They fly, so pilots could love Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) [with other terms also used, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and drones.]
Some pilots are already involved with RPAs. However, RPA pilots remain on the ground. Is that the same? Differences have a way of dividing people, even when they may be “birds of a feather.” How do you feel?
The good news is that most pilots I’ve interviewed think RPAs are fine, although a few outspoken exceptions made their opposition known. Many airplane pilots are openly enthusiastic.
Indeed, major RPA seller Atlanta Hobby said its most effective advertising ever was on Barnstormers, an online source frequented by pilots (the sort that fly from inside the aircraft).
After the new proposed FAA rule, FAR Part 107, was released in mid-February and gained wide coverage, I contacted a subject matter expert who happens to be a longtime friend, Cliff Whitney. We’ve known each since we were younger pilots through a mutual interest in hang gliding and have remained friends ever since.
Today, Cliff runs a multimillion dollar enterprise that sells … well, things that fly (but with the pilot not inside). He remains an active pilot who enjoys flying several airplane types, so he gets it from a pilot’s perspective. We spoke for an hour just a couple days after the FAA hurriedly released its news about the new proposed rule.
In an unusual Sunday morning press conference, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta released the details of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).
Along with these two big shots of the regulatory world, Cliff was on the conference line. As both a pilot and an RPA seller, he said, “I was shocked yet extremely pleased about the proposed rule. The FAA used common sense. Part 107 will encourage innovation while promoting adoption” of the regulation.
Some, like Amazon — a company with ambitions about using RPAs to deliver packages to your doorstep — were less enamored of the rule as it excludes flight that the big online outfit will need to offer its aerial delivery service (see some of the Part 107 points below). However, even Amazon officials had to agree with Cliff that “107 allows the ability to go elsewhere.”
“Recreational users are exempt [from 107] … this is hard coded and cannot be changed,” Cliff observed. “If hobbyists fly recklessly, they can be penalized, but this is as it was before.”
The regulation only applies to what Cliff calls the “industrial side.” That’s the main aspect of his business, accounting for 70% of his company’s sales. “Part 107 will increase the industrial share because the new regulation is so accommodating,” he added.
Defining the RPA Market
Let’s look at some impact from this proposed regulation. I asked Cliff about the size of the market. To understand it better, we need to divide it into its component parts.
Recreational user RPAs run $600-$2,000. These are some very capable RPAs compared to “toys” that you can buy for $50-$500.
True working systems with back-up aircraft — needed because a company hiring you won’t want to hear about a broken part that will take a week to fix — cost $5,000 to $10,000. However, the latter amount is enough to buy an RPA delivering butter-smooth, motion picture-quality video with very high resolution that can be transmitted to a computer or other device on the ground.
In the recreational or industrial sector, Cliff believes DJI is the leader with an estimated 70% of the market. DJI did $130 million worth of business in 2013, $260 million last year, and projects $600 million for 2015.
Calculating from average wholesale selling prices, the overall RPA industry could deliver as many as a million new RPAs this year alone. In contrast, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) said that 986 single engine piston aircraft were sold worldwide in 2014. Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) and LSA types delivered approximately 3,000 aircraft around the globe.
RPAs clearly represent very big business.
Should Pilots Be Worried?
As a pilot — especially those who fly in an open cockpit aircraft — should you be worried about all this new traffic in the sky?
“Such worry shows a lack of understanding,” said Cliff.
He explained using a humorous tale about how Radio Control (RC) airplane hobbyists have events where they deliberately try to run into one another, all within a 200-foot-square space.
“I’ve seen 50 RCs fly around at low altitudes for 20 minutes without running into each other, even in a confined space — and that’s when they’re trying to hit one other,” he said.
He makes a good point. In my flying, while I recognize we must be ever vigilant to see and avoid, the skies are spacious and I very rarely see any aircraft close except near the airport.
As with most FAA proposals, the agency is asking for comments and must consider every one. For example, the FAA is asking if the regs should permit operations beyond line of sight and, if yes, what are appropriate limits?
Farm groups have already expressed dismay with the proposed regulation. RPAs can be very helpful to manage agriculture and companies are already engaged to supply flying gear. However, the requirement for line-of-sight operation forces them to physically move around larger farms when the aircraft are capable of more now and will only get better. Regulation often falls behind development and this situation is greatly exaggerated when fast-moving technology is involved.
Likewise, companies like Amazon may be dissatisfied with the proposed rule as its proposed package-delivery RPAs couldn’t fly over populated areas as the NPRM is written.
However, as Whitney explained, the regulations can change to allow such use after initial experience is gained and exemptions can be obtained to help everyone study the situation. Of course, giant companies like Amazon and Google have lobbyists who might try to influence rule writers.
Even after the final regulation is released, expect changes. This isn’t over and the technology is changing with the same rapidity seen as the Internet and mobile apps developed.
Right or wrong, it seems as certain as tomorrow’s sunrise that RPAs are going to proliferate.
RPA NPRM Summary
- RPVs must weigh less than 55 pounds;
- Commercial operators must remain within visual line of sight;
- RPAs can only operate in the daylight with a least three statute miles visibility;
- RPAs must stay below 500 feet AGL and outside of Class A airspace;
- May fly in Class B, C, and D airspace with prior permission from ATC;
- RPA must stay 500 feet below clouds and 2,000 feet horizontally;
- RPAs cannot exceed 100 mph and must “see-and-avoid” other aircraft;
- RPAs are not allowed over people, except those involved in the flight;
- RPA operators would have to pass an aeronautical exam and retake the test every two years (You can prepare for the exam via a study guide offered by UAV Ground School);
- Background checks of some sort would be required for commercial RPA operators; and
- Aircraft markings (N-numbers) are mandated for identification purposes.
There are billions of birds in the sky every day. I don’t see adding a few drones to the mix is going to make any difference. Not if they are barred from airport approaches and departure routes. And in fact, they might actually help. They could be used to simulate predator birds to chase real birds out of the airports.
nice comment rraty .:) i am totally agree with you …thanks
While they sometimes fail, birds are able to “see & avoid” because their eyes are there on the scene. That may, or may not be true of RPA’s. While they do have cameras on them, they generally are focused on their route of travel, and/or the picture they are trying to capture. They are not than scanning the sky for other traffic. That is why an incursion with an RPA is more likely than with a bird. How more likely remains to be seen. However, I can promise you that when it happens, the outcry, because it’s collision between two man-mad & man-operated machines, will be different than a machine vs. bird incident.
Some more points to consider, UAV’s in the military environment have been found to be a danger to piloted aircraft that operate in the same airspace due to their lack of “Situational Awarness”. They have no built in collision avoidance capability and the operators are far away with no information on what else is in the air with them. They do have cameras onboard but those are fixated on the task at hand and not on any see-and-avoid function. Also consider that the birds in the air are made of relatively soft stuff so they end up coming out much worse in any collision. The typical drone being used these days is made of much stronger stuff (batteries, motors, etc) and that makes for a much more destructive encounter in any collision with aircraft. One last point is that the operator of the drone has no vested interest in collision avoidance beyond loss of property and possible legal liability, the pilot and passengers in an aircraft are putting their lives on the line in any such collision. OK so most operators of the drones (and they are just that, operators, not pilots) will be responsible in their operations but you still have to deal with the irrisponsible minority who will recklessly go where they have no business in search of some great video to post to YouTube. Those are the operators that scare me.
You are correct – providing drone operators keepn their units out of airport airspace and approach and departure airspace.
But that identifies the problem – most drone operators don’t know where the aircraft airspace is located, and then there is always the idiot that wants to push the envelope, or be smart and fly his drone inside restricted airspace.
then there is the drone that falls from the sky onto a house, a car, a person.
Requiring drones to be registered is a good start. That way erroneous operators can be traced, hopefully. But that may be after the damage is done.
Aircraft – with people in them – are regulated by air traffic control – they clear us to fly a specific approach and give us clearance from other aircraft. But they can’t see a drone.
The day will come when a plane on approach to an airport hits a drone. It’s isn’t if, but when. What do the people posting here propose to do to prevent this, other than putting your heads in the sand as I am reading today?
How is the average Joe likely to know where approach routes to airports lie?
A licensed pilot knows because he has the charts. The average operator has no clue.
Then there is the larrikin who wants to show how smart he is by flying his drone where it shouldn’t be – next to a Southwest 737 on approach into LAX at 4,000′ a few months ago.
Presently, the FAA has jurisdiction up to 400′ AGL. Toys can operate below this level. Large drones flying above that height need a transponder, two way radio to communicate with ATC, and be registered with a N number. But this adds to weight and cost, and requires an operator with some skill and airway experience. Is this what you propose?
The last thing (Or one of them, anyway) that I want to see is a RPA zipping in front of my while I’m I short final.
Yes, I know. There are rules against them even being anywhere near an airport. But the more prevalent these machines become, the more likely an incursion is going to happen. Especially if there are deployed in some sort of “service” capacity. And when those incursion do happen, regulation will likely follow.
Now, consider this. If the general public perceives the service provided by RPA’s to be of greater value than the recreational pursuits of those “rich boys in the flying toys”, who do you think will be pinched harder by the coming regulations?
Remember, there are a lot more of them, then there are of us.
There’s a big difference between having (or being) a person on board and flying a little gadget around. Let’s call it skin in the game. And if you’ve ever had or seen the aftereffect of a bird strike you might not be so cavalier about the “big sky” principle. I myself had a close encounter with an RC plane on my ppl checkride–everyone was playing by the rules, but it could still have gone badly.
Small UAVs do not pose any significant risk to the National Airspace System. “Dangerous” and “invasion of privacy” concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance.
There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time using these small aircraft, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, 100,000 hours in the General Aviation fleet would include at least one fatality.) Where’s the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?
I am not saying that a serious accident can’t or won’t happen. It probably will in the future, but the fear of personal drones is hugely overstated.
The FAA executive in charge of integrating unmanned aerial systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) says that if and when a small UAS (sUAS) and a manned aircraft collide, the manned aircraft isn’t likely to suffer serious damage. Jim Williams was speaking to a nervous audience of helicopter operators at HAI Heli-Expo in Orlando last week (March 2015) and said that while there’s never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft, the military has some experience in that regard. In all cases the aircraft was virtually unscathed while the UAS was “smashed to pieces.”
I know that a lot of people will benefit from RPA use. I am just not convinced that as many people as being hyped will realize these benefits. Technology is a two edged sword that usually about balances itself between useful and worthless such as cell phone use: its great to have until you have to take a vacation the south pacific to get away from it and realize it owns you. Farming, aerial photography, emergency and disaster planning, law enforcement are a few very useful things, but for every one thing mentioned there will be hundreds of useless, obtrusive, inefficient, dangerous, and illegal things done by the lazy, or the untrained, and the stupid who simply won’t care about what they are doing. Add the profit motive and companies will cut corners, skip training, defer maintenance, and operate on the edges just as some manned companies do now. The FAA or other law enforcement authorities are already underfunded and haven’t the man power to police or even audit anything at this level of activity. Add all of this capability to mass production and ease of operation and it is possible that the people who will be the most grateful are the drug cartels who get more reliable ways to smuggle drugs at a discount.
And then there is the 500lb. gorilla in the room: how long until manned aircraft have to give higher airspace to RPA’s? Five years? Ten? Already the 500 foot band is going to become too dangerous to fly in around metro areas from the shear numbers of unregulated RPA’s that are doubling each Christmas making low and slow unwise. So who benefits and who loses from that defacto loss? The manned piloted community had this space as part of a transportation infrastructure but RPA use isn’t a transportation space but a work and play space and those uses probably won’t be compatible in the future with manned aircraft especially if Amazon and others do as they intend and demand exclusivity. No one in the RPA world will talk about this. No one in this infant industry wants to read that their industry has the very real possibility that it might doom personal aviation use for the average person by airspace reallocation and denial in the name of safety from incompatible uses. We have been told that somehow we will come up with the technology to prevent conflicts. But after over a century of driving cars, boats, trains, planes, and generations of ships, we haven’t yet made any of them safe enough that someone can sit over the horizon at some control station and not run their vehicle into the obstacles in front of their vehicle because the number of variables can’t be anticipated and as those variables increase the chances rise exponentially. Double the RPA numbers and the results will not be linear. The RPA industry is only relying on the “little airplane, big sky” principal right now for safety and compatibility until there isn’t anymore sky left in a lot of dense places and that might be sooner than anyone might expect. Oh, Amazon and Google will figure it out, only they haven’t done so completely and their automated cars can’t handle a simple parking lot at McDonald’s. When and if they do, do you think they will need an RPA “pilot”? Nothing like planned obsolesce.
Bob puts my thoughts into words that I never could. This article is so full of bull crap as though they were speaking to a bunch of 3rd graders. Jim Williams stated that when a UAS and manned aircraft collide there would be little damage to the manned aircraft. Well Jim, lets prove your theory. How about you get into a Cessna 172 and while you are flying in cruise we’ll have a drone operator crash it into, and through, your windshield, are you game, huh? Not likely. Another thing, the article mentions that we still need to “see and avoid”. I’m sure that it means the manned aircraft has to see and avoid the drone because there is no such thing as a drone “seeing and avoiding”. Their only purpose is to look down, they couldn’t care less what is around them. Like Bob says: money talks, to hell with safety. IMHO.
Well said. Sadly — a General Aviation plane will be brought down by one someday.
I stand NO chance seeing one of them when flying — much less avoiding one.
Sadly, the Jeannie is out of the bottle and cannot be stuffed back inside.
Keep in mind the Prophets of the Drone industry are people who stand to make a lot of money from their sale and use. Without that monitary incentive nobody would be pushing so hard to get these objects into use. Unfortunately since so much potential profit is at stake, a lot of money is being thrown at buying off the right people to be sure that the skies are open ground for these products to be operated. We pilots only stand to lose, not gain in this situation.
Those are my points, exactly, Bob. Though you did a far, FAR, better job of stating them than I ever could.
Someday, because of the “service” they provide, RPA’s will become seen as a necessity among the general public. And because of that it will be private aviation that will suffer when the inevitable crashes start to happen.
I am very active in the industry and own a DJI Phantom Vision 2 w/ GoPro Black. I enjoyed your article and have signed up for future articles. Keep up the good work.
Roy Fassel