Mike,
Do you belong to any facebook drone groups? What are they saying?
The preconditions for this discussion (about drones and overall regulation) essentially require this to become an "us vs. them" conversation. How the "us" and the "them" are defined will stage the answers. If you belong to one of the groups listed below when the questions are asked, then in your role as an "us" your answer is pretty predictable.
1. Government officials charged with homeland security
2. FAA and related regulatory bodies charged with keeping the skies safe
3. Interest groups and unions such as ALPA
4. Traveling public who want to take off when scheduled and don't want to be involved in an incident, whether a minor mid-air or the plane being brought down
5. Public with right to privacy concerns and not having their property (like a car parked in the street) being damaged by an errant drone
6. Hobbiests: dronies, C/L'ers, park fliers, free-flighters, heliboys, etc.
6. Commercial operators trying to run an imaging business and offer services to industries
What the AMA is finding out, is that the historical precedent of hands off regulation for traditional modeling is not going to translate over to the latest rage in flying objects, which I believe should be categorized by the distinguishing characteristic:
--GPS coupled autopilot with flight planning software, including return to home
Perhaps a different way of thinking about the issue is now in order. I will offer the legal precedents associated with toxic waste as now being relevant. If you generate toxic waste in the USA, you are now responsible for what is done with it. All the past regulations were ineffective and did not stop huge incidents from occurring. So now, you are not shielded if you paid "Joe-fly-by-night-Co" to haul it away, and he simply dumps it down the drain, or abandons it in a trailer across the state somewhere. Consider this approach then with drones. The manufacturers and distributors are now liable for creating equipment and selling it to unqualified operators (that is, they operate irresponsibly either thru ignorance--which is no excuse--or thru malicious intent.) If an airliner is brought down by taking a 7 lb drone thru the pilot's windscreen on final approach, and the source of manufacture and sale is identified, then they are responsible for damages. Now, they might try to buy insurance (starting to sound like a real business, now isn't it?) but they might not actually be able to purchase any. And their apparently lucrative "drone bubble" would self regulate away.
What about the current case at Gatwick? Perhaps the finding would be that xxx thousand individuals were inconvenienced yyy hours equating to zzz dollars, and such a liability assessed. If the offender is a minor, then apply the usual laws, which have some flexibility, I believe(?)--that assign responsibility to the parent/guardian. Make all of these laws and court cases abundantly clear to the general population. It will inform their choices about leisure pursuits. When you sign up for homeowners insurance, it says right there that you agree that trampoline accidents and injuries are not covered, right? Don't buy the thing and then submit claims hoping they will be covered and saying you didn't know it was risky or that the neighbor's kids shouldn't have played on it.
I suspect that from the FAA's viewpoint, if all drone operations (those with BLOS capability, coupled GPS/autopilot, etc.) were operated by someone with a commercial pilot's license, then the liability situation is largely put back the way it was prior to consumer drones. I think the FAA will either chip away at the problem until they get this, chivvying along the law makers until they demand it, thus providing cover, or until the drone situation collapses as a fad. I don't think they can wait, or count on, the later.
Unfortunately, the US regulating bodies have let the rabbit get out of the hat. (The FCC for example could have regulated frequency hopping equipment.) Putting it back in will now be painful. It is a given at this point. Depending on who wields the meat cleaver when new regulations are flowed down, some or all hobbiests may be significantly affected. The AMA approach said that they didn't want a glass half full, they wanted all disciplines to remain substantially unregulated. So the FAA busted their glass for bringing the wrong answer. We may now be half of nothing. And the museum in Muncie may be just that--a museum.
My thoughts,
Dave
Topic: Knucklehead with a drone causes Chaos at Gatwick Airport. (Read 3249 times)
