EAA AVIATION CENTER, OSHKOSH, Wisconsin — While the number of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), also known as drones or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), is rising rapidly, their entrance into the national airspace system cannot come to the detriment of manned aircraft operations, say officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).
EAA made that point as part of its official comments to a proposal by the U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA that would require registration of RPAs, including those used for recreation or hobby purposes. The comment period is part of a fast-track effort by the government to finalize registration procedures by the end of the year.
“EAA remains committed to the safety of manned aircraft operations as regulations catch up to the fast-growing demand for drone activities,” said Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety. “No new airspace restrictions should be forced on manned operations because of drone flights, and right-of-way and priority should always be given to manned aircraft operations. In addition, aircraft owners and pilots should not have to be required to install new equipment to track and ‘see’ drones beyond that already required by FAA regulations.”
Along with an established hierarchy of manned air operations over RPA uses, EAA sees potential for education within the RPA community in keeping with the organization’s “education is more effective than regulation” philosophy.
EAA was one of the inaugural aviation organizations to join with the “Know Before You Fly” education campaign that promoted safety education and accountability among RPA users. This education program helps awareness of the potential risks in RPA operations and how to avoid possible tragedies endangering human life involving drones and manned aircraft.
“We recognize the possibilities for some UAS operations, but it must not come at the cost of additional restrictions on recreational aviation, which operate from ground level to tens of thousands of feet above the surface,” Elliott said.
EAA has welcomed drone operators as part of activities at its annual EAA AirVenture Oshkosh fly-in each summer as another gateway to the world of flight.
Although EAA was not invited to participate in the task force of industry stakeholders helping to shape the coming drone registration process, the organization will continue to closely watch the recommendations and voice support for its members and flight safety, officials noted.
Interesting view. I agree that if you try to register all commercial drones… Is a bit harsh. Why would you need to register micro quadcopter that you fly in your house? It really poses no danger, this kind of rule just calls for violations in one way or another. I mean then you will have to register birds, etc….
Bigger drones are indeed a danger if flown by unexperienced user. But they are quite expensive so in the end I do not know how many inexperienced users are actually flying higher priced drones. So there is a question what kind of education will they provide to the drone owners? I think they can easily have some kind of flying licence, but I doubt it is useful to apply this to hobbyists. Because then you have to determine what drone needs a licence. If you just say a drone that is made for making commercial video, that’s ok. But for drone for home uses… I am very sceptical that you can make a decent rule. Maybe the size/weight of the drone. As said before, otherwise you can come to stupid endings all the way to registering birds and insects.
That is just my thinking, I am obviously not really a big fan of such a law.
Why?
The dark side, does that mean being in, ” the bubble? “. I thought so..Joe
Mr. Mann, you raise many good points. And for the most part I concur.
But there is no law of physics, economics, or logic that necessarily makes the principle of “UAVs must give way” always inviolate.
For example most spacecraft launches are essentially UAVs for a part of their launch and recovery trajectory. And perhaps a public or military operated UAV that is successfully tracking a hostile threat (for which there isn’t time to designate a TFR), may very well need to have precedence and priority, as designated by ATS. This similar to any military aircraft that would be given priority on a directed “Noble Eagle” intercept mission. So ATS may very well have to assess mission and priority, in their decision of right of way, as made by ARTCC or TRACON’s now, just as they do now with “Lifeguard”. So “Right of way” in the future ultimately is going to be determined by additional factors, other than just the vehicle type, reference being a balloon, glider, or powered aircraft, or which one is “on the right”, or is “higher”, as we move into the realm of “EFR”. The present airspace regulatory schema is already failing, as evidence by the increasingly obsolete and dysfunctional rules of the 1930s, now designated as VFR and IFR, which have already even contributed to if not even led to collisions among powered aircraft (e.g., F-16 and C150 near CHS). So it is going to take great wisdom, on the part of all airspace users, authorities, and ANSPs, to safely, optimally, and efficiently integrate UAV access and operations into the global INAS, by defining sensible airspace access and use rules, and right of way rules, as well as vehicle equipage rules. It isn’t going to likely be as simple as “UAVs must always give way”. This will be especially true if the UAV is a M=6.0+ missile, or has .01 times the magnitude of the velocity vector of the overtaking maneuvering manned aircraft. To (inappropriately) suggest that authorities simply require that UAVs “always give way” is naive. Such an inappropriate mandate may also require violating the laws of physics, which at this point, isn’t very likely, regardless of which national authority may be specifying the criteria.
Kind of common since about military gov. Rockets flying. EAA TALKING ABOUT all the extra drone flying uneducated
I’d posit further that since the airspace is a public asset, it should be allocated based on the magnitude of utility served. If that results in having to curbing the right-of-way of GA planes, then so be it. The GA community is not a privileged class entitled to special rights. If the society is better served by proliferation of UAVs, then the rules of sky and the infrastructure investment should be prioritized as such.
Just when I thought that the EAA “got” it when it comes to small UAS.
Every Section 333 exemption Conditions and Limitations already say that the sUAC must give right-of-way to manned aircraft.
The Part 107 NPRM for commercial operators of sUAVs also says that all other aircraft have the right-of-way over sUAVs.
The FAA guidelines for hobby operators (AC 91-57a) says “The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft”.
The AMA guidelines also says that model aircraft should land if a manned aircraft approaches.
Where in the world did the EAA think that sUAV aircraft would somehow displace manned aircraft???
That said, I am disappointed that the EAA is not on the Task Force because there are an awful lot of homebuilt UAS aircraft and the EAA’s experience with registering homebuilts would have been useful.
Stephen … I think you’re being unduly harsh on the EAA. They “get it.” They’re just accentuating the point that any NEW rules must not exclude manned airplanes. Section 333 is a temporary exemption pending final codification of rulings. The FAA — being the bureaucratic entity they are and famous for screwing things up — could potentially ‘cede’ all airspace below 500′ to the darn things and the EAA is merely accentuating that they won’t agree with that. The FAA could potentially allow UAV’s to higher altitudes AGL and then require airplanes to have ADS-B in ALL airspace. Google is a heavy hitter in the equation and a co-chair in the process. So the EAA is just making sure that they weigh in on the issues they see as possible areas of conflict.
It IS unfortunate that the AOPA — famous for wine clubs and incessant mailings asking members to donate still more $$ — was chosen over the EAA. Especially since Earl Lawrence is a former EAA employee AND, generally, a good guy within the FAA now. Lets just hope that he hasn’t gone over to … “the dark side.”