Drone Exemptions 1

[BUGGAR]

I’m working on an FAA Exemption for a client to fly commercial drones. A typical FAA requirement is to fly no faster than 100 mph and no higher than 400 feet above ground level. Also, your operational boundary has to be 500 feet away from someone you don’t want to hit. Before I do the math, does anyone know drone aerodynamics to determine if a 55 lb drone going 100 mph at 400 feet altitude will fall within the 500 feet safety zone if power and control quit immediately? This would be a quadcopter type drone, not a glider.

Of interest: a 55 lb drone at 400 feet has 22,000 ft lb of energy, same as a 4 ft x 8 ft x 1inch steel road plate falling from 17 feet. A drone freefalling from 400 feet with no air drag will hit the ground at 110 mph.

Thank you everbody.

 

[BUGGAR]

In all my recent drone research and watching drone crash videos, I believe the most effective small drone "deterents" are birds of prey - falcons, hawks, etc. Most that I saw were in the wild and the bird was apparently (obviously) threatened. I never saw a video of a drone flying away from an encounter with a bird. Falcons are now used at airports to keep birds out of jet engines. Falconing is an up and coming occupation.

 

[mikekilroy]

I think it commendable you are offering to help FAA rewrite their 333 exemptions better. No one I ever heard of who applied and received their 333 exemption ever took a lot of notice or exception to that 500' note.

I think you will find that bird attacks account for less than 1% of all quad crashes, so not statistically significant - although they are really really cool to see!


Since laws, regulations, registrations,and penalties only work on those on whom they will work, it means drone regulations will only hinder those of us who fly responsibly; those who don't, still won't, since they have, and always will, ignore them.

"Ignorance of the law is no defense" still applies, so those who fly irresponsibly are not off the hook as it stands now anyway.

So more regulations serve no useful purpose except to extract more money from us who pay taxes and fees. But it is like building 100 new houses in a city: the extra tax income base does not pay for all the additional infrastructure required, so it really doesn't even work. That will be true here also.

http://www.KilroyWasHere<dot>com

 

[BUGGAR]

FAA responded and said they would take up my "complaint". I followed up with a somewhat terse letter that I was not complaining but merely attempting to assist FAA in enforcement of their Exemption requirements. The beaurocratic dance begins.

I noticed the Exemption had no electrical qualification requirements for drone operators that will be operating around the electrical equipment. I sent a letter to IBEW so they could get their requirements addressed as well.

 

[BUGGAR]

The rest of my post:

I'm challenging the FAA exemption for not complying with the requirements of the situation. I'm a structural engineer and I write contracts all the time for small and large construction projects. We use standard contract forms like those from AIA and CASE and then modify them with an appropriate Special Conditions clause that stipulates details such as I am proposing. Not a big deal in the construction industry. Of course I'm beating a dead horse, but I do enjoy the comments I'm getting from FAA. I enquired about the use of a geofence with drones and they thought I was talking about temporary barricade fencing to keep people away from drone launch sites.

 

[mikekilroy]

barricade fence - ha!

I recently went to Walmart, asked the computer salesperson where the UPS's were. She insisted I wanted USBs. She eventually said "honey, UPS is who brings our stuff. you want USB." she could work for the FAA!

But Buggar, pray tell, what is a IBEW? some electrical union?

http://www.KilroyWasHere<dot>com

 

[BrianPetersen]

IBEW "International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers" = electricians union.

Sounds like you are stirring up the doodoo.

I betcha that 500 foot requirement was just pulled out of a hat with no real thought put into it, nor was there ever any real expectation of someone analysing it to death. Probably all of the other numbers are from that same hat.

 

[BUGGAR]

Brian, you are right on all three. You saw my earlier post that these standard "rules" also apply to a powered paper airplane. These "rules" are so absurd for most situations that I can't help myself from challenging them. I am involving my Councilmember also, but he is highly political and very likely to embarrass himself like the FAA is doing. Fortunately, I have the time to play with this right now. I will save up the correspondence and if it looks entertaining enough, I will submit it to our local "radical" newspaper.

 

[mikekilroy]

Consider also adding to the hot threads over at

http://www.phantompilots.com/

and

http://forum.dji.com/.

These are obviously hot topics right now!

http://www.KilroyWasHere<dot>com

 

[berkshire]

The state of Colorado has been doing some testing on interactions between drones and aircraft. I think the biggest take away on this , is that most pilots cannot see a drone , even when they are looking for them.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[BUGGAR]

I had my meeting with the Regional FAA office. They are essentially going toothless on this and letting the drone user write their own rules. The drone user is SDG&E so their power (electrical and political) is immense. This will likely work well because there are always people chasing lawsuits with SDG&E so they will have to follow stricter flight guidelines than the FAA could ever conceive.

 

[berkshire]

Buggar,
This should be useful to you if you do not already have it.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.