has been made for rare-normal operations, or non-normal operations, let alone FHAs, FMEAs, or SSAs. Hence, breakpoints like “2kg and 24kg” are virtually irrelevant. Similarly “Day versus Night” is irrelevant. Even an unseen errant UAV of 2 kg, when being hit by an overtaking 250kt aircraft, flying toward a sunset, could be fatal. Any small UAV even much lower mass than 24kg could readily have enough rest mass to bring down a large transport jet aircraft, let alone by the collision effect of a 24kg UAV. Similarly defining restricted areas, for UAVs over 55 lbs/24kg is virtually irrelevant to usefully eventually sharing airspace between any civil or military drones, and all other air-vehicles globally. So this NPRM is severely flawed from the outset, and needs to be fundamentally rethought, at the most basic levels.

An Alternative Direction for a Substantially Revised UAV NPRM – Instead, the answer to safe successful UAV operation and integration into the INAS lies in properly defining and using C-N-S for RPAs (UAVs of any mass, flying other than as present self-regulated small model aircraft under AC91-57). This could be achieved by defining and applying dynamic RNP based trajectory separation, or volumetric separation (using RNP volumetric surfaces), together with “state vector” exchange of relevant “Past, next, next+1″ data, among vehicles (via appropriate COM links). This can now be readily and economically done for any operations beyond simple model aircraft, for any UAVs/RPAs, that in turn could be safely used in today’s airspace structure. Further, it could start to be done anywhere in the global INAS, day night, VMC or IMC. To do this, the operations would need to start being based on and backed up by having inexpensive simple ADS-A, -B, or -C (but not FAA’s present over-specified, excessively expensive, and unnecessarily complex 91.227/DO-260 based ADS-B). By going down this alternate CNS path, using RNP and ADS, UAVs/RPAs could be safely integrated into the NAS right now, anywhere needed, whether commercial or not, whether day or night, whether IMC or VMC, whether IFR or VFR, and regardless of weight.

Further, this flawed NPRM is yet more evidence of FAA’s lack of appropriate NextGen vision and operating concepts. It completely fails to address appropriate and economic CNS criteria for all airspace users, and in particular, UAVs. The UAV NPRM also demonstrates FAA’s lack of understanding of the fundamental risks, physics, and economics of providing safe and cost effective separation services. This leads to the flawed, ineffective, and inappropriate separation concepts being proposed here, especially as applied to UAVs. This UAV NPRM again demonstrates FAA lack of understanding as to what actually constitutes safety in the NAS, and what constitutes risk, and to whom, underscoring FAA’s lack of regulatory wisdom. The UAV NPRM also underscores FAA’s lack of insight into how to actually implement modern cost effective separation processes, which could be done today, by properly using RNP and ADS, without ONE SINGLE UAV related RULE CHANGE or UAV RULE ADDITION.

Specific examples of inappropriate provisions of the current UAV NPRM

Some specific examples of inappropriate provisions of the current NPRM include:

1. 55 lbs./24kg and 4.4 lbs./2kg are arbitrary, inappropriate, unnecessary regulatory breakpoints. A continuum of masses need to be accommodated. Smaller vehicles than 2kg can cause great damage, as well as larger vehicles than 24kg can be safely operated in the INAS.

2. Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS) provisions do not adequately address or solve the risk issues (either for Normal, Rare-Normal, or Non-Normal Operations)

3. The specification of “Over persons” is ambiguous and unworkable

4. Daylight (SR to SS) constraints are ineffective and inappropriate. They done even adequately address high latitudes and MCT and ECT. Even assuming the SR-SS visual restriction could be practically applied, an aircraft pilot will never see a small UAV if heading into the sun’s direction, regardless of having daylight. Whereas a UAV with an effective strobe light has a good chance of being seen from even longer ranges, if at night against a non-city background. Hence, the FAA NPRM’s provisions are illogical and ineffective.

5. The UAV provision to “Yield Right of Way” is illogical and inappropriate, and substantially even violates the laws of physics, since the faster vehicle (the aircraft) controls the dynamics of a collision to the first order, compared to the dynamic avoidance maneuvering capability of the much slower UAV). Hence this provision is illogical and ineffective. This issue can only be solved for the longer term by dynamic trajectory separation, which can be effective day or night, IMC or VMC, and in any airspace.

6. The 87kt UAV limit is inappropriate, unnecessary, and in most circumstances ineffective. It hardly even addresses total energy, since even 3kg moving at well under 87 kts can still do substantial if not fatal damage to an aircraft, some types of structures, or to a person.

7. The 500ft AGL limit impractical to judge, and is ineffective, particularly in areas of irregular terrain and structures.

8. The 3 miles visibility limit from a control station is impractical and ineffective. Even pilots often have difficulty making these kinds of assessments when airborne, let alone as a ground observer with a limited visual horizon.

9. The limit of “No operations in Class A” and needing permission even for Class E is inappropriate and ineffective, as well as Class G provisions are inappropriate. Instead, an RNP based trajectory or RNP volumetric based separation is needed. That way all vehicles can be appropriately integrated into the INAS, for whatever operations and capabilities are needed. There is no reason why cost effective affordable C-N-S packages can’t be devised even for very small UAVs that need to operate in mixed airspace, 24/7.

10. The constraint to only operate “One UAV at a time” is unnecessary and inappropriate.

11. The constraint to restrict UAVs to “No Operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft” is unnecessary and inappropriate.

12. The NPRM has inappropriate and unnecessary requirements for UAVs that could just as easily be published in simple Advisory Circular form, to address qualification. The below example requirements are unnecessary and inappropriate:
• Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center.
• Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
• Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires).
• Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test
• every 24 months.
• Be at least 17 years old.
• Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule.
• Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.

13. The NPRM has inappropriate and unnecessary requirements for UAVs to have aircraft markings (the same as requirements that apply to other aircraft).

Comments

ManyDecadesGA says

April 5, 2015 at 4:48 pm

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01]
RIN 2120–AJ60
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

UAV NPRM is Seriously Fundamentally Flawed – The proposed set of rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems as specified in Docket No.:FAA-2015-0150 is entirely inappropriate, ineffective, conflicting, over-specified, and in cases unnecessary.

The FAA proposal fails to properly balance the risks involved with valid needs for operations of both UAVs, as well as other existing airspace users. It fails to properly address risks to individuals, property, and structures on the ground. The proposal is fundamentally inconsistent with the future of NextGen, and with global airspace operator and ANSP requirements, as related to needed equipage for critical CNS elements. Accordingly, the NPRM should be rescinded, and remanded back to a NON-FAA group for complete fundamental redrafting.

The FAA operating concept for integration of UAVs into the national and global airspace system is completely wrong, and won’t effectively, economically, and safely work now, or ever.

Since typical UAVs have a slower velocity distribution than other manned vehicles, FAA’s idea of limiting mass of drones to two ill-conceived breakpoints and maintaining visual contact, or alternately using “Detect Sense and Avoid” for drones each will not work, and cannot work, ever, except for a small group of nearly the same velocity vehicles over very short range. That’s why bugs and birds splat on an aircraft’s windshield (even after they detect the aircraft, sense the aircraft, and pull 12 g’s trying to avoid the aircraft). It’s a basic law of physics that the faster vehicle ultimately controls the dynamics of a collision, or of avoiding a collision, to the first order. Accordingly, FAA’s concept for managing drones visually, or by “detect, sense, and avoid” won’t effectively work. Further no concept of “model” versus “non-model”, or “Commercial vs. Non-Commercial” or “Air Transport versus Non-Air Transport” is relevant to a dangerous collision of a UAV with an aircraft. No adequate provision has been made for rare-normal operations, or non-normal operations, let alone FHAs, FMEAs, or SSAs. Hence, breakpoints like “2kg and 24kg” are virtually irrelevant. Similarly “Day versus Night” is irrelevant. Even an unseen errant UAV of 2 kg, when being hit by an overtaking 250kt aircraft, flying toward a sunset, could be fatal. Any small UAV even much lower mass than 24kg could readily have enough rest mass to bring down a large transport jet aircraft, let alone by the collision effect of a 24kg UAV. Similarly defining restricted areas, for UAVs over 55 lbs/24kg is virtually irrelevant to usefully eventually sharing airspace between any civil or military drones, and all other air-vehicles globally. So this NPRM is severely flawed from the outset, and needs to be fundamentally rethought, at the most basic levels.

An Alternative Direction for a Substantially Revised UAV NPRM – Instead, the answer to safe successful UAV operation and integration into the INAS lies in properly defining and using C-N-S for RPAs (UAVs of any mass, flying other than as present self-regulated small model aircraft under AC91-57). This could be achieved by defining and applying dynamic RNP based trajectory separation, or volumetric separation (using RNP volumetric surfaces), together with “state vector” exchange of relevant “Past, next, next+1″ data, among vehicles (via appropriate COM links). This can now be readily and economically done for any operations beyond simple model aircraft, for any UAVs/RPAs, that in turn could be safely used in today’s airspace structure. Further, it could start to be done anywhere in the global INAS, day night, VMC or IMC. To do this, the operations would need to start being based on and backed up by having inexpensive simple ADS-A, -B, or -C (but not FAA’s present over-specified, excessively expensive, and unnecessarily complex 91.227/DO-260 based ADS-B). By going down this alternate CNS path, using RNP and ADS, UAVs/RPAs could be safely integrated into the NAS right now, anywhere needed, whether commercial or not, whether day or night, whether IMC or VMC, whether IFR or VFR, and regardless of weight.

Further, this flawed NPRM is yet more evidence of FAA’s lack of appropriate NextGen vision and operating concepts. It completely fails to address appropriate and economic CNS criteria for all airspace users, and in particular, UAVs. The UAV NPRM also demonstrates FAA’s lack of understanding of the fundamental risks, physics, and economics of providing safe and cost effective separation services. This leads to the flawed, ineffective, and inappropriate separation concepts being proposed here, especially as applied to UAVs. This UAV NPRM again demonstrates FAA lack of understanding as to what actually constitutes safety in the NAS, and what constitutes risk, and to whom, underscoring FAA’s lack of regulatory wisdom. The UAV NPRM also underscores FAA’s lack of insight into how to actually implement modern cost effective separation processes, which could be done today, by properly using RNP and ADS, without ONE SINGLE UAV related RULE CHANGE or UAV RULE ADDITION.

Specific examples of inappropriate provisions of the current UAV NPRM

Some specific examples of inappropriate provisions of the current NPRM include:

1. 55 lbs./24kg and 4.4 lbs./2kg are arbitrary, inappropriate, unnecessary regulatory breakpoints. A continuum of masses need to be accommodated. Smaller vehicles than 2kg can cause great damage, as well as larger vehicles than 24kg can be safely operated in the INAS.

2. Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS) provisions do not adequately address or solve the risk issues (either for Normal, Rare-Normal, or Non-Normal Operations)

3. The specification of “Over persons” is ambiguous and unworkable

4. Daylight (SR to SS) constraints are ineffective and inappropriate. They done even adequately address high latitudes and MCT and ECT. Even assuming the SR-SS visual restriction could be practically applied, an aircraft pilot will never see a small UAV if heading into the sun’s direction, regardless of having daylight. Whereas a UAV with an effective strobe light has a good chance of being seen from even longer ranges, if at night against a non-city background. Hence, the FAA NPRM’s provisions are illogical and ineffective.

5. The UAV provision to “Yield Right of Way” is illogical and inappropriate, and substantially even violates the laws of physics, since the faster vehicle (the aircraft) controls the dynamics of a collision to the first order, compared to the dynamic avoidance maneuvering capability of the much slower UAV). Hence this provision is illogical and ineffective. This issue can only be solved for the longer term by dynamic trajectory separation, which can be effective day or night, IMC or VMC, and in any airspace.

6. The 87kt UAV limit is inappropriate, unnecessary, and in most circumstances ineffective. It hardly even addresses total energy, since even 3kg moving at well under 87 kts can still do substantial if not fatal damage to an aircraft, some types of structures, or to a person.

7. The 500ft AGL limit impractical to judge, and is ineffective, particularly in areas of irregular terrain and structures.

8. The 3 miles visibility limit from a control station is impractical and ineffective. Even pilots often have difficulty making these kinds of assessments when airborne, let alone as a ground observer with a limited visual horizon.

9. The limit of “No operations in Class A” and needing permission even for Class E is inappropriate and ineffective, as well as Class G provisions are inappropriate. Instead, an RNP based trajectory or RNP volumetric based separation is needed. That way all vehicles can be appropriately integrated into the INAS, for whatever operations and capabilities are needed. There is no reason why cost effective affordable C-N-S packages can’t be devised even for very small UAVs that need to operate in mixed airspace, 24/7.

10. The constraint to only operate “One UAV at a time” is unnecessary and inappropriate.

11. The constraint to restrict UAVs to “No Operations from a moving vehicle or aircraft” is unnecessary and inappropriate.

12. The NPRM has inappropriate and unnecessary requirements for UAVs that could just as easily be published in simple Advisory Circular form, to address qualification. The below example requirements are unnecessary and inappropriate:
• Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center.
• Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
• Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires).
• Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test
• every 24 months.
• Be at least 17 years old.
• Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule.
• Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.

13. The NPRM has inappropriate and unnecessary requirements for UAVs to have aircraft markings (the same as requirements that apply to other aircraft).

Reader Interactions

Share this story

Become better informed pilot.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments