Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Congress to Open U.S. Skies to Drones in Three Years

By Robert Goyer / Published: Feb 07, 2012
Rate it! 100% or 0%

Aviation member organizations are celebrating a historic victory with Congressional passage of an FAA reauthorization bill yesterday that includes no user fees.  While celebration is certainly in order, a major, troubling part of the bill has escaped largely unnoticed: the mandated opening of U.S. airspace to drone aircraft — aka, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in just three years.

If signed into law by by President Obama — which is expected to happen--the legislation would not permit but require widespread deployment of unmanned aircraft throughout the national airspace system by 2015, with some major deployments mandated even sooner. Very small UAS would be allowed access in as little as 90 days, and models as large as 55 pounds would be granted access in just 27 months. The law sets a deadline of all UAS being integrated into the NAS in just over three years (by Sept. 30, 2015).

The scale of the proposed regulation is enormous. It requires no less than the establishment of airspace requirements, methods for ensuring the safe operation of UAS, integrating both DoD and private commercial UAS operations with air traffic control and ensuring the plan is in keeping with the FAA’s next generation air traffic plan.  The legislation doesn’t address how the FAA, an agency whose funding is already spread thin, will accommodate the new requirements for large-scale regulation of a new aircraft type, which will surely provide numerous technological challenges that are not even acknowledged never mind addressed in the legislation.

Congress’ proposal does not address how unmanned aircraft would co-exist with manned aircraft in today’s system. Much of today’s air traffic system safety strategy is based on see-and-avoid technology, which relies fundamentally on manned operation of aircraft. How a controller will issue a traffic alert to a UAS is unknown. How the UAS will “see” other traffic is unknown. How they will avoid other traffic is, likewise, unknown and unaddressed in the legislation.

The legislation’s only guidance on the subject of potential collisions is that the FAA administrator must “provide for verification of the safety of unmanned aircraft systems and related navigation procedures before integration into the national airspace system.”

The pace of adoption will be head spinning. The legislation would allow emergency agencies, such as law enforcement. to begin flying UAS in limited cases within three months. These craft could weigh up to nearly five pounds. UAS up to 55 pounds could take to the open skies in just over two years.  

The FAA is working on a notice of proposed rulemaking on unmanned aircraft but has not announced a date for publishing it yet. The craft exist today in a state of regulatory limbo: they are neither specifically allowed or prohibited from flying in most airspace. This is one issue the new regulations will address.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the nation’s largest pilot member association, is concerned about the legislation. Heidi Williams, AOPA VP of Air Traffic Services and Modernization, summarized the organization’s position by saying that “while AOPA supports the integration of UAS into the national airspace system, it must be done in a way that does not adversely affect the safety or operations of existing airspace operators.” Williams pointed out the lack of current collision avoidance technology, saying that “UAS currently lack the necessary technologies to safely operate in a 'see and avoid' environment. In order to safely operate in the airspace system without segregation and without any negative impact on general aviation, we need clear certification standards that UAS and UAS operators can meet that allow the systems to be integrated just like  piloted aircraft.”

At the National Business Aviation Association, Steve Brown, senior VP of Operations, expressed concern over the rapid timetable for adoption: “Our position [at NBAA]  has been to support UAS access to the NAS based on an FAA Safety assessment and certification process that would ensure safe flight integration with human piloted aircraft.” But based on the ambitious timetable and scope of the plan, Brown said, it was unclear whether “the legislation would accommodate FAA's safety work by 2015 or any other future date.”

Doug Macnair, VP of government affairs for the Experimental Aircraft Association, was on the same page:  “The bottom line is,” he told Flying, “that UAS need to find a means of working seamlessly and safely into the existing NAS and not deprive other users of airspace or operational safety and efficiency.”

Read Robert Goyer's blog on the recent developments.

Comments (16) Post a comment

All Comments

MGG's picture

I agree there are issues, but let's keep some perspective here. Talking about "UAV Drones" conjures up images of 1200+ lb. Predator drones cruising over Afghanistan at 15,000 feet doing surveillance. That's not what this is. Not by a long shot. These are remote controlled airplanes and helicopters with"first person video or "FPV" equipment that are already being used, quite extensively I might add, by law enforcement agencies, high-end realtors (to do fly-arounds of a house), and many, many RC enthusiasts.

FPV technology keeps getting better and cheaper, and it's only going to become more common. Right now I can go pickup a complete "ready to fly" FPV airplane for about $600 that will allow me to remotely fly a 5-ish pound, 4-ish foot wingspan foam plane while wearing a pair of "virtual reality" goggles from as far as a kilometer away. Smart guys that understand antennas and radio signals are flying these things from as far as 30km away. The most sophisticated setups include onboard altimeters, GPSs, and even "return to home" autopilots so that if the radio signal is lost the plane will immediately fly to a pre-assigned altitude and then fly to a predetermined GPS location (i.e., where the operator is standing).

So given the current state of the technology and already widespread use (which you seem not to be aware of), should Congress just turn a blind eye to this rapidly growing portion of RC flight and not regulate them at all? It seems to me the FAA is the best agency for the job, and it's not like there is some other suitable agency that isn't also facing budget restraints.

I really don't think this is that hard. I'll throw out a few numbers for conversation. Hard ceiling at 500 feet AGL. No operation within a 3 mile radius of any airport. I think 55 lbs is too heavy for FPV, but that's the current limit set by the AMA (the AOPA of the RC aircraft world) for flying a regular RC plane at a sanctioned event without special inspections and approval, and I assume Congress went with that. I actually think 10 lbs would be more than enough, but I digress.

The AMA (google AMA model aircraft) already has a very substantial set of rules and regulations regarding FPV flights (navigate to "members & clubs" -- "AMA Documents"). For what it's worth, the AMA doesn't want to see the FAA involved either, but as much as they want RC to remain a "self-regulating" endeavor, and even though AMA members are very, very good about following the AMA safety codes (AMA provides liability insurance for RC airplanes, and if you don't follow the codes you're not covered if you cause damage or kill someone), not everyone flying FPV is an AMA member.

skip7737's picture

Hate to burst anyone's bubble but UAV's are now operating in the NAS and have been for some period of time.

Rmartflying1's picture

Change happens. You have two choices: bury your head in the sand or embrace and influence the process. I prefer the second option. Drones in the NAS are already there. Just as we want commercial and military operations to accommodate GA we must advocate for an intelligent integration of UAVs.

injunear's picture

Drones are in the NAS? With what transponders and talking to who? I think the article makes a lot of good points. I don't think the FAA should bother with anything less than 10 lbs under 400ft but they will get bigger I promise. I was building drones in college in 2004. They weighed 35lbs, had 10 ft wingspans and could have climbed to 3000ft if we wanted. Look at the FPV videos online, people are going very high these days.

Edward J Bentkowski's picture

We must be one helluva unruly nation to warrant the lending this kind of open door to surveillance and monitoring ability.

femanvate's picture

Replace "manned aircraft" with horse carriages and "uav" with automobiles, and this article would mirror fears expressed over 100 years ago when cars started appearing. Technology permits precise safe air navigation, and everything needed to automate air traffic control already exists, in principle. We need to make that next step and apply it to reality. America is not going to maintain its global lead by a risk-averse attitude. Wilbur Wright manned up, as did Chuck Yeager, Neil Armstrong, and countless thousands more men and women.

56C's picture

What commercial interests are driving this and who in Congress is pushing it for them? What are the limits of liability being negotiated on operating them? What privacy protection do you have? When one of these things operated by a private contractor to your local law enforcement lands on your kid and severs a limb, what do you do then? It's hard to imagine much of this can be managed in 2 or 3 years.

michaelmm's picture

I think the comparison to horse vs car is a little naive at best. What most people are asking outside GA is why? Who are they monitoring, are these things armed, who is in control, what are they doing with the surveillance, will it require a warrant, will they be looking in my windows and back yard etc?

It seems that this is being pushed very fast, where cars and air travel for that matter evolved, this is being pushed out fast and with little discussion in the public. Meaning it will already be deployed before the general public gets a grasp of it, which will incite even more fears, founded or not.

I'm a commercial photographer and the models we use for arial photography cost from $3000.00 to $5000.00 for the kinds of models my peers use and take considerable training to use without destroying them. The biggest fear for us is that as they become regulated they will me like wireless microphone regulation over the last couple of years. What used to be a simple and easy set-up for bars, touring groups and concerts has now become expensive, complex, highly regulated, licensed and forced many users to return to wired mics because of too much government interference and costs.

It would seem to photographers and videographers that what is simple (but not easy) and mostly unregulated will not become very complex, costly, and regulated to a point that many will be forced out of business but not enough to garner public attention while our air space becomes a Orwellian big bother spying kind of situation that no one wants but the government itself.

We need to know more.

Claudio's picture

The way uavs could operate alongside manned traffic would be as follows: In the vfr environment, all aircraft are responsible for seeing and avoiding each other, and no one particular aircraft is understood to be guaranteed to see you. Therefore, vfr flights of uavs, in airspace where vfr flight is allowed, would be a free-for-all. However, since uavs are small, and in terms of human collision avoidance decisions, dumb, they must be equipped with very strong strobe lights, that must be on at all times, day or night. In addition, they must be equipped with tcas systems, that must actively interrogate transponders, and use automated "avoid the traffic" logic. In areas where ctafs have been established for self-announcing, they must make automated self-announcements over standard vfr checkpoints. It could sound something like "Montana fire drone heading 310 at 1500 100 knots 2 miles south of Lake Something" In today's computer technology, this is trivial. In the IFR regime, they would have to be able to accept IFR routing using standard IFR dps, stars, and approaches, and ifr routes, transmitted by ATC. In addition, they would have to be remote controllable via atc (if reroutes are required aloft in IFR) and for operation in vfr under conditions where compliance with clearances is required (in the airspace of airports).

jjflyboy's picture

The controllers couldn't keep a helicopter and an airplane out of Teterboro from crashing, winding up in the Hudso , and taking the lives of 9 human beings. I routinely fly in New York's airspace. How many of you who don't think unmanned aircraft are a burden to an already chaotic system, fly in such an overcrowded system? Have you ever heard a New Yawk controller tell "all IFR traffic, don't call me. I know you're there. All VFR traffic, go away. Stay clear class Bravo. Unable traffic advisories"? I have, from Nantucket, VFR to BLM. Then you want to add 'blind, NORDO's into the mix? Stay in your little, uncontrolled airport in Podunk and do your 'hundred dollar hamburger' at Bumblebuzz. There'll be TFR's everywhere with 2000 pound drones patrolling your house.

DMW's picture

If the CIA can't maintain control of their prized possessions, how is the local sheriff going to keep control of his toys? If his toys are as big as a few birds, which we know can knock an airliner out of the sky, how is this supposed to be safe for the rest of us? This technology is too new to be mixing it up with others that it can kill (me and all of the passenger carrying manned aircraft). Look how long it took to get LSAs into the system - that should be a guide for the absolute shortest possible time to get UAVs into the system. They better have transponders so they can fit into the NextGen system, too.

jsanders95's picture

I think uavs are for people who are too scared to fly. uavs and the government is are the biggest threat to all aviation. uavs must be stopped ASAP

deacon of noise's picture

Are they insane? Drones belong on war zones and on restricted military airspace, not anywhere near airplanes carrying people! Would any of you would care for your family sharing the road with remote controlled cars and trucks? It's not a matter of if it will happen, but of when it will happen: a runaway drone downing an airliner. Don't tell me the control links are infallible and redundant. What about the drone that went uncontrolled for a while last year over the East coast? What about the top secret , ultra secure spy drone that fell into Iranian hands? Having drones share the airspace with panes full of people is the most stupid idea ever coming out of Congress.

iused2fly's picture

What wold happen if we saw a drone and decided to form up on it to work on our formation flying? Will it try to shoot us down? To whom do we report accidental incursions by said drones? How can a drone see us and avoid? If the drone is on our left, can they see us and avoid us? And will they be bright orange and lit up like a Christmas tree, so we can see and avoid?

Big brother now has wings and he's at an airport near you.

Douglas M
Surrey, BC

reykjavik's picture

Started with warrantless wiretapping, and an out of control government. Just have your friendly and incompetent worker with a tin shield, formerly assistant manager of a Taco Bell, and this is what you get.

masterflight's picture

A much easier path for the FAA and drone makers will be to insist that the "real airplane" alter course. It's easy to accomplish, entirely effective, and cheap. Watch the general media be used as a tool to promote the need as essential to "national security" or other clap trap.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use