Drones versus The Rest of Us

One of the great things about owning and operating an aviation themed hotel is that I get to meet pilots from all walks of life, with all sorts of experiences. After ten years, I *thought* I had met and heard them all, from Blackbird pilots and astronauts to the guy who flies the restored Boeing Model 40C.

Well, tonight one of our drive-in guests started signing the pilot's logbook we keep in the lobby. This is USUALLY a sign that the poor guy has lost his medical, or the economy has driven him out of flying -- or, sometimes, the weather just forced him into the 0' AGL flight to the island.

It's always a sensitive topic to broach -- so I asked "What're you flying nowadays?", figuring that was gentle enough.

"An RQ-7A" was his immediate response, without even looking up. Hmmm... I'm pretty good with aircraft, and usually can't be stumped -- but this guy had me. So, I said "I'm familiar with the RV-7A, but not the RQ-7A -- what's that?"

He chuckled. "Military drone." Ah-ha! I laughed, and told him that was cheating! His wife thought THAT was funny, and she went on to tell me all of his ratings, and what he's flown, and that he's a CFII, A&P, and IA! Wow!

I figured he was one of the Predator drivers out of Corpus (we deal with a TFR for them over the Southern tip of the island every day), but, no, he flies the RQ-7A out of the back seat of a highly modified Humvee in Afghanistan! Wow -- amazing stuff.

After a bit of chit chat, I broached the possibly sensitive topic of drones in the national airspace. As most of us know, this issue has become a hot one, with the FAA wanting to let drones share the airspace with the rest of us.

So I got right to it, and asked him what he thought about the issue? His response was quite interesting, and one I had never thought of before: "Require all drone pilots to be commercially rated, and hold them to the same enforcement standards as any other commercial pilot."

"Okay", I responded -- but "what about see-and-avoid?" How are you going to stay visually separated from VFR traffic?

He just chuckled at that one. Between him and his weapons officer, he said, he would see and avoid us LONG before we became an issue. As he put it "We've got tools on board that make your Mark One eyeballs seem pretty substandard."

Infrared, for one. He can see our heat signature long before we're in visual range. Multiple cameras, and multiple screens, for another. His view of the world from inside that Humvee is better than what we can see sitting in the actual aircraft. And, of course, they have TCAS, too.

It was a fascinating conversation, and I must admit that I feel MUCH better about drones in general, and sharing the airspace with them.
 
tonycondon said:
will their TCAS and Infrared detect my non-transponder equipped glider?
You mean if you insist on flying one of these; probably not:

proxy-29-jpeg.321
 

Attachments

  • proxy.29.JPEG
    proxy.29.JPEG
    199.2 KB · Views: 120
BillTIZ said:
The current FAA regs are correct. RC aircraft of any type are "home hobbiest" and governed by the AMA. Start making $$ off that RC and it is a commercial operation and now a UAS, flying over property on the ground and requires an N number, airworthy cert, pilot certifications and other dual redundancy control and safety aspects.
The statute authorizing the existence of the FAA limits it authority to "navigable" airspace. Not everything above the ground qualifies as navigable.
 
BillTIZ said:
According to the FAA, from what I understand, everything above the ground is navigable airspace. Including that police helicopter dragging his skids through the tree tops, or that crop duster killing Mosquitos over the city.
The courts have denied such a broad definition for "navigable airspace" - as far back as 1946 in United States v. Causby they found in that case "the superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself." The court further noted, "it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run." So that there are portions of airspace that are not considered navigable.

The definitions have changed some over time, so that they are somewhat more inclusive, but the courts seem to have put up some ultimate barriers to FAA overreach in their authority. The courts appear to have established that the FAA will never be able to write regulations that affect your right to toss paper airplanes in your living room or even in your yard, among other things.

Other cases that are relevant:

Matson v. United States
Bennett v. United States
United States v. Helsey
 
Back
Top