I’m not a fan of the FAA. Before I could go into business, I had to take an FAA Part 107 UAS Exam. Makes sense, right? They want to make sure that I can operate my equipment safely in accordance with existing protocols for flight operations in the US.
That’s not really what the test is about, though (well, it kinda is, just not for drones). It’s essentially a test on interpreting maps, radio and weather information, abbreviations, and some basics of aerodynamics with a couple throwaway questions about drones. Basically a scaled-down written test for people who want to fly full-scale planes. I studied my materials and passed the test (with a lengthy pause between my last study session and the actual test that made me nervous) and have not used more than a smattering of the knowledge I needed to pass ever since.
In the real world, there are already several apps that use your location to cross-check flight restrictions in your area, as well as display information for anyone you’d contact to obtain special permission to fly in restricted airspace should you need to do so. I carry several paper maps around with me, but not a radio, so if I don’t have my phone I’m missing the most current information and it doesn’t matter and is all pretty useless anyway since….
What we do isn’t dangerous. I’ve been looking around and all I can see is speculation. No drones have crashed any planes. Nor even into any planes as far as I can see. There was a controlled experiment where a Phantom was fired at 230+mph into a plane wing and despite recognizing that they had to fire a drone out of a cannon to get the incriminating slow-mo footage (it’s really really hard to hit a moving plane with a drone, and they don’t cause a lot of damage if they do, even theoretically) we still get this:
Luckily, such a collision has not happened, yet.
It’s bullshit scare tactics. I’ll eat my hat if I’m wrong but I’m certain that the small quadcopters and wings I and many others like me operate are not capable of doing that much damage. Even a person being hit by a flying drone isn’t usually at that much risk, but I digress. Here’s from another story regarding an impact between a Phantom IV and a Blackhawk:
In New York last year, a civilian quadcopter flying at about 300 feet (91 m) smashed into an Army Black Hawk helicopter, obliterating the drone and denting the helicopter’s rotor.
A clear and present danger, to be sure. A dented helicopter rotor. It probably cost about $100k to fix, but that’s for a story on bloated budgets. And the guy flying the drone was about as stupid as you could get. And even then, the only real damage was to the idiot.
In the interest of fairness, I only did about 10 minutes of research into the topic but I’m pretty sure it’s sufficient. Oh, I found one other experiment where a Phantom was fired at a plane’s nose cone at about 200 mph and it punched a small hole in it then bounced off. I’m hoping there are more experiments out there because what I’ve found so far is unconvincing and really kinda pathetic. Listen, if a drone had crashed a plane I wouldn’t be able to avoid hearing about it since I spout off all the time that it’s never happened. The panic is all down to the FAA, and the authority they unlawfully assume. The catch-all term “drone” is being used to create more catch-all regulations with which we all must suffer. And another thing; I’ve never liked calling my quadcopters “drones” in the first place. I’ve always thought that a drone would need to be capable of staying in the air without constant feedback. My Mavic can do that and I’ll happily call it a drone, but none of my other vehicles are “drones” by that definition. If I have my fingers off the sticks for more than a couple seconds I WILL CRASH. I can’t fly most of my quads (that’s what we call them) by using maps and software, I have Mark I Fingers. That keeps me honest.
Also, we don’t fly high or fast enough to be a danger to a plane in flight except right at takeoff and landing. Even positing an unbelievably high number of low-probability events all happening at the same time I’m convinced that it’s less than a one-in-several-million chance that an individual’s UAS can crash anything but itself. Quads knocking each other out of the sky don’t count, that happens all the time. Large commercial drones capable of carrying medium-to-large payloads, however? That’s another story, but it still doesn’t mandate regulation. Why, you ask?
Because there are already penalties for hurting people and breaking their shit! Civil courts EXIST to provide restorative justice to injured parties. If governments and their regulations didn’t shield corporations from the consequences of their negligent or outright dangerous conduct, large companies wouldn’t be able to hurt their customers (or general population, for that matter) and stay in business. That’s what this is all about, and why I have problems with licensure generally, as well. I don’t care if you have a piece of plastic that says you’re an F1 driver if you crash into my house and land on my couch. All that matters is that I have a car where it doesn’t belong and I need to know how you’re gonna make me whole. And that’s all that should matter, in my opinion.
“Did you do the wrong thing?”
“Yes.”
“Good. Now we figure out how you’re going to make it as right as you can.”
This is all part of my dream world (some say nightmare hellscape) where property is respected and personal responsibility is demanded. We don’t need more rules, we already have all the ones we need. What we’re doing now is giving jobs to bureaucrats, because who else can keep up with complying with all the rules on one side, and issuing and enforcing them on the other? We don’t need more licenses, we need people to act like adults.
