Lost Or Checking Us Out

[DEFCON]

Ok Malcolm; what was it in my original post that had anything whatsoever to do with 'evidence that is illegally obtained? Where is the crime to be found that you claim exists?

[Guest]

Defcon: My reaction was to your post in which you suggested that there would be a need manufactured etc. Which to me would be an illegal activity by the police.

http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/406939-lost-or-checking-us-out/?p=1653583

we are evidently on different frequencies so lets agree to disagree.

[Guest]

Now I see the problem will have no solution unless the legislation is extended to include all drones. A 35kg projectile hitting aircraft can cause significant damage.

From the Transport Canada Web Site:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-recavi-uav-2265.htm

If your aircraft weighs less than 35 kg and is used for recreational purposes, you don’t need permission to fly, but please read and follow our safety guidelines.

Safety guidelines

You are responsible to fly your aircraft safely and legally. In Canada, you must:

Follow the rules set out in the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

Respect the Criminal Code as well as all municipal, provincial, and territorial laws related to trespassing and privacy

Transport Canada expects you to follow these basic Do’s and Don’ts.

[mo32a]

Can we see the day that all drones will require hard wired transponders that trace to the owner?

[Guest]

Can we see the day that all drones will require hard wired transponders that trace to the owner?

Are all aircraft so outfitted? If not then I guess not a hope in hell.

[mo32a]

Aircraft are not the problem, and are easily identified and traced to the owner.

[CD]

Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) No. 2015-05

Unmanned Aircraft Interference with Manned Aircraft Operations including Near Forest Fires – Safety Impact and Consequences

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this Civil Aviation Safety Alert is to remind all persons operating unmanned aircraft (model aircraft and unmanned air vehicles or UAVs), for any purpose, about the safety impacts and consequences of interfering with manned aircraft operations, including firefighting aircraft. It is also a reminder of the consequences of contravening regulations pertaining to the use of unmanned aircraft. Unmanned aircraft, also called drones, are strictly prohibited from flying near or over forest fires.

BACKGROUND:

The growth of activities involving unmanned aircraft has resulted in an increased number of incident reports from other airspace users and the public. Transport Canada has observed a marked increase in the number of incidents involving unmanned aircraft entering controlled and restricted airspace where flights either require authorization or are prohibited.

In August 2015, a number of incidents occurred in British Columbia where manned aircraft fighting forest fires were grounded due to interference from unmanned aircraft. The Canadian Aviation Regulations state that no unauthorized person shall operate an aircraft within 5 nautical miles (9km) of a forest fire or within any associated restricted airspace.

AIRSPACE AROUND AND OVER A FOREST FIRE IS CLOSED TO ALL AIRCRAFT NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS.

Anyone who violates controlled or restricted airspace and endangers the safety of manned aircraft could be subject to fines or administrative penalties up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment.

MANDATORY ACTION:

Pilots of unmanned aircraft (regardless of weight, size or purpose) have a legal responsibility to operate safely and in compliance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations as well as with the Criminal Code of Canada and all relevant provincial, territorial and municipal laws. They must be aware of the location of controlled and restricted airspace. If they have not obtained authorization to enter, they must stay out to ensure that normal and emergency manned flights can be conducted safely and without interference.

Pilots flying UAVs for work or research must do so in accordance with the Aeronautics Act and Canadian Aviation Regulations and where applicable, pursuant to a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) or under a Regulatory Exemption and must always comply with the conditions contained in the certificate or exemption, the Act or the regulations.

Pilots flying model aircraft must operate in a manner that is not hazardous to aviation safety. Transport Canada considers that operating a model aircraft in airspace that is restricted for the purpose of fire fighting compromises aviation safety.

If you see someone flying an unmanned aircraft near a forest fire or in a manner believed to compromise aviation safety, report it immediately to local law enforcement. Additionally, you are encouraged to report the incident to the nearest Transport Canada Civil Aviation office or you may submit a report to services@tc.gc.ca.

ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO POLICE AUTHORITIES:

A police authority acting in the scope of their duties, may, pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada arrest any person found in contravention of the Canadian Aviation Regulations or may arrest any person that has committed, is found committing or about to commit an offence under the Aeronautics Act or the Criminal Code of Canada.

Where appropriate, TC encourages law enforcement to collect evidence, investigate and contact Transport Canada.

CONTACT OFFICE:

For more information on unmanned aircraft refer to: www.tc.gc.ca/SafetyFirst.

Aaron McCrorie

Director General

Civil Aviation (Safety Framework)

The Transport Canada Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) is used to convey important safety information and contains recommended action items. The CASA strives to assist the aviation industry's efforts to provide a service with the highest possible degree of safety. The information contained herein is often critical and must be conveyed to the appropriate office in a timely manner. The CASA may be changed or amended should new information become available.

[Guest]

Seems the problem is larger than ever.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_sees_big_surge_in_close_calls_with_drones_999.html

US sees big surge in close calls with drones
By Robert MACPHERSON
Washington (AFP) Aug 22, 2015

It was a fine summer day over the airport at Charlotte, North Carolina and a CRJ200 commuter jet was preparing to land when its pilots spotted something odd outside their cockpit window -- a drone.

The unmanned craft flew about five to 10 feet (1.5-3 meters) above the plane, the captain wrote afterward to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System.

He said the event lasted just one to two seconds, and the silver or blue drone appeared to be of the hobby or home-built type.

"We notified ATC (air traffic control) and they did a good job of making callouts to other traffic in the area," the captain wrote.

"See and avoid. Don't hit them. Don't allow them in busy... airspace."

As more and more small radio-controlled drones appear in American skies, so do worries that someday, one might bump into a full-sized airplane -- possibly with grim results.

Nearly 700 close encounters with drones have been reported by pilots so far this year, according to Federal Aviation Administration statistics.

That's about triple the number for all of last year, The Washington Post newspaper, which first reported the FAA figures, said Friday.

"Because pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, the FAA wants to send a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal," the aviation authority said in a statement.

"Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time."

- Several close calls -

Since the start of August, there have been at least 75 close calls, including a dozen this past Sunday alone, in every corner of the nation.

In California, at least 13 incidents have been reported in which drones are said to have disrupted efforts to put out wildfires.

Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger -- who famously splash-landed a US Airways Airbus A320 onto the Hudson River in New York with no loss of life after a mid-air run-in with migrating birds -- is among those who sense danger for the flying public.

"Because they are easy to get and they're relatively inexpensive, these devices are becoming ubiquitous," Sullenberger told CBS television's "Face the Nation" earlier this month.

"It allows people to do stupid, reckless, dangerous things with abandon... (but) it has been difficult to catch them in the act. This must stop."

In a report this past week, Lloyd's of London cited "negligent or reckless pilots" as well as "patchy" regulation as key considerations for insurers as drones become increasingly commonplace worldwide.

The Consumer Electronics Association expects global sales of consumer-oriented drones to approach 425,000 units this year, up 65 percent from 2014.

The FAA is still drafting a comprehensive set of regulations for drones in US skies, in anticipation of their widespread use for tasks as varied as agricultural surveying to parcel delivery.

But for recreational drone pilots, the rules now are clear: no higher than 400 feet, always within sight and nowhere near an airport without prior permission.

"As more people buy remote controlled drones, we need to make sure they act responsibly -- especially near airports and flight paths," Senator Richard Blumenthal, a member of the Senate transportation committee that oversees the FAA, said Friday on his Twitter feed.

- Legislation in the works -

Blumenthal is co-sponsor of a proposed Consumer Drone Safety Act that would establish a more thorough set of rules on when, where and how recreational drones are flown.

Rich Hanson, government and regulatory affairs director for the Academy of Model Aeronautics, told AFP on Friday there is no doubt that some drone operators are acting irresponsibly.

"But the vast majority that are being seen flying inappropriately are doing so just because they don't know any better," said Hanson, whose organization is part of a "Know Before You Fly" educational campaign to spread the gospel of safe drone flying.

Hanson, a drone enthusiast who also holds a commercial pilot's licence, cited another factor: the dubious reliability of GPS devices that are appearing on a growing number of small drones.

While the technology is bound to improve over time, it's not uncommon for a drone to lose a GPS signal and zoom off on its own, its operator helpless to control it.

As for a mid-air collision, Hanson said the prospect of a small drone -- defined as being 55 pounds (25 kilograms) or smaller -- knocking out a commercial airliner is "highly unlikely."

"The idea that we have a catastrophic failure on the horizon that's going to kill hundreds of people, I think, is certainly overstated," he said.

That said, if just one drone collides with an aircraft, "it's one too many," Hanson added.

[CD]

Two drone pilots ticketed for 'Orca Protection Violations'

Updated: 5:09 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015 | Posted: 4:32 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015

By Amy Clancy

Two men, including one from Mercer Island, have been issued tickets by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for violating a protected species by allegedly flying their drones too close to orca whales.

According to Fish and Wildlife officers, the drone piloted by Douglas Shih of Mercer Island and the drone piloted by a man from California were both within 10 yards of a pod of resident killer whales in the Haro Strait, west of San Juan Island, on Aug. 16. Washington state law requires "vessels" and "other objects" to stay at least 200 yards away, so both drone pilots received tickets. Shih's ticket was for $1,025.

Since early June, five recreational boaters have been cited for orca protection violations. Shih and the man from California received the first tickets issued for drone-related violations.

“We take it very seriously. These orcas are key to the local economy,” Sgt Russ Mullins of Fish and Wildlife told KIRO 7 earlier this summer. “They’re of intrinsic value to millions of people. We need to be very aggressive and err on the side of caution when protecting these whales."

Doug Shih, who owns Aerial Photography Seattle, declined KIRO 7's invitation for an on-camera interview but said he would never want to hurt or distract the orcas. Shih said that he’s very aware of the laws to keep boats away --- and that he always complies. But he believes the law is not clear when it comes to drones.

NOAA marine biologist Lynne Barre said the law is clear, and should definitely include drones because the unmanned aircraft can pose a risk to the orcas' safety and potentially change their behavior. “Enforcement of our rules is very important,” Barre told KIRO 7. “We need good compliance to make sure that wildlife viewing is done responsibly and without an impact to the whales.

LINK: RCW 77.15.740: Protection of southern resident orca whales — Unlawful activities — Penalty.

LINK: Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Responsible Use to Help Protect Marine Mammals

LINK: State Department of Fish and Wildlife shows how they protect orcas

[Guest]

And now for those flying RC models.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83629&omniRss=news_updatesAoc&cid=101_N_U

FAA Releases Updated Model Aircraft Guidance

FAA Releases Updated Model Aircraft GuidanceSeptember 2- The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today published updated guidance on model aircraft operations that reflects current law governing hobby or recreational use of unmanned aircraft.

Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57A replaces the previous guidance that, as written in 1981, did not reflect the rules Congress wrote into Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

The updated advisory circular details the 2012 law’s description of a “model aircraft operation”:

The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

The aircraft operates in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization (CBO);

The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds, unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a CBO;

The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; and

When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the model aircraft provides the airport operator or the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation. Model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport).

The guidance stresses model aircraft operators must comply with all Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR), that they may not fly in any type of restricted airspace without prior authorization, and that they should be aware of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) that address flights near federal facilities, stadiums, and other public and industrial areas.

The guidance also makes it clear that model unmanned aircraft operations that endanger the safety of the nation’s airspace, particularly careless or reckless operations and interference with manned aircraft, may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

View AC 91-57A

[Guest]

Seems like every day you hear about another close encounter. The technology is now so cheap, anyone can afford a drone. Now comes the question ....... can we control their usage or will nothing happen until such time as an aircraft is downed?

OPS & SAFETY AIR NZ A320 IN CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH UAV

Air NZ A320 in close encounter with UAV

28 SEPTEMBER, 2015 BY: ELLIS TAYLOR SINGAPORE

New Zealand’s Civil Aviation Authority is investigating a near miss between an Air New Zealand A320 aircraft and an unmanned aerial vehicle.

The incident occurred around 17:45 on 25 September, as the A320 was climbing out of Christchurch while operating a flight to Auckland.

The Authority says that as the aircraft passed through 6,000ft around the Kaiapoi area in controlled airspace, a “sizable” remotely piloted aircraft system passed close to it.

“We are very concerned that an RPAS pilot appears to have allowed their aircraft to fly in such close proximity to a passenger aircraft,” says CAA director Graeme Harris. “The RPAS should not have been anywhere near the Jet. It simply shouldn’t have been in that airspace.”

New Zealand implemented civil aviation rules relating to the use of UAVs in 2014, specifying limitations on where they can be operated and under what conditions. The country is also helping to shape international standards for UAVs through ICAO.

[FireFox]

Sure hope they catch this **bleep** and make him / her pay for any damages attributed to the cessation of the fire fighting activity and of course lay charges.

Drone over Testalinden Creek fire halts air firefighting efforts

Capture By Justin McElroy

Web Producer Global News.

Fire aircraft have been grounded south of Oliver, B.C., due to a drone operating in the area.

Aircraft fighting the Testalinden Creek fire south of Oliver had to be grounded Sunday afternoon due to a drone operating in the area.

“It’s incredibly disconcerting. We’re in the midst of responding to this fire, and someone is putting our crew’s safety in jeopardy right now,” says Kevin Skrepnek, chief fire information officer for the BC Wildfire Service.

“It’s very frustrating.”

In total, eight helicopters and an air tanker have been pulled from service. The Testalinden Creek fire is currently 1,566 hectares and zero per cent contained.

READ MORE: Evacuation order lifted for one Oliver fire as conditions improve

It is illegal to operate drones near or over wildfires, but that hasn’t stopped people from doing so in B.C. this summer. Fire crews were forced to temporarily stop air operations on the Westside Road wildfire fight near Kelowna earlier this month because of drones flying overhead.

“Drones have proliferated recently, they’re cheaper to access, [and] people need to realize they might seem small, they might seem non-threatening, but they still do pose a safety issue to our aircraft, especially when they’re operating at low altitude,” says Skrepnek.

READ MORE: Some calling for crackdown on recreational drones

They’re hoping anyone who sees a drone in the area, or sees the person operating it, contacts police.

In the meantime, fire crews will sit – and wait.

“We’re hoping it clears the airspace and we can ascertain things are safe there, and have our aircraft over the fire,” says Skrepnek.

I've certainly got my thoughts on the below linked ***hole, but I'm curious about yours.

From a fire response perspective, there are a number of things to be concerned about.

Your input?

http://www.cnet.com/news/watch-firefighters-blast-drone-out-of-sky-with-hose/

[Guest]

If the drone endangers or impeded the fire fighters or was against local laws (the US has lots of those) then by all means hose it down.

[CD]

This will be interesting...

FAA Proposes $1.9 Million Civil Penalty Against SkyPan International for Allegedly Unauthorized Unmanned Aircraft Operations

October 6, 2015

NEW YORK – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announces the largest civil penalty the FAA has proposed against a UAS operator for endangering the safety of our airspace.

The FAA proposes a $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International, Inc. of Chicago. Between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated cities, violating airspace regulations and various operating rules, the FAA alleges. These operations were illegal and not without risk.

The FAA alleges that the company conducted 65 unauthorized commercial UAS flights over various locations in New York City and Chicago between March 21, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2014. The flights involved aerial photography. Of those, 43 flew in the highly restricted New York Class B airspace.

“Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations.”

SkyPan operated the 43 flights in the New York Class B airspace without receiving an air traffic control clearance to access it, the FAA alleges. Additionally, the agency alleges the aircraft was not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment.

The FAA further alleges that on all 65 flights, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration, and SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations.

SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property, the FAA alleges.

SkyPan has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

[DEFCON]

Isn't an RC helicopter just a drone by another name? What is it about the new drone then that leads to all the misuse and public consternation? In the RC game there are now aircraft out there sporting eight jet engines and 20 foot wingspans and yet, as far as I know, none of the crazy dangerous stuff comes out of that hobby group.

[boestar]

The problem is that an RC helicopter is more difficult to fly and a RC plane with 8 jet engines and a 20 foot wingspan is prohibitively expensive. A drone is easy to operate and inexpensive to acquire.

The main difference between a drone and a RC plane is that drones can be operated out of visual range of the craft itself using a camera and transmitter. Rc planes and helicopters could as well but due their inherent instability it is more difficult.

Drones can also be programmed to fly a predetermined route autonomously.

Interesting that I have to carry liability insurance on my RC planes but any dumbass can fly a drone with zero insurance.

[J.O.]

I can't speak for the situation in the US, but here in Canada the RC world has done an excellent job of self policing the hobby and operating within the rules. It's very rare that you hear of any problems and I can't recall ever seeing an incident report from a flight crew involving a close encounter with an RC aircraft. With UAVs, it's the complete opposite.

[Guest]

Seems that the FAA is taking the "drone" threat seriously. Any action from Transport Canada?

FAA Expands Unmanned Aircraft Pathfinder Efforts

FAA Expands Unmanned Aircraft Pathfinder EffortsThe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has entered into a Pathfinder agreement with CACI International Inc. to evaluate how the company’s technology can help detect Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the vicinity of airports.

In testimony today before the House Aviation Subcommittee, FAA Deputy Administrator Mike Whitaker said that flying an unmanned aircraft near a busy airfield poses an unacceptable safety hazard. During the hearing titled, “Ensuring Aviation Safety in the Era of Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Whitaker told the congressional panel the FAA signed an agreement this week to assess the safety and security capabilities of CACI’s product within a five-mile radius of airports, and the agency also will collaborate with its government partners.

A steep increase in reports of small unmanned aircraft in close proximity to runways is presenting a new challenge for the FAA. It is the agency’s responsibility to identify possible gaps in safety and address them before an incident occurs.

The CACI partnership is part of the larger UAS Pathfinder Program, which the FAA announced in May 2015. Pathfinder is a framework for the agency to work closely with industry to explore the next steps in unmanned aircraft operations beyond those proposed in February in the draft small UAS rule.

“Safety is always the FAA's top priority, and we are concerned about the increasing number of instances where pilots have reported seeing unmanned aircraft flying nearby,” said Whitaker. “We are looking forward to working with CACI and our interagency partners to identify and evaluate new technologies that could enhance safety for all users of the nation’s airspace.”

“CACI is proud to partner in the FAA’s Pathfinder cooperative research and development agreement to address the escalating Unmanned Aircraft Systems safety challenges that airports are facing nationwide,” said John Mengucci, CACI’s Chief Operating Officer and President of U.S. Operations. “The agreement provides a proven way to passively detect, identify, and track UAS – or aerial drones – and their ground-based operators, in order to protect airspace from inadvertent or unlawful misuse of drones near U.S. airports. This CACI-built solution will help ensure a safe, shared airspace while supporting responsible UAS users’ right to operate their aircraft.”

CACI’s prototype UAS sensor detection system will be evaluated at airports selected by the FAA. The agency and its federal government partners will work with the company to evaluate the effectiveness of the technology, while also ensuring that it does not interfere with the safety and security of normal airport operations.

More information on the FAA’s Pathfinder Program is at http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/pathfinders/.

Testimony – Statement of Michael G. Whitaker

October 7, 2015

Statement of Michael G. Whitaker, Deputy Administrator

Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Aviation Subcommittee Hearing on Ensuring Aviation Safety in the Era of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the safe operation of unmanned aircraft.

The popularity and variety of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically in recent years. Many commercial uses are becoming commonplace today, including:

• infrastructure inspection,
• surveying agriculture, and
• evaluating damage caused by natural disasters.

UAS play an increasingly important role in

• law enforcement,
• firefighting, and
• border protection.

At the same time, the demand for recreational drones has exceeded anyone’s expectations. This demand is driven in large part by individuals who are completely new to the aviation experience. They are not necessarily the traditional model airplane operators – members of local clubs who follow safety guidelines and rules.

These new entrants are often unaware that they are operating in shared airspace. The proliferation of small and relatively inexpensive UAS presents a real challenge: to successfully integrate unmanned aircraft into our airspace, we must integrate these new operators into our aviation safety culture.

We want people to enjoy this new technology – but we want to make sure they do it safely. This requires education as well as creative and collaborative public outreach.

That is why we joined with our industry partners – including several seated at this table today – to launch the “Know Before You Fly” campaign. This effort provides UAS operators with the guidance they need to fly safely, and is raising awareness of where they can and cannot fly.

We also have an ongoing “No Drone Zone” campaign. This campaign reminds people to leave their unmanned aircraft at home during public events, such as football games, and most recently, the Pope’s visit to several major US cities.

However, we firmly believe that education and enforcement must go hand-in-hand. Our preference is for people to voluntarily comply with regulations, but we won’t hesitate to take strong enforcement actions against anyone who flies an unmanned aircraft in an unsafe or illegal manner. When we identify an operator who endangers other aircraft – or people and property on the ground – we will work with our local law enforcement partners to prosecute these activities.

To date, the FAA has investigated several hundred incidents of UAS operating outside of existing regulations. Earlier this week, the FAA proposed a $1.9 million civil penalty against a company that knowingly conducted dozens of unauthorized flights over Chicago and New York. This sends a clear message to others who might pose a safety risk: operate within the law or we will take action.

We recognize that the technology associated with unmanned aircraft is continuing to evolve. This is also true for the many technologies that could further enhance the safety and capabilities of these aircraft. Earlier today, we announced a research agreement to evaluate technology that identifies unmanned aircraft near airports. Working with our government and industry partners, we will assess this capability in an operational environment without compromising safety.

We recognize too that our regulatory framework needs to keep pace with technology. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 laid out a framework for the safe integration of unmanned aircraft into our airspace. The FAA has taken a number of concrete steps toward accomplishing this goal.

A key component to these efforts is finalizing regulations for the use of small unmanned aircraft. Earlier this year, we proposed a rule that would allow small UAS operations that we know are safe. The rule also meets the majority of current commercial demand. The FAA received more than 4,500 public comments on this proposal, and we’re working to address those as we finalize the rule.

The rulemaking approach we are using seeks to find a balance that allows manufacturers to innovate while mitigating safety risks. We also recognize the need to be flexible and nimble in how we respond to the emerging UAS community. As technologies develop, and as operations like beyond line-of-sight are researched, we want to be able to move quickly to safely integrate these capabilities.

While we’ve made substantial progress on UAS in recent months, we still have more work to do. Recently, the FAA elevated the importance of unmanned aircraft issues within the agency by selecting two seasoned executives to oversee our internal and external integration efforts: Major General Marke Gibson, US Air Force, retired, and Earl Lawrence, who most recently served as Manager of the FAA Small Airplane Directorate. Both of these gentlemen are seated behind me here today.

The FAA has a long history of integrating new users and capabilities into our airspace, and we’re well equipped to apply this experience in the area of unmanned aircraft. I’m proud of the team we’ve brought together to accomplish this, and of the approach we’re taking to ensure America’s aviation system remains the safest in the world.

Thank you and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Guest]

Residential sky's could get crowded

Wal-Mart applies to test delivery drones Drones would also be used to take inventory, take groceries to pickup point

Thomson Reuters Posted: Oct 27, 2015 9:48 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 27, 2015 11:03 AM ET

Wal-Mart has for several months been conducting indoor tests of drones and is now seeking for the first time to test the machines outdoors. (Rick Bowmer/Associated Press)

Related Stories

• Commercial drones that fly beyond operator's sight could be OKed in U.S.
• Amazon tests delivery drones at a secret site in Canada — here's why
• Google's delivery drones newest front in war with Amazon
• Switzerland tests drones for mail delivery
• Amazon delivery drone tests approved by FAA
• DHL begins drone delivery in Germany

Wal-Mart Stores Inc applied Monday to U.S. regulators for permission to test drones for home delivery, curbside pickup and checking warehouse inventories, a sign it plans to go head-to-head with Amazon in using drones to fill and deliver online orders.

The world's largest retailer by revenue has for several months been conducting indoor tests of small unmanned aircraft systems — the term regulators use for drones — and is now seeking for the first time to test the machines outdoors. It plans to use drones manufactured by China's SZ DJI Technology Co Ltd.

In addition to having drones take inventory of trailers outside its warehouses and perform other tasks aimed at making its distribution system more efficient, Wal-Mart is asking the Federal Aviation Administration for permission to research drone use in "deliveries to customers at Walmart facilities, as well as to consumer homes," according to a copy of the application reviewed by Reuters.

One of the things Wal-Mart wants to test drones for is taking stock of trailers and other items in the parking lot of a warehouse using electronic tagging and other methods. (The Associated Press)

The move comes as Amazon.com Inc, Google and other companies test drones in the expectation that the FAA will soon establish rules for their widespread commercial use. FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said in June that the agency expected to finalize regulations within the next 12 months, faster than previously planned. Commercial drone use is currently illegal, though companies can apply for exemptions.

• Amazon tests delivery drones at a secret site in Canada — here's why

• Commercial drones that fly beyond operator's sight could be OKed in U.S.

The FAA will review Wal-Mart's petition to determine whether it is similar enough to earlier successful applications to be fast-tracked, or whether it would set a precedent for exemptions, requiring regulators to conduct a detailed risk analysis and seek public comment, agency spokesman Les Dorr said. The FAA normally aims to respond to such petitions in 120 days.

Amazon has said it would be ready to begin delivering packages to customers via drones as soon as federal rules allow.

Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Toporek said the company would move quickly to deploy drones depending on its tests and regulations.

"Drones have a lot of potential to further connect our vast network of stores, distribution centers, fulfillment centers and transportation fleet," he said. "There is a Walmart within five miles of 70 per cent of the U.S. population, which creates some unique and interesting possibilities for serving customers with drones."

Efficient warehousing, transport, delivery

Finding ways to more efficiently warehouse, transport and deliver goods to customers has taken on new importance for Wal-Mart, which this month projected a surprise decline in earnings next year as it copes with costs to increase wages, beat back price competition and boost online sales.

An image provided by Amazon.com shows one of the Prime Air delivery drones it has been testing. Google has also been testing delivery drones. (The Associated Press)

In the FAA application, Wal-Mart said it wanted to test drones for taking stock of trailers and other items in the parking lot of a warehouse using electronic tagging and other methods. A Wal-Mart distribution center could have hundreds of trailers waiting in its yard, and a drone could potentially be used to quickly account for what each one is holding.

The retailer also wants to test drones for its grocery pickup service, which it has recently expanded to 23 markets with plans to add another 20 markets next year. The test flights would confirm whether a drone could deliver a package to a pick-up point in the parking lot of a store, the application says.

Wal-Mart also said it wants to test home delivery in small residential neighborhoods after obtaining permission from those living in the flight path. The test would see if a drone could be deployed from a truck "to safely deliver a package at a home and then return safely to the same," the application says.

To date the FAA has approved more than 2,100 exemptions allowing for commercial drone testing and use.

​

[DEFCON]

It's going to be tough to be a bird.

[deicer]

Bring it!

http://www.oldhippie.com/rednecks/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/skeet.png

[Guest]

Worse than I thought, it seems inevitable there will be actual contact sooner or later.

U.S. report cites 241 close encounters between pilots, drones

By Joan Lowy The Associated Press

<img class="story-img" src="https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/cpt600252018_high2.jpg?quality=70&#038;strip=all&#038;w=282&#038;h=188&#038;crop=1" alt="According to U.S. report, there have been 241 near collisions between drones and manned aircraft, including 90 commercial jets." />;

According to U.S. report, there have been 241 near collisions between drones and manned aircraft, including 90 commercial jets.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/AP/Detroit News, Dale G. Young

WASHINGTON – There have been at least 241 reports of close encounters between drones and manned aircraft that meet the government’s definition of a near midair collision, including 28 in which pilots manoeuvred to get out of the way, according to a report released Friday.

Ninety of the close encounters involved drones and commercial jets, the majority of which had the capacity to carry 50 people or more.

Two aircraft must fly within 500 feet of each to meet the Federal Aviation Administration’s definition of a near midair collision. In 51 of the incidents, the drone-to-aircraft proximity was 50 feet or less, according to the report by Bard College’s Center for the Study of the Drone in Annandale-On-Hudson, New York.

The report is based on an analysis of government records detailing 921 incidents involving drones and manned aircraft between Dec. 17, 2013, and Sept. 12, 2015. Researchers cautioned that when flying at high speeds it can be difficult for a pilot to judge the distance between themselves and another object.

The majority of the incidents, 64.5 per cent, were sightings of drones in the vicinity of other aircraft with no immediate threat of collision.

READ MORE: Researchers use drones to monitor killer whales as El Niño threatens food source

The FAA has previously released data on reports of drone sightings, but the Bard report is the first comprehensive analysis of the sightings by researchers outside the aviation community. Its findings are likely to fuel more debate over how much of a threat drones are to manned aircraft as the government struggles with how to reap the benefits of unmanned aircraft without undermining safety.

Most of the sightings analyzed in the report occurred within 5 miles of an airport and at altitudes higher than 400 feet even though the FAA prohibits flying most drones near airports or over 400 feet.

The locations with the most incidents were New York/Newark, New Jersey, 86; Los Angeles, 39; Miami, 24; Chicago, 20; Boston, 20; San Jose, 19; Washington, DC, 19; Atlanta, 17; Seattle, 17; San Diego, 14; Orlando, 13; Houston, 12; Portland, Oregon, 12; Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, 11, and Denver, 10.

There have been no confirmed collisions between drones and manned aircraft in the U.S. thus far. Government and industry officials have expressed concern that if a drone – much like a bird – is sucked into an aircraft engine, smashes a cockpit windshield or damages a critical aircraft surface area, it could cause an air crash.

“With sufficient speed, bird strikes have been known to penetrate the cockpit,” the report said. “It’s entirely possible, then, that a drone could also break through into a cockpit, potentially causing serious harm to the pilots or other occupants.”

READ MORE: B.C. wants drone regulations strengthened

Helicopter blades are considered especially vulnerable. Thirty-eight of the near collisions identified by researchers involved helicopters.

Aircraft engine manufacturers currently test the ability of engines to withstand bird strikes by firing dead birds at the engines at high velocities. The FAA hasn’t yet said when it will require engine makers to conduct tests with drones, but officials have unofficially acknowledged they are working on the issue, the report said.

The report cited research by engineers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, that used data on bird strikes to create computer simulations of drones striking planes in order to identify the riskiest impact locations. They concluded that hobby drones weighing between 2 and 6 pounds “can potentially cause critical damage.”

The FAA is in the process of finalizing rules for the use of commercial drones weighing less than 5 pounds. The agency is also expected to shortly issue rules requiring the registration of small drones, including those used by hobbyists, in an effort to help create a “culture of responsibility” among drone operators. The agency is trying to get the registration rules in place before Christmas.

© The Canadian Press, 2015

[Kip Powick]

PERSONAL OPINION

I love the "drone". Had an order in for one of the best...Cancelled it about three weeks later

.

The regulations for flying them has become very restrictive

I thought I could use one in the 1000 Islands Park to see who was on which Island and if there were any anchorage or docks open. Drones are banned in Parks

Thought it might be used to look at potential real estate, Out here, not allowed in residential.city areas and then there is YTR and the flight ways to contend with

With all the restrictions out there now, and I believe they are fair/good restrictions, the reasons for me having a drone for just fun flying is pretty near out the window.

Good for looking at pipelines,hydro lines, wilderness photography, wildlife etc ........and 'back then', we could have used one on the farm to look for our horses and cattle.

I am sure there are many who can find good reasons to use them but they are becoming so restrictive, it is just not the worth the trouble to own one now.

[John S.]

I was at the beach for a walk last fall when I came to a fellow 'playing with' a couple of drones. One was a smaller (2') white one and the one in the air was about 3.5' across. It was the first time I saw one of the 'commercial' grade drones so I stopped to watch for a while.

He had one overing about five feet in the air and was maneuvering about twenty feet up and down the shore, hovering for about 40 seconds at each turn. I was expecting a lot more but that was about it so I walked over to have a short chat. Glad I did.....

The guy is a professional photographer was dong a flight test on the big drone after a major repair due to a crash.

He told me that there were several professional photographers in YVR using or planning on getting into the drone photography business and that it was more novelty than money-maker at the time. He also said that there are many restrictions, as Kip noted, but he files a flight plan for every flight. Seriously? Yes, he said, he does not want to run into problems with ATC so he files a flight plan and obeys all the restricted areas.

I mentioned my career - starting with flying floats out of Vancouver harbour - and asked him more about those flight plans. He said that one of his assistants spends several hours a week handling the flight plans and overfly permits and talked about the need to get it right. He mentioned a large complicated wedding shot in West Vancouver that was a 'hassle' but it worked out very well ($$$) in the end.

But here's what I want to mention: this guy was using big drones with very expensive HD cameras in a commercial business. He said his big concern was that some amateur would fly a drone into a tall downtown building and the wreckage would seriously harm a pedestrian. And then, in usual government overreaction, ALL drones would be banned within city limits.

I asked about drones flying near news helicopters or an airplanes. His reply was that when he does a commercial photo run he includes the 'route' in the flight plan.

[Guest]

Japanese police will net errant drones"

Drone laws tightened in Japan as police deploy air-to-air take down unit
by Staff Writers
Tokyo (XNA) Dec 11, 2015

A new law that regulates the use of drones and other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) came into effect Thursday as the Tokyo Metropolitan Police eyes launching a dedicated anti-drone unit.

According to revisions to the current civil aviation law, those operating drones or other types of UAVs will be required to obtain special governmental approval to operate the aircraft in certain areas.

Regulations in areas that are densely populated, event spaces, airports and sensitive government-linked buildings and facilities like nuclear power stations, will be strictly enforced, according to the new revisions.

Flights taking place at night, or beyond the vision of the operator, will also require special permission, the new regulations state, with operators being required to state in advance to authorities the purpose of the drone's flight, its route and the drone's serial number.

In addition, the operators will be required, in some instances, to have clocked up at least 10 hours of flying time, before being allowed to operate drones in certain areas.

The new police unit to be launched will comprise expert drone operating officers who, when they detect a drone entering a no-fly zone, will deploy a larger net-carrying drone to effectively ensnare the offending drone in a mid-air intervention. Local reports have said the drones will also be equipped with cameras and nets measuring some 3 meters.

The tighter restrictions on drone usage comes following the Tokyo metropolitan government in May banning the flying of drones in the city's parks and gardens with the ordinance coming into effect following a drone carrying radioactive material being found on the roof of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's office in April.

A man was arrested after admitting to police he landed a drone on the roof of the prime minister's office that was found by authorities on April 23, while the prime minister was out of the country.

The drone was found to be carrying a payload of low-level cesium-tainted sand, and was landed on the roof some time before it was actually detected.

The drone's pilot claimed he landed the aircraft on Abe's roof to protest the government's nuclear policy.