While GA pilots have varied opinions about remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) — also known as drones or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) — a new survey by FindLaw.com finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans say they support restrictions on the use of drones as they become more commonplace.
The FindLaw.com survey says 78 percent of Americans support at least some restrictions on the use of drones by businesses.
In June, a drone successfully delivered medical supplies to a clinic in Virginia, but concerns about safety remain, according to FindLaw.com officials. Firefighters say a number of drones interfered with their fighting of a wildfire in California recently. And aviation authorities in the UK report there have been at least six recent near-misses involving drones and commercial airliners.
The use of drones for business or commercial purposes, such as package delivery or news photography, is currently banned in the U.S. The FAA has proposed new regulations specifying how drones can be used in business. While more than three-quarters of people surveyed said they support some regulation of drone use, the FindLaw survey found that people have mixed views on which specific restrictions they would like to see:
- 54% said drone operators must pass a knowledge test and obtain certification from the FAA,
- 37% said drones must always remain with the operator’s visual line of sight,
- 36% said drones cannot be flown over people who are not directly involved with the flight,
- 31% said drone flights must be limited to 500 feet in altitude and 100 mph in speed, while
- 22% did not support any of these restrictions.
The FindLaw survey was conducted using a survey of a demographically balanced sample of 1,000 American adults and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4%.
As indicated, specifics will be critical, starting with definitions – what do we mean by RPA, drone and/or UAS? Regulation will also need to consider size, type of use, different locations (urban, suburban, rural and, of course, proximity to airports and military facilities), interplay of – and potential inconsistencies and conflicts between – federal and state laws, and other devilish details. Regulation should also consider the constitutional concept of reasonable expectation of privacy: does reasonableness change, and should it, as UAS advance?
And to follow on john’s comments, in an ideal world a regulatory scheme, even an initial one, will be in place before a serious event leads to a reflexive, i.e., knee-jerk, “do something!” response, which in other contexts have shown their down sides longer term.
A couple of years a go German Chancellor Merkel was harassed by a drone flown by an opposition party during a political event. The drone got within a very few feet of her, and in fact, nearly hit the podium where she stood. I expect the ‘bad guys’ mentioned daily in media (ISIS, criminal groups, etc.) are looking hard at how these devices can be used for mayhem. If drones can take pictures, carry packages, and be fitted to fire 9mm automatics they can carry explosives. Senator Feinstein of California introduced legislation about six months ago that would start to regulate the wild west of drone world. Some countries have already imposed requirements for licensing and registration. I expect the U.S. debate to continue until a high profile very lethal event within our borders creates an imperative for regulatory action. Meanwhile, Congress pretty much capitulated to the R/C model crowd in the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation when it explicitly said the FAA has little authority to regulate these ‘recreational’ devices.
It appears that the FAA has totally screwed up NextGen. It is already obsolete for its intended purpose and didn’t contemplate drones since there were none when it was conceived.
NextGen is based on ADS-B which takes bursts of data from every aircraft and assembles it and broadcasts it back to all aircraft so everyone can see everyone else. It is a great concept and should be brought up to date and used for drones as well as all other aircraft.
.
If drones were required to utilize ADS-B Out their positions would be known and responsible operation would be assured. As it is now they cannot be seen by ATC and are an incredible hazard to regular aircraft.
If they were required to use ADS-B the cost of that equipment, which is no more complex than a typical smart phone, would drop to almost nothing due to mass production.
Unless some leadership is shown by someone, NextGen will go into service with Lockheed getting billions of cost overrun payments, and then get more billions to fix it. As it is currently designed, the data stream is completely unencrypted and can be spoofed easily by most hackers, and it is already incapable of handling expected volumes.
Google is ahead of the game with their design of an ADS-B Out type of capability and all the others should be required to incorporate it. Drones must be forced to broadcast their ID and positions or they will never be safe around airliners and other aircraft. Unless they are forced to broadcast their ID there will never be any meaningful way to handle irresponsible operation.
I am a lifelong pilot, flight instructor, and aircraft owner, and I don’t want one of these coming through my windshield. Unless someone takes on Lockheed and the FAA we are looking at a huge dangerous mess. Under Obama the FAA has basically collapsed in doing its normal duties.