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

[Pilotguy]

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/congress-open-us-skies-drones-three-years

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.

[kestrel91316]

1. I give it 5 years before Americans are murdered by law enforcement

using drones.

[sabrina 1]

4. Someone is making an awful lot of money from these drones. They've been on show in

countries where killing brown people won't raise too much outrage here in the US. Testing them out maybe. But like the Naked Scanners, someone is pushing their use and whenever something is getting this much support from Congress, there is usually a lot of money involved.

And now that we have accepted the killing of US citizens on the order of the POTUS, I agree, it won't be long until it is very acceptable right here. And I guess the arguments will include how much money we'll save on all those trials which we no longer need.

I wonder if there is anywhere in the world that has not been affected by this New World Order where the rule of law and due process are now ideas rapidly becoming history. And look how they are defended even here.

[kestrel91316]

6. Back in the 70's when my dad was in the USAF working on their

drone program the one company I remember that flew him and my mom to San Diego to wine and dine them over the project was Teledyne Ryan.

Major corporate profits are why this and other weapons technology are so popular.

[sabrina 1]

7. I believe you. Not much has been said about the manufacturers of these weapons.

But the increase in their use despite the worldwide opposition to them, makes me believe it is all about money. Money is all powerful it seems, and no amount of deaths of innocents trumps the drive to acquire it, at any cost. There is so much truth in the saying 'follow the money' as we always seem to find explanations for what seems inexplicable, once we follow that trail.

[RZM]

12. Ridiculous

At most you'll see them in surveillance roles and even that is probably more than 5 years off. The idea of drones equipped with missiles firing on Americans inside the US within 5 years is absolutely preposterous.

[cliffordu]

2. Ah....

Bullshit.

[enlightenment]

5. Really? What part?

The part about drones? That would be Subtitle B: Unmanned Aircraft Systems of the FAA Re-authorization Act. Looks pretty real to me . . . but maybe Congress is just making it up.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr658enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr658enr.pdf

[MineralMan]

8. Did you read it. I did.

It authorizes planning for such aircraft, not deployment, except for ones under 4.5 lb. and operated within sight of the operator.

This bill is designed to see if such unmanned aircraft can be accomodated.

You've misinterpreted the bill.

Go read it again.

[cliffordu]

9. Whoop, There it is.

Thanx, MM...I wasn't going to do the work that person should have.....

[enlightenment]

11. What work?

The reading part? Based on your nasty comment to the OP, it didn't appear that you bothered to read it yourself - you just reflexively responded to something with which you disagreed.

No one else is responsible for figuring out what you were responding to in the OP - and generalized comments like yours are usually designed to dismiss comments in their entirety. If you want people to understand you, clifforddu, try writing in full sentences instead of juvenile expletives. Stating your position might actually enable dialogue. Posting one-word dismissals of other people's opinions does the exact opposite.

But that would be 'work', I guess.

[cliffordu]

13. Well......

Darn it.

[enlightenment]

10. I was responding to the bullsh*t comment of

a different poster. A generalized comment of that nature - and that was the entirety of the message - does not specify a particular position as you state it, it simply condemns the post it is replying to in its entirety.

My assessment of the post was that the poster was stating, rudely, that there was no provision in the Act for unmanned aircraft. You chose to parse my comments, which were few, and add a not very veiled slur of my reading comprehension. I drew no conclusion based on the Act's language. YOU did that - and ascribed the position to me.

I'm not in the mood to play those games today, MM. I read it - and the DUer who called bull*hit was the one who opened the door for my remarks. Had he been more specific in his 'criticism' of the OP, I probably wouldn't have responded at all.

[cliffordu]

14. I for one, am truly sorry that

you "aren't in the mood to play games today."

Perhaps your mood is really the issue here.

[enlightenment]

15. cliffordu, I'm starting to think

that a teenager has gotten hold of the password for this account and is posting under your username.

Your 'mood' seems to be bearing that out.

[cliffordu]

16. My mood is fine.

I called bullshit on the OP - not the Original Poster but the pasted article because mandating drone overflights of the US is simply BULLSHIT.

[enlightenment]

19. Now had you said that initially,

we wouldn't be having this conversation - and you know that.

[cliffordu]

24. I didn't think it necessary to point out

THAT much obvious bullshit...

It's like a 3 foot stack of the stuff rotting in the pantry.

[Major Hogwash]

17. Checkers?

Different game, but you'll lose then too.
I'm really, really good at checkers.

[enlightenment]

20. Your point?

Besides inserting yourself into this for some reason I can't fathom?

[Major Hogwash]

22. You can't win, you're wrong.

As to your comment about inserting myself into this conversation, it's an open forum.

[enlightenment]

23. Very true - it is an open forum.

As to the rest - if you say so, then I guess it must be true, since you obviously are the arbiter of all things.
Wow. I am so honored to have attracted your notice.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. actually, the bill authorizes drones of up to 27 pounds

It's just phased in over the next couple of years. And I didn't even read the 127 page bill like you say you have.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Scary.

say these these went bad and started to attack us! Like a science fiction movie.

[Fumesucker]

18. Halfway there already..