Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge(dronehire.org)
dronehire.org
Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge
http://www.dronehire.org/blog/drone-operators-free-to-operate-commercially-in-us-airspace-rules-federal-judge
142 comments
What's the difference between model aircraft and UAS? Is it line of sight flying?
The authorization for model aircraft flight (at least in modern FAA theory--the document itself seems to be a notice to improve safety of a clearly extant and legal activity) is AC 91-57 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/9...). It doesn't make a clear definition. It was written in 1981, so it may assume small, radio controlled, line of sight, limited capabilities, flown as a hobby, and perhaps imitating "real" aircraft; this is what model aircraft were then. However, it doesn't define anything in particular.
In Federal Register Notice 14 CFR Part 91 (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_...), they attempt some clarification, adding a line about "expecting line of sight" control, and leaning heavily on the "hobby" part as a clear distinction. This ruling kinda makes a hash of that, leaving undefined physical characteristics.
So in general it's fairly unclear. Another result of technology moving well faster than the speed of government. The FAA notes at the end of the CFR that it may in the future issue an authorization for unmanned vehicle "operations which do not qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness". They may be encouraged to do this faster now.
(The fact that the clarification is in a policy notice is a major part of the ruling discussed here. Judge didn't think that was a good enough basis for the fine.)
In Federal Register Notice 14 CFR Part 91 (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_...), they attempt some clarification, adding a line about "expecting line of sight" control, and leaning heavily on the "hobby" part as a clear distinction. This ruling kinda makes a hash of that, leaving undefined physical characteristics.
So in general it's fairly unclear. Another result of technology moving well faster than the speed of government. The FAA notes at the end of the CFR that it may in the future issue an authorization for unmanned vehicle "operations which do not qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness". They may be encouraged to do this faster now.
(The fact that the clarification is in a policy notice is a major part of the ruling discussed here. Judge didn't think that was a good enough basis for the fine.)
Looks pretty grey
"There are already hobbyists that operate "drones" by any reasonable definition. The term in the hobby is "FPV" (First Person View) - you install a camera and a transmitter on your aircraft and pilot it from a first-person perspective using a monitor on the ground. The radios on these operate by line-of-sight, but the range is far beyond visual range. You can find plenty of videos on Youtube just searching for "fpv radio control" or variations thereof. Operation of these for recreational purposes is currently unrestricted in the US. This may also change."
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=673706
"There are already hobbyists that operate "drones" by any reasonable definition. The term in the hobby is "FPV" (First Person View) - you install a camera and a transmitter on your aircraft and pilot it from a first-person perspective using a monitor on the ground. The radios on these operate by line-of-sight, but the range is far beyond visual range. You can find plenty of videos on Youtube just searching for "fpv radio control" or variations thereof. Operation of these for recreational purposes is currently unrestricted in the US. This may also change."
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=673706
I'm interested in controlled drones not by radio control, but with waypoints, and telemetry provided over LTE. Further investigation required!
Very much possible. Ardupilot is one of the more full-featured open source packages, but there are simpler autopilots out there as well. It's pretty common practice to at the very least have a GPS based "return to launch" system on long-range FPV craft as a failsafe for the connection to the ground station being dropped.
http://ardupilot.com/
http://ardupilot.com/
We loooove ArduPilot. Using ArduPlane and ArduCopter (firmware versions of ArduPilot) as the primary platform for our LTE-Telem box.
The current software for configuring ArduPilot boards has tremendous depth, but I think the UI could use some work. Especially for non-hobbyist users.
The current software for configuring ArduPilot boards has tremendous depth, but I think the UI could use some work. Especially for non-hobbyist users.
A friend and I are working on this verbatim! Building an iOS interface for controlling the drone in-flight and planning missions, and a little "black box" that will connect to the autopilot computer and send telem data over LTE. We'll post on DIYDrones and FPVLab once it's ready for testers.
Brilliant!
It seems like you still have to have a chase plane[1], and the difference seems to be requiring approval for UAS as a whole system to use for commercial purposes[2]. Note in that second link that there is no size restriction for model airplanes, which I found interesting ("FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft.").
[1] http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14... "Because UAS technology cannot currently comply with “see and avoid” rules that apply to all aircraft, a visual observer or an accompanying “chase plane” must maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its “eyes” when operating outside airspace restricted from other users." [2]http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn1
[1] http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14... "Because UAS technology cannot currently comply with “see and avoid” rules that apply to all aircraft, a visual observer or an accompanying “chase plane” must maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its “eyes” when operating outside airspace restricted from other users." [2]http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn1
Here n Australia, our equivalent of the FAA (CASA) specifically defines "model aircraft" as being over 100grams, with anything lighter than that being classified as a "toy".
It's quite practical these days to build a sub-100g radio controlled plane with a video camera and transmitter on board. This is just using art-store foam and inexpensive ordered-direct-from-china electronics. Fying a "broadcast quality" camera as under 100g is out of my level of expertise, but 720p video is quite easy and inexpensive these days at that scale...
It's quite practical these days to build a sub-100g radio controlled plane with a video camera and transmitter on board. This is just using art-store foam and inexpensive ordered-direct-from-china electronics. Fying a "broadcast quality" camera as under 100g is out of my level of expertise, but 720p video is quite easy and inexpensive these days at that scale...
I know of several engineering companies who took aerial photos with R/C airplanes. Ranging from project sites, to land surveying, to real estate, etc. Does this ruling stop them from doing what they have been doing since the 1990s?
AFAIK, that always used a loophole - you're not charging for the photos, you're charging for the service of engineering work.
Do you know what the software certification criteria are for a sUAS and UAS?
The FAA usual procedure is "prove to us that it's safe". You can point to other certified craft using the same or similar technologies or systems, and say "it works there, so we'll be okay". This is what most of the aircraft manufacturers do. For novel systems you have to demonstrate for them that it will work as intended and safely. How you do that is negotiated with them. Plenty of time on flight tests is likely required. (Though the rocket guys mostly do this by showing that when it does fail, it can't possibly hit anything interesting, due to flight path and abort limits.)
FAA generally won't force you to do it a specific way. Which is both good and bad from a development standpoint. You might take a look "at Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft":
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8130.34B.pdf
FAA generally won't force you to do it a specific way. Which is both good and bad from a development standpoint. You might take a look "at Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft":
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8130.34B.pdf
Thanks that document is somewhat helpful.
> FAA generally won't force you to do it a specific way.
I don't know if they "force" but practically you cannot certify commercial aircraft without adhering to DO-178 and a bunch of other standards.
So my question is what mandates or recommends use of those standards and will the same apply to UAS?
edit: Found it: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/A...
Turns out you are correct, using DO-178B is optional but I can't imagine anyone implementing alternative means given the complexity of DO-178.
The question that remains for me is do UASes have or will have the same or similar airworthiness requirements as other aircraft?
> FAA generally won't force you to do it a specific way.
I don't know if they "force" but practically you cannot certify commercial aircraft without adhering to DO-178 and a bunch of other standards.
So my question is what mandates or recommends use of those standards and will the same apply to UAS?
edit: Found it: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/A...
Turns out you are correct, using DO-178B is optional but I can't imagine anyone implementing alternative means given the complexity of DO-178.
The question that remains for me is do UASes have or will have the same or similar airworthiness requirements as other aircraft?
This appears to be the video that upset the FAA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17
And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's heliport [though the video was being filmed for UVA].
http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-aga...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17
And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's heliport [though the video was being filmed for UVA].
http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-aga...
Man, that looked rather dangerous and the pilot seemed to have a complete disregard for potentially crashing into buildings and harming someone if that thing fell to the ground or went through a window. If he was just meandering around in what would have looked like a safe manner I wouldn't care as much, but intentionally getting extremely close to buildings and doing acrobatics in a populated area seems pretty reckless.
To my knowledge, "Trappy" (nickname of the pilot) is one of the best RC pilots around. He flies for Team Blacksheep, and is a big figure in the drone community for encouraging safety, education, and progressing the tech.
He's definitely known for pushing the envelope on reckless flight, but I get the sense that he would take responsibility if something happened.
These flying wings (foam plane model) absorb a lot of force on impact. Even with the GoPros and all radio equipment loaded on. Aside from causing commotion, I think it's unlikely that you'd severely injure someone. Possible, but unlikely. A quad-rotor heli falling out of the sky would really hurt, though.
He's definitely known for pushing the envelope on reckless flight, but I get the sense that he would take responsibility if something happened.
These flying wings (foam plane model) absorb a lot of force on impact. Even with the GoPros and all radio equipment loaded on. Aside from causing commotion, I think it's unlikely that you'd severely injure someone. Possible, but unlikely. A quad-rotor heli falling out of the sky would really hurt, though.
The issue is the example being set. Trappy is definitely one of the best, but his videos don't demonstrate his hours of experience, or safety considerations, to a novice pilot. The affordability of the machine plus some examples of fancy flying are sure to put dangerous machines in the hands of idiots, and that's best avoided. Remember - these things fly out of the box with no training.
Trappy also has access to many more multicopter spares than the rest of us. This may have something to do with his reckless flying!
Trappy also has access to many more multicopter spares than the rest of us. This may have something to do with his reckless flying!
Agreed.
A GoPro falling from the height he was flying would certainly hurt and possibly maim a person or damage property.
I'm sure he would take responsibility, but when people are taking risks around me I'm happier if I am assured they will be made to take responsibility.
I'm sure he would take responsibility, but when people are taking risks around me I'm happier if I am assured they will be made to take responsibility.
[deleted]
I think there's a pretty low risk of serious damage occurring from this drone colliding with much of anything. This is the model being piloted in the videos: http://www.ritewingrc.com/Zephyr_II_ARF.html
It's basically two pieces of EPS foam with some electronics and a pusher prop. If you were going to be hit in the face by a "drone" - you couldn't really pick a less damaging one.
It's basically two pieces of EPS foam with some electronics and a pusher prop. If you were going to be hit in the face by a "drone" - you couldn't really pick a less damaging one.
If the drone has any significant speed, it will cause serious damage to an individual if hit. If it causes a traffic disruption, the danger then comes from a vehicle that may make a maneuver to avoid getting hit or if a driver loses control after colliding with the drone. It it shatters glass, serious lacerations could occur for pedestrians.
This kind of flying is highly reckless and only an asshole would do this.
This kind of flying is highly reckless and only an asshole would do this.
Still, not everything has to be a Federal case.
Don't forget it could also spook the horses, tip over apple carts, cause women and children to faint, and anger the gods.
My thought was that a kite from a nearby park might fly into the face of a skateboarder causing them to veer into the road forcing a motorcycle to evade and crash into a bus, severing the fuel line and blowing up thirty seven children but leaving the driver unharmed.
The environment they were flying in presents several challenges to maintaining a reliable control and video signal while flying. In such a populated area the noise floor is likely to be pretty high to start with.
The pilot is using 433mhz for control and 1.3ghz for video, so right off the bat you have an 800mw video transmitter within a wingspan (54"?) of the control receiver. The control radio is only outputting 500mw and is considerably farther away.
All the buildings close by make for a multipathing nightmare, but can be mitigated by the use of circularly polarized antennas. There is a lot of DIY involved in building one of these with plenty of opportunities for something to go wrong, they're really just hacked together from consumer-grade wireless security systems.
I hope you can see how these factors make it much more likely control could be lost and make your comparison seem pretty silly.
I hope you can see how these factors make it much more likely control could be lost and make your comparison seem pretty silly.
How do circularly polarized antennas prevent multipath propagation?
Radio reflection off a flat surface reverses the direction of rotation of a circularly polarized signal. A CP receiving antenna will reject them. A twice-reflected signal will go back to the original direction of rotation, but it is much weaker after two reflections.
It still appears to be moving at freeway speeds or greater, and at 65mph even foam can be dangerous to humans.
It's hard to pin its speed, but watch it move through city blocks in seconds & remember that driving/bicycling/motorcycling always looks slower than real speed in POV videos
It's hard to pin its speed, but watch it move through city blocks in seconds & remember that driving/bicycling/motorcycling always looks slower than real speed in POV videos
If the video was filmed "for" UVA, it's strange that they didn't include a more complete/balanced picture of the grounds. 80-90% of the video seemed to revolve around the hospital area.
It was being filmed for the UVA Medical Center.
> 1500ft AGL
Thats critical. Below 500ft and away from airports you're basically out of manned use airspace. above that (depending on the area) and now you're creating a very real hazard for manned aircraft.
Thats critical. Below 500ft and away from airports you're basically out of manned use airspace. above that (depending on the area) and now you're creating a very real hazard for manned aircraft.
So as a pilot of a manned aircraft what does this mean for the safety of my flights? Do I need to start trying to avoid unlicensed, unlit, and unannounced drone aircraft whenever I'm below 400ft AGL?
Edit: Thanks to everyone below for your thoughtful comments. My replies are as follows: 1) Regarding model aircraft - I would argue that the low density of these operations at the moment is what has prevented an incident between a manned aircraft and model aircraft. Also the nature of radio control has necessitated that the model aircraft generally be withing sight range of the operator, and as such the operator is still able to avoid other aircraft to some extent. This may not be the case for automated drones.
2) Regarding 400 ft AGL. How do I know that the drone operator won't accidentally end up at 600ft+ AGL (for example), which happens to be at the low end of a standard traffic pattern altitude (800ft)? As far as I know there's no way to know what altitude your drone is above the ground except possibly GPS which does not always give you an accurate MSL (or AGL) altitude. Will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns? What if I want to exercise my privilege to operate below 500 ft. AGL in unpopulated areas? I can think of a lot of cases where I've been below 400ft AGL during takeoff and landing while over densely populated areas.
My perception is that automated drones with no mechanism to avoid manned aircraft at or near traffic pattern altitude at densely populated locations is a big problem.
Edit: Thanks to everyone below for your thoughtful comments. My replies are as follows: 1) Regarding model aircraft - I would argue that the low density of these operations at the moment is what has prevented an incident between a manned aircraft and model aircraft. Also the nature of radio control has necessitated that the model aircraft generally be withing sight range of the operator, and as such the operator is still able to avoid other aircraft to some extent. This may not be the case for automated drones.
2) Regarding 400 ft AGL. How do I know that the drone operator won't accidentally end up at 600ft+ AGL (for example), which happens to be at the low end of a standard traffic pattern altitude (800ft)? As far as I know there's no way to know what altitude your drone is above the ground except possibly GPS which does not always give you an accurate MSL (or AGL) altitude. Will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns? What if I want to exercise my privilege to operate below 500 ft. AGL in unpopulated areas? I can think of a lot of cases where I've been below 400ft AGL during takeoff and landing while over densely populated areas.
My perception is that automated drones with no mechanism to avoid manned aircraft at or near traffic pattern altitude at densely populated locations is a big problem.
Remote-controlled model airplane have long existed at those altitudes. How do you cope with them?
It's all about how widespread they are. What was before a pretty limited hobby where most people would know about and be mindful of light aircraft (and sometimes share airstrips with them), might turn into a real problem when prices come down and anyone can operate them without much training, as modern drones can with gyro and GPS stabilization.
This is where tactical regulations need created and applied. The ultralight world operates in loose regulations and has generally worked well with the airspace system - basically keeping them out of controlled airspace, and having them operate as other aircraft in non-controlled environments. As a pilot, you know you won't be at 400ft AGL at all except landing, or crop dusting, or buzzing open areas of uninhabited land. And, you know that there is no control of that airspace and anything could be flying in it today, sans drone movement.
RC aircraft have had 'recommended regulations' [1] since 1981 [2], and I am struggling to remember the last time I heard of an RC vs piloted plane incident (yes, sure, we pilots see them near the airport but they mind themselves under pattern altitude, and don't buzz the real runways). Those regulations are seemingly benign to the community's enjoyment.
I can see having UAV operators such as photog or surveillance operate under a similar set of guidelines as a protection to the people. I have a drone and a real airplane - I would not appreciate my calm day at the park being threatened with a drone buzzing at 15 feet, nor a real plane.
[1] "Outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators."
[2] http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/9...
RC aircraft have had 'recommended regulations' [1] since 1981 [2], and I am struggling to remember the last time I heard of an RC vs piloted plane incident (yes, sure, we pilots see them near the airport but they mind themselves under pattern altitude, and don't buzz the real runways). Those regulations are seemingly benign to the community's enjoyment.
I can see having UAV operators such as photog or surveillance operate under a similar set of guidelines as a protection to the people. I have a drone and a real airplane - I would not appreciate my calm day at the park being threatened with a drone buzzing at 15 feet, nor a real plane.
[1] "Outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators."
[2] http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/9...
According to FAR 91.119 you already should be above 500 feet AGL unless you're taking off, landing, or above very sparsely populated areas. I'm assuming fixed wing aircraft, so if you're a helicopter pilot the rules are slightly different.
Either way, I don't see this as a huge problem.
[1] http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf...
Either way, I don't see this as a huge problem.
[1] http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf...
Nothing changes for you. Also continue to avoid flocks of birds, which by all appearances are oblivious to FAA directives.
And every year there are numerous incidents where a bird strike inflicts significant damage to a manned aircraft. Just because a risk already exists doesn't mean that it's acceptable or wise to increase this risk arbitrarily IMO.
Right, so you're comfortable with the amount of risk today, and you don't want to increase risk. Shall we then freeze and cap the number of Private Pilot certificates issued by the FAA? Wouldn't want to increase the risk (by adding more pilot traffic) merely because someone else also wants to fly an airplane.
Wait, so you're equating the risk of allowing someone to be trained to fly an aircraft with the risk of allowing anyone to fly an aircraft without any training?
No, not at all. Where in my post does it say that?
Unfortunately, you don't live in a society where we're required to remove all risk from your profession.
To your edit number 1: the FAA notices around model aircraft already require that the aircraft stay within LoS.
Nothing changes with this decision with respect to what can fly or where it can fly. All this decision does is reinforces the common sense conclusion that a model plane is a model plane regardless of what computers it has on it or if someone is getting paid to fly it around.
I do agree that density might increase, but if operators are working within the letter of the law "model airplane" class drones still won't be operating in densely populated areas, around airports, or outside of operator LoS.
It is worth noting that the ruling re-enforces guidelines around model aircraft as simply "voluntary," but that isn't a change from the past.
Nothing changes with this decision with respect to what can fly or where it can fly. All this decision does is reinforces the common sense conclusion that a model plane is a model plane regardless of what computers it has on it or if someone is getting paid to fly it around.
I do agree that density might increase, but if operators are working within the letter of the law "model airplane" class drones still won't be operating in densely populated areas, around airports, or outside of operator LoS.
It is worth noting that the ruling re-enforces guidelines around model aircraft as simply "voluntary," but that isn't a change from the past.
I'm pretty sure that as UAVs increase in capabilities and come down in price, there will be regulations that force them to carry alerting / avoidance systems (like FLARM or similar) and light aircraft will have to carry them, too.
Just like in many countries, restrictions on the sale of high power laser pointers are in effect and vastly limit the amount of people that have easy access to them, and therefore the risk of someone doing something stupid.
Just like in many countries, restrictions on the sale of high power laser pointers are in effect and vastly limit the amount of people that have easy access to them, and therefore the risk of someone doing something stupid.
I think you're pushing it a bit there. If you exercise your privilege to operate below 500ft AGL, you'd better be sure the area is unpopulated. Since the unmanned aircraft are required to stay within LOS, one would argue that the area there is not unpopulated and hence you are required to maintain 500ft clearance.
As for "will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns?", it seems unlikely that someone wouldn't notice the local air traffic pattern if it includes aircraft at < 500ft AGL.
As for "will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns?", it seems unlikely that someone wouldn't notice the local air traffic pattern if it includes aircraft at < 500ft AGL.
To operate below 500ft AGL the area doesn't have to be unpopulated. As long as it is not a congested area (as in city center) and the pilot is stays 500 feet (distance) from any person, vehicle or structure that pilot is within legal regulations to operate below 500ft AGL.
This ruling only affects commercial use of RC aircraft. By professionals. I don't think you have to worry a lot about a moderately small industry where people make a large mental and financial investment to start a business flying unmanned aircraft.
It does marginally increase the chances that you'll meet a crop/herd surveying drone when flying at low altitude above a farm, but only very marginally (the US is still a very large area). And you should not be flying low over land unless you have explicit permission in any case! It's dangerous and rude for reasons that have nothing to do with commercial drone operators.
There is a legitimate concern that kids will fly RC planes in controlled airspace or otherwise do dangerous things with them. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with commercially operated drones and commercial operators should not be limited just because you're worried about kids. Commercial operators in the public eye will give people a good role model and help with UAV education, so it's actually safest to encourage them.
It does marginally increase the chances that you'll meet a crop/herd surveying drone when flying at low altitude above a farm, but only very marginally (the US is still a very large area). And you should not be flying low over land unless you have explicit permission in any case! It's dangerous and rude for reasons that have nothing to do with commercial drone operators.
There is a legitimate concern that kids will fly RC planes in controlled airspace or otherwise do dangerous things with them. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with commercially operated drones and commercial operators should not be limited just because you're worried about kids. Commercial operators in the public eye will give people a good role model and help with UAV education, so it's actually safest to encourage them.
The same advisory that puts a 400ft ceiling on model aircraft also requires the operator to contact and get approval from ATC if they're within a 3 mile radius of an airport.
the nature of radio control has necessitated that the model aircraft generally be withing sight range of the operator, and as such the operator is still able to avoid other aircraft to some extent
Forget about avoiding aircraft- the constraint of sight is going to mean you won't encounter many aircraft! People fly RC planes in parks, not airport landing strips!
Forget about avoiding aircraft- the constraint of sight is going to mean you won't encounter many aircraft! People fly RC planes in parks, not airport landing strips!
Okay, time to build drones full of atmosphere sensors! The weather forecast is about to get a lot better....this is excellent news for crowdsourcing remote data about the atmosphere. I've been pulling pressure measurements from smartphones for a while, but a core problem is that a lot of weather develops over areas of low smartphone density.
Sending out drone fleets will be a most excellent solution; they're reusable, so you don't have to make 200M of them. They're connected and already carry many required sensors. They're coming down in price and at the start of a thriving commercial ecosystem. Can't wait to start building!
Edit: I wrote about this idea last year: http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/03/living-in-the-future-star...
Sending out drone fleets will be a most excellent solution; they're reusable, so you don't have to make 200M of them. They're connected and already carry many required sensors. They're coming down in price and at the start of a thriving commercial ecosystem. Can't wait to start building!
Edit: I wrote about this idea last year: http://www.jacobsheehy.com/2013/03/living-in-the-future-star...
Out of curiosity, how do you power them? I'm assuming solar isn't enough. Do they have to continually come down to re-charge?
Well, I do have a vision where solar power is actually enough, but that's certainly not possible today. This might work in 3-4 years, depending on what happens in battery tech and solar efficiency. Otherwise, I think you might have to build a network similar to Matternet [1] / Tesla Supercharger; making a ground-based charging infrastructure investment might be necessary to get started, even if that tech isn't necessary in 10 years.
[1] Matternet is awesome. http://matternet.us/
[1] Matternet is awesome. http://matternet.us/
Have you considered buying solar-powered drones from Titan Aerospace before Facebook snatches them up? Probably a bit pricey, but they are marketed as atmospheric satellites.
Titan Aerospace's offerings are tailored for high altitude use - this gentleman is looking for drones flying under 400 feet. Different application.
I know I am way over simplifying this but I always thought integrating something similar to the Roomba's ability to find "home," land, recharge and resume would be a nice solution.
Wouldn't balloons be better for atmospheric pressure sensors?
Perhaps but I don't think so. I want surface-level observations, or as close to the surface as possible. Also, the drones will be most useful if they can fine-tune their route and quickly go to a specific place to join a swarm of others measuring forming stormclouds.
I think you'll have to be clever to get good data, some of these things are pretty sensitive (BMP085, SCP1000, etc). What will you do, cut the power and stall the craft to take the measurements? Sounds like fun.
http://www.bosch-sensortec.com/en/homepage/products_3/enviro...
http://www.bosch-sensortec.com/en/homepage/products_3/enviro...
Unless you're collecting your data under 400 feet, this ruling isn't going to enable such a system. Only "model aircraft" operation is involved.
Actually I'm exclusively interested in data under 400 feet! Surface-level pressure observations are my target; recent research suggests that a dense network of atmospheric pressure observations (taken on the surface) will produce a significantly higher accuracy forecast. Smartphones work nicely for this except for their lack of even geographical distribution.
Get in touch . I'm working on making a low cost sensor box from Raspberry Pi's for wide dissemination; atmospheric/temp sensors, precision GPS receiver, software defined radio for grabbing AIS and ADS-B data, etc, and then open sourcing all of the collected data sets and the live streams.
I would love to integrate with Cumulonimbus! My email address is in my profile.
I would love to integrate with Cumulonimbus! My email address is in my profile.
Cheaper than a cubesensor? Where can I subscribe?
Different market per se. Not cheaper; its made to help contribute to a sensor fabric, less about your home environment.
That may be useful then. I don't think there's any specific rule against a fully-autonomous system, though it would certainly raise some eyebrows. If you do it with enough safeguards and in a safe area, you might get away with it.
If I recall correctly, you still technically need "line of sight" to the drone.
Somewhere I think I saw something about requiring the ability to take manual control too, which would require line of sight.
Maybe I'm thinking of AMA requirements though... (think model airplanes, not doctors - although, doctors also require line of sight)
Maybe I'm thinking of AMA requirements though... (think model airplanes, not doctors - although, doctors also require line of sight)
I thought I saw those too, but haven't been able to find them in the FAA notices for model aircraft. There is such a clause in the 2012 for small unmanned aircraft (sUAS) use by a "government public safety agency".
I would presume the FAA will try to apply such a rule to civil use after this ruling.
Edit: Federal Register Notice 14 CFR Part 91 says they "expect line of sight" for model aircraft. It does not seem to be required--and at least one administrative judge thinks that such a notice does not carry much weight.
I would presume the FAA will try to apply such a rule to civil use after this ruling.
Edit: Federal Register Notice 14 CFR Part 91 says they "expect line of sight" for model aircraft. It does not seem to be required--and at least one administrative judge thinks that such a notice does not carry much weight.
Yeah, line-of-sight/manual takeover might just be a requirement for the AMA's insurance coverage.
Are you sure that's the case? The 400 feet rule comes from FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 (in 1981), which is essentially a public memo with ambiguous (weak at best) legal status.
AC 91-57 (pdf): http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisor...
AC 91-57 (pdf): http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisor...
This reads more like the recent Net Neutrality decision than anything else.
It's less "Drones are free to operate commercially" and more "If the FAA wants to regulate (commercial) drones separately for any other model aircraft, they need to create explicit regulations that apply to them"
What seems explicitly ruled against, is selectively interpreting existing regs as applying to an imprecise (and shifting) definition of "drone" and trying to use a "Policy Statement" as de facto law (by claiming a request for voluntary compliance, but then suing for non-compliance), without following the appropriate procedure or meeting all of the requirements of new regulation.
It's less "Drones are free to operate commercially" and more "If the FAA wants to regulate (commercial) drones separately for any other model aircraft, they need to create explicit regulations that apply to them"
What seems explicitly ruled against, is selectively interpreting existing regs as applying to an imprecise (and shifting) definition of "drone" and trying to use a "Policy Statement" as de facto law (by claiming a request for voluntary compliance, but then suing for non-compliance), without following the appropriate procedure or meeting all of the requirements of new regulation.
Here is the FAA UAS initiative [1]
In my experience (I don't deal with them directly, just an engineer), FAA is bullish on UAVs, but is obviously very cautious.
This [2] is also a good read.
[1] http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/
[2] "Integration of Civil UAS in National Airspace System": http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2...
In my experience (I don't deal with them directly, just an engineer), FAA is bullish on UAVs, but is obviously very cautious.
This [2] is also a good read.
[1] http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/
[2] "Integration of Civil UAS in National Airspace System": http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_roadmap_2...
From a different article[0], it sounds like the guy being sued in this case may have been operating the drone irresponsibly, which opens a window for legislators to put laws in place that will gives the FAA power to regulate drones:
> Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals, about 20 feet of a crowded street, and within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA, the FAA alleged. One person had to take "evasive measures" to avoid being struck by the aircraft, the agency said.
[0] http://m.kspr.com/nationalnews/Drone-pilot-wins-case-against...
> Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals, about 20 feet of a crowded street, and within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA, the FAA alleged. One person had to take "evasive measures" to avoid being struck by the aircraft, the agency said.
[0] http://m.kspr.com/nationalnews/Drone-pilot-wins-case-against...
Stroke of a pen, law of the land.
You can watch the video of the flight that triggered the lawsuit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4
Definitely some questionable flying in my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4
Definitely some questionable flying in my opinion.
yeah even for an experienced pilot, in fact, everyone knows - its not if you crash, its when you crash.
as a pedestrian i'd be pissed if the wing was busing me at a couple of feet above my head.
its reckless.
IANAL, but can we get a reading of the actual decision?
As much as I'd like to take this on face value, dronehire.org may have a bias.
As much as I'd like to take this on face value, dronehire.org may have a bias.
The article linked has a link to the actual decision:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-Decision
http://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-Decision
Yes, but IANAL. There's a reading above by not a lawyer as well, which was helpful.
Without a law that gets passed otherwise, this also opens up the floodgates to full law enforcement use of drones in public/private airspace. If the sky's open for for commercial use, it's automatically available for law enforcement as well.
I had hopes that there would be some rules/regulations in place first...
edit: assuming the decision allowed use in populated areas, full disclosure that I haven't had a chance to actually read it yet
I had hopes that there would be some rules/regulations in place first...
edit: assuming the decision allowed use in populated areas, full disclosure that I haven't had a chance to actually read it yet
edit: this was an administrative law judge's decision from the national transportation safety board
aka not set in stone
aka not set in stone
Let's stick with some facts (I'm a pilot and work closely with the FAA for my dayjob so I know a bit about this space) ...
- The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground.
- There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. ... The FAA reviews and approves UAS operations over densely-populated areas on a case-by-case basis.
- In the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation, Congress told the FAA to come up with a plan for 'safe integration' of UAS by September 30, 2015. Safe integration will be incremental.
So don't get too excited your drones won't be taking the skies anytime soon.
- The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground.
- There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations. Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. ... The FAA reviews and approves UAS operations over densely-populated areas on a case-by-case basis.
- In the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation, Congress told the FAA to come up with a plan for 'safe integration' of UAS by September 30, 2015. Safe integration will be incremental.
So don't get too excited your drones won't be taking the skies anytime soon.
It appears this issue is exactly what the decision addressed. At issue was whether the definition of "aircraft" applied to the model aircraft that Mr. Pirker was flying. You're correct in stating that every aircraft, as defined under the regulations, must have FAA approval (in most cases, a COA). The judge concluded specifically that "aircraft as defined in 14 CFR Part 1, Section 1.1 does not include model aircraft.[1] The conclusion to be drawn is that the FAA approval process does not apply to model aircraft. This finding was in addition to finding that the FAA policies on model aircraft - including the ban on commercial use - are not legally enforceable.
[1]"Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition."
[1]"Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition."
And one of the issues here is that the existing regulations didn't make much sense. The exact same aircraft that would be considered a model aircraft if you would fly as a hobbyist would suddenly be classified as a UAS the instant you took any payment to fly it.
So, I could go out to a field and zoom around a field and record footage to my heart's content and be completely kosher. But if my buddy decided it'd be neat to have a photo of his neighborhood and gives me $5 to fly over and snap one, I'm illegally operating a UAS. Absolutely nothing has changed in terms of what the aircraft is and the level of danger it does or does not pose.
So, I could go out to a field and zoom around a field and record footage to my heart's content and be completely kosher. But if my buddy decided it'd be neat to have a photo of his neighborhood and gives me $5 to fly over and snap one, I'm illegally operating a UAS. Absolutely nothing has changed in terms of what the aircraft is and the level of danger it does or does not pose.
Do you know what types of relaxations there are on software for experimental airworthiness certificates?
Here at my little company Fighting Walrus [1] (we make a radio accessory so small commercial UAVs can be controlled via iPad) we are really excited that there has been some forward movement on the legal front. My personal view has always been that commercial drone use would be worked out in the courts before the FAA really got a handle on their (much delayed) roadmap for integrating them into the national airspace. However I would caution that the FAA is probably going to appeal the decision to the full five member safety board. The FAA is not going to give up regulatory control of this class of small unmanned aerial vehicles (SUAVs) easily.
[1] http://www.fightingwalrus.com
ps. If this stuff interests you come to the SF Drones Startup Meetup my Co-Founder Bryan organizes - http://www.meetup.com/SF-Drones-Startup-Meetup (About 700 members so far!)
[1] http://www.fightingwalrus.com
ps. If this stuff interests you come to the SF Drones Startup Meetup my Co-Founder Bryan organizes - http://www.meetup.com/SF-Drones-Startup-Meetup (About 700 members so far!)
I hope when automated delivery is a reality, those of us who live on high floors of apartment buildings can affix some machine identifiable sticker to the outside of our chosen delivery window.
When that happens, I will know I'm living in the future.
When that happens, I will know I'm living in the future.
YES! I have several business ideas that I've been sitting on because of the restrictions.
Is there a good source someone here can hook me up with already made drones? I can do software, but i'm not really a hardware guy.
Is there a good source someone here can hook me up with already made drones? I can do software, but i'm not really a hardware guy.
I would reach out to a local makerspace. There is a ton of DIY drone enthusiasts in the commumity.
http://3drobotics.com has a number of options with open source autopilots
DJI and 3DR are two of the most popular manufacturers of RTF (ready-to-fly) drones. If you don't have much experience with flying model aircraft, I'd definitely recommend that you practise with a micro multicopter such as the Hubsan X4 H107C. You could also join a drone user group - see dugn.org - there's a group in San Francisco that is focused on startups.
Thanks, i'm actually based out of Boston. I'll try to find some groups here.
Huh, so if Amazon really wants to start sending out those drones they no longer have any legal hurdles? I expect to hear stories of college kids capturing them before EOY.
I don't think that's a hurdle. I imagine that would be some form of trespassing onto amazon's very expensive property.
Yep, and college students have no historical record of law breaking or vandalism in the name of entertainment whatsoever.
Well society hasn't crumbled due to college students wrecking everything yet, so we must have figured out a way to deal with the drunk idiots. Perhaps some variation on the "If they break the law, arrest them for it." technique is being employed...
Plus, colleges need a way to trim the fat, so to speak. To eliminate groups of people that would attempt to steal a machine with a live network connection, GPS, several cameras, and surrounded by rapidly spinning blades.
I say that jokingly, but this happened in Iran to a plane operated by the US military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incide...
I say that jokingly, but this happened in Iran to a plane operated by the US military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incide...
Im certain amazon is not living under the assumption that people capturing them won't be a problem, and I think its safe to assume they aren't going to release a bunch of easily stolen drones without coming up with a way to make it more difficult (much like the UPS driver who takes the keys out of his otherwise easy-to-steal truck).
Capture, hell - I'd enjoy shooting them down with my Remington 877 Express (with gooseload), or maybe my .243 Ruger rifle....but only if they are hovering.
So you go around randomly destroying other people's property?
That question is as appropriate as "So, you go around randomly trespassing on other people's property?"
I'm curious what property owners rights will be for private drone overflight. What altitude will they have to be? I also wonder if I put a 70ft radio tower (amateur radio) with guy wires for support, will the amazon drones be smart enough not to run into my equipment when overflying my house.
I suppose that question prompts the question, "So, do you normally shoot at aircraft that are above your property?"
Finally,a good argument to ban guns in the US
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
Let's create a Meetup for that!
This could really become a nice sport.
There are many more hurdles that realistically keep Amazon from doing what they said.
Multi-tenant housing, people running under landing drones wanting to hit the 'Sue Amazon' lottery, and airspace ownership above private property are just a few of the gigantic hurdles that will take years to sort out.
Not to mention the power consumption issue still limits this idea tremendously.
At this point, it's just as realistic that Amazon would implement pneumatic tubing to your house as it is that a drone will deliver your soap.
Multi-tenant housing, people running under landing drones wanting to hit the 'Sue Amazon' lottery, and airspace ownership above private property are just a few of the gigantic hurdles that will take years to sort out.
Not to mention the power consumption issue still limits this idea tremendously.
At this point, it's just as realistic that Amazon would implement pneumatic tubing to your house as it is that a drone will deliver your soap.
Airspace over private property is still public right-of-way.
Deliveries by pneumatic tube would be pretty great though.
Deliveries by pneumatic tube would be pretty great though.
So as expected (by me at least) the ruling has been appealed by the FAA and will go to the full NTSB so the opinion is stayed until the board rules: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...
I think the FAA may lose the appeal but we will have to wait and see. This is really political for the FAA; they want to be in control of this area as much as possible so they will fight very hard to get the lower court ruling overturned. There is a large heated discussions thread on DIYDrones.com [1] if anyone is interested in opinions of folks with boots on the ground so to speak.
[1] http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/commercial-drones-are-le...
I think the FAA may lose the appeal but we will have to wait and see. This is really political for the FAA; they want to be in control of this area as much as possible so they will fight very hard to get the lower court ruling overturned. There is a large heated discussions thread on DIYDrones.com [1] if anyone is interested in opinions of folks with boots on the ground so to speak.
[1] http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/commercial-drones-are-le...
Not really. It just means the FAA has to come up with rules just like for any other flying planes. No one wants drones flying into protected airspace, crashing into things, etc. It's not a sudden free for all. They just can't refuse to come up with rules because it's a drone. The rules could still be hard to meet.
Can the rules be "they can't fly", or something so prohibitive that it makes it so?
Sure. But then all sorts of things will be banned: footballs, baseballs, kites, model rockets, frisbees, conventional model aircraft, weather balloons, etc etc. The better way to do it is with common sense safety standards, certifications and clear rules on airspace.
I am not a pilot. But I imagine that there should be not problems flying a piloted unmanned aircraft in uncontrolled airspace--which is, I believe, usually under 1200' AGL. If you're operating remotely without a camera, you keep the craft within line of sight, and double the visibility distance for a manned aircraft. Otherwise, you operate by IFR using whatever telemetry you get back.
With a drone, however, I'd think that operating in controlled airspace would require extensive collision avoidance and fault recovery software, which would have to be tested and certified by experienced pilots.
There is a difference between drones and remotely piloted aircraft, and I certainly hope that the journalists can learn it before we end up with another "hacker" situation.
With a drone, however, I'd think that operating in controlled airspace would require extensive collision avoidance and fault recovery software, which would have to be tested and certified by experienced pilots.
There is a difference between drones and remotely piloted aircraft, and I certainly hope that the journalists can learn it before we end up with another "hacker" situation.
This is simply awesome news for startup/small business UAS operators in the US in the short term. I do have some concern, though, that this could cause the FAA to now rush the rule-making process which could result in half baked, ham fisted regulations. This is especially possible if we see several high profile accidents during this new free-for-all period.
Cheap plug: if you want to play with aerial photography but are more of a software guy than a hardware guy, check out my embarrassingly buggy side project at http://airboss.io. It's an app that lets you use an old Android phone mounted on a drone as a photography/video platform with real-time first person view streaming using WebRTC.
Cheap plug: if you want to play with aerial photography but are more of a software guy than a hardware guy, check out my embarrassingly buggy side project at http://airboss.io. It's an app that lets you use an old Android phone mounted on a drone as a photography/video platform with real-time first person view streaming using WebRTC.
AirBoss is really neat!
Are you in SF? I'd love to see it in action. Can lend a Moto X for testing if you want to add to the database of phones, too.
Are you in SF? I'd love to see it in action. Can lend a Moto X for testing if you want to add to the database of phones, too.
You seem to misunderstand you cannot commercially operate a UAS in the US. This is not "awesome news" for all your "disruptive" startups. You cannot "disrupt" the FAA and I highly suggest you do not attempt too; that path is littered with corpses. The FAA does not joke around and your little UAS is no where near up to the 50+ years of standards, processes and regulations in place for modern aircraft. Why do you think new aircraft manufacturers are not popping up every year? The ignorance and complete disrespect for an industry no one of this forumn truly understands is appalling. Your drones are not going to be delivery packages or flying passengers anytime soon (most modern airlines are not flown but "operated" like a giant computer anyways). That is about as close as it is going to get for awhile so dream on.
This sounds similar to the UK's CAP722, which is the basis for commercial UAS flying over here. As jccooper said, the immediate industries affected by this will be those which gather imagery or video.
In the UK, there is a restriction against flying out of line of sight. Most operators will fly using a GPS lock for stability but will not be using video streams from the aircraft for anything other than framing shots. Here, commercial UAS are often used as a low-cost, faster alternative to scaffolding; I recently got up a 4am to help an operator survey the exterior of an old hotel in the centre of a large city, looking for damaged pipes. He did the entire hotel in the course of three 3 hour sessions.
In the UK, there is a restriction against flying out of line of sight. Most operators will fly using a GPS lock for stability but will not be using video streams from the aircraft for anything other than framing shots. Here, commercial UAS are often used as a low-cost, faster alternative to scaffolding; I recently got up a 4am to help an operator survey the exterior of an old hotel in the centre of a large city, looking for damaged pipes. He did the entire hotel in the course of three 3 hour sessions.
I read the original motion for this, and it's a good read.
The government has some pretty big restrictions on binding regulations from agencies. Restrictions that make a lot of sense when you realize that most law is made by elected officials with constituents, ie representative democracy. Regulations aren't made like that, so you have a lot of rules to prevent abuse.
One of the restrictions is you need to have defined periods for public comment on new regulations. Which the FAA did not do, as I understand things. It just came up with new rules without following the defined regulatory process. If for no other reason then that, the UAV rules were invalid.
The government has some pretty big restrictions on binding regulations from agencies. Restrictions that make a lot of sense when you realize that most law is made by elected officials with constituents, ie representative democracy. Regulations aren't made like that, so you have a lot of rules to prevent abuse.
One of the restrictions is you need to have defined periods for public comment on new regulations. Which the FAA did not do, as I understand things. It just came up with new rules without following the defined regulatory process. If for no other reason then that, the UAV rules were invalid.
After reading the pdf, I'm still not clear: does this mean UAVs can operate in regular airspace (above 400 ft) with proper licensing, or are they still (for now) limited to under 400 ft, and away from populated areas?
It just means we have to be selective about applications, but this sounds like a great starting point.
UAVs (UASs) can operate above 400 ft with a Certificate of Airworthiness (or similar.) However, the FAA will not yet issue you one, as they don't yet have to rules to do so.
UAVs that qualify as "model aircraft" can operate in that domain, as they always could. But now commercial use doesn't automatically turn them into license-requiring UAVs.
UAVs that qualify as "model aircraft" can operate in that domain, as they always could. But now commercial use doesn't automatically turn them into license-requiring UAVs.
This is ridiculous. The coming (and fictitious) drone/UAS revolution every little rich punk in Silicon Valley is just that ... day dreaming.
I cannot wait to watch the FAA mow down your dreams. You have NO idea the power of the organization you are dealing with and their commitment to safety.
UAS are not and will not be (for decades) up to the FAA standards. If you are an investor putting money behind these outlandish businesses proposed here then you are even stupider than I thought.
I cannot wait to watch the FAA mow down your dreams. You have NO idea the power of the organization you are dealing with and their commitment to safety.
UAS are not and will not be (for decades) up to the FAA standards. If you are an investor putting money behind these outlandish businesses proposed here then you are even stupider than I thought.
somebody's jealous.
What if I got 100 drones that picked up a tarp and carried me around (i.e. use them for transport, claiming that they carry the tarp and I just happen to be on it)? Or how about using drones in mass by a non-profit to intimidate at political gatherings?
I like drones, but I have a feeling this is a decision that will get overturned within 5 years.
I like drones, but I have a feeling this is a decision that will get overturned within 5 years.
I have yet to see a practical solution that provides separation between UAV and manned aircraft. All flights under VFR are responsible for their own separation by way of see-and-be-seen. I have yet to see a UAV that can visually recognize an approaching aircraft and take evasive action.
Perhaps do the separation by height above the ground? In most of the world light aircraft are not supposed to fly below 500ft apart from landing. You could limit drones to flying below 200ft say. It would also reduce the impact when they pack up and crash on you!
Is anyone doing an orbiting UAV as a signal transponder for microwave radio? Ie line of site networking. Internet off the commercial backbones. The privacy and security implication should be clear.
Sure. Just bounce your signal off the moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)
(There are also plenty of amateur satellites that you can use for communication. You won't like the rules, though: no encryption. You also won't like the realities of powering a radio transmitter in space: with a few minutes of sun per orbit onto a tiny solar panel, you get less radio output power than your WiFi network has.
If only some company were using tethered balloons to provide networking...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)
(There are also plenty of amateur satellites that you can use for communication. You won't like the rules, though: no encryption. You also won't like the realities of powering a radio transmitter in space: with a few minutes of sun per orbit onto a tiny solar panel, you get less radio output power than your WiFi network has.
If only some company were using tethered balloons to provide networking...)
An advantage aerial over satellite is lower latency.
Now this suddenly became a valid activity for your CV.
http://nodecopter.com/
http://nodecopter.com/
Just tell me if the burrito deliver network is now possible!!
[deleted](1)
The FAA has long had rules for model aircraft, which would include many small "drones", and under which you can personally operate them now. You're supposed to stay low and away from stuff you could damage.
They also (as of fairly recently) have some rules for UAS (unmanned aerial systems) that are more like the rules for real aircraft, and are working on integrating them into real airspace. Thus a UAS requires a certificate and permission to fly--but they're still working on how to do that, so you can't get one yet. If you were to buy your own Predator you couldn't fly it, 'cause it might run into an airliner. Fair enough.
However, they also declared that commercial use of an otherwise-model aircraft turned it into a full UAS, which you currently cannot fly. So you could use a quadrotor to take aerial photos--but you could not get paid for it.
This ruling, in a nice display of common sense, disposes of this last bit, making operation of "model aircraft" the same regardless of intent. You still have to fly safely, and in limited space, but now you can get paid for quadrotor photography, as the FAA no longer has a basis to fine you. You still cannot fly that Predator, though. Sorry.
But I'd be careful before making too much investment based on this decision. At the very least, check into how the appeals process on a ruling like this works; dunno how final it is. You'll also want to check carefully to make sure your intended use can be performed safely by model aircraft; fully unmanned systems probably aren't going to pass muster (unless perhaps your automated avoidance system is really good).