About Damned Time FAA Mandates Registration for Drones!

The days of cowboy drone operators should be nearly at an end - as federal regulators said Monday they would require most recreational drones to be registered in the wake of a growing number of incidents. In addition, the near collisions with commercial aircraft have increased from 238 last year to 969 this year. This above all likely prompted the push now - especially with Xmas coming- to get registration regulations in place.

Thus it is more than past time the FAA and Transportation Dept. move on this given more than 700,000 of the little bastards are projected to be sold for Xmas. Thus, the feds will rush to get the rules in place before a season in which the small aircraft are expected to be popular gifts. The only drones likely to escape the demand for registration are virtual toys with "minimal safety risk".

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said:

“Registering unmanned aircraft will help build a culture of accountability and responsibility, especially with new users who have no experience operating in the U.S. aviation system, It will help protect public safety in the air and on the ground,"

Which is putting  it mildly, especially after recent close encounter sightings with commercial aircraft, as well as the  nuisances buzzing near the White House and another crashing into a child's lawn party. It's about damned time these wretched, out of control machines were seriously regulated. We can't wait for a drone- airplane crash killing hundreds, especially when we are hyper-aware regarding potential terrorist strikes.And I don't think even registration is adequate. Every would-be drone operator should have a pilot's license too - so be forced to pass a pilot's test, requiring up to 40 hours of test flight practice under the belt (as the original FAA rules had proposed).. If they can't handle it, tough shit, no droning!

According to a WSJ piece ('Drones Face New Regulatory Push', Oct. 19, p. B4):, the Transportation Dept. "plans to create a Task Force of more than two dozen government and industry representatives to recommend the specifics of a registration policy - including which drones should be included, how users will register and whether the rules will apply to drones already sold."

Of course, ALL 969 of the commercial  air encounters were a result of "drones already sold" - hence it stands to reason they all need to be registered. Among the data that needs to be included:

- Photo and full name of the user

- Social Security no. or state ID no. of all users

- Full address of the user(s)

In fact, at the time of purchase, each drone user(other than toy versions with minimal range)  ought to be registered just like guns currently.

Foxx said he wanted to have the registration requirement in place by the middle of December, but I don't see why it can't be done earlier. .Foxx said he also expected that those who already own the aircraft would also be required to register within an undetermined period of time. Let's just hope it's within weeks not months or years!

Foxx and Michael Huerta, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, were joined in the announcement by representatives of several organizations involved in the drone debate. They included the Association  for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the Academy of Model Aircraft and the Air Line Pilots Association, who all expressed support for the registration requirement.

The FAA said it receives reports every day of potentially unsafe drone operations and that sightings by pilots of drones doubled this year compared with last year. (Actual stats secured by CBS and the Washington Post showed this to be an underestimate, the sighting reports in fact nearly quadrupled.)  Last month, the FAA said it would also investigate an incident in which debris from a small privately owned drone fell and injured an 11-month-old girl in a stroller on a Pasadena street.

Police found the owner of the drone at the accident site and he said he lost control of the aircraft. But often, it's difficult to identify the owner of a drone, Foxx said..

"Finding the drone has not been as much of a problem as finding the person who was using the drone. The registration is designed to close that loophole,"

It's time we put all the worst drone scofflaws behind bars (preferably at 'SuperMax' as we would  terrorists who'd bring down planes with shoe bombs.  We'd  hold terrorists responsible for bringing down a plane with a shoe bomb or similar device, we ought to do no less for a drone jackass flying his gizmo near an airport..

This registration mandate will ensure we can track all the drone scofflaws and implement sanctions as appropriate including confiscation and heavy fines.

Now New Proposed FAA Drone Rules Have Neolibs Squealing

In my Nov. 28 post ('How Long Before a Drone -Aircraft Collision'), I wrote:

 "I pointed out before, the drones should not be allowed to fly ANYWHERE - until ironclad regs are in place. And those regulations ought to demand that drones and drone operators obey the same rules as commercial aircraft. Yes, it is indeed a steep demand - but it is consistent with the peril and calamity of a drone-commercial aircraft collision. The precautionary principle itself demands drone operators prove their craft are safe - before they can fly at altitudes that imperil commercial craft."

It  appears now that the FAA is starting to take these near misses with drones seriously, and is considering enacting regulations at least as rigorous as I had in mind. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Federal Aviation Administration's long awaited rules on commercial drones - to be issued by year's end- is expected to require drone operators to have a pilot's license for unmanned aircraft. Also, these drone pilots will be required to keep drones in sight at all times.

Bravo! Because this is what's needed, but of course the Neoliberal media and its lackeys are squealing like stuck pigs.  (Or gored oxen who will no longer be able to pile up profits without oversight). And having drone operators with a pilot's license is no biggie, given these little beasties have no sense and avoid technology. Thus, the operator must be its eyes and this is why a license is needed.

But the Denver Post editorial howled yesterday:

"If the report is true (and the FAA is not commenting) the proposal would severely limit the rollout of commercial drones. It could even undermine the use of drones outside of heavily populated areas....where they would be the least controversial"

The Editorial goes on to note the proposals could still be "tweaked" by the White House Office of Budget and Management (which I for one would not advise)  and went on to note:

"Even so, the FAA's apparently ultra-conservative approach to unmanned craft - seven years after the agency declared the use of drones illegal without special waivers-  threatens U.S. leadership in a fast changing industry with tremendous potential to lower costs and increase productivity"

This echoed the whining of a Business Week piece- quoted by the Post:

"If regulators regard the person at the control as akin to a private pilot it would mean upwards of 40 flight hours at a cost of up to $10,000, limiting the pool of workers qualified for the job."

Too bad! It is equally critical - I'd say more so- to protect the lives of commercial airline passengers. After all, we are already prepared to have them stand in long TSA security lines to ensure a safe passage - on the outside chance some terrorist might try to bring a plane down.  So why the hell would we also not implement rigorous drone rules - to the same level as regs for commercial pilots - since the potential of a drone collision with a large commercial jet (say an engine) would be at least as catastrophic as a terrorist bomb? And let us recall again, from the released FAA report, there were 25 near midair collisions among 175  reported in the past 6 months by pilots and air traffic controllers near or in restricted airspace.

The Post's resident Neolibs blab:

"The FAA's approach is often justified by reference to near-miss accidents that have occurred between manned aircraft and small drones. But those incidents are occurring because rogue drone owners are ignoring existing law, not because commercial drones are flooding the skies.."

Perhaps so, but it is also logical to expect if and when drones DO flood the skies, we will see a proportionate increase in rogue drone operators. If there are 400 now, there may be 4,000 in a "flood the skies" scenario - and if so, then the probability for a drone- commercial aircraft collision is enhanced.

Needless to say, I submit that the Neoliberal business model must take a backseat to protecting the flying public, in the same way we protect that public from terrorist attacks. Because in many respects, rogue drone operators are like terrorists - even if they lack an ideology. Thus, I applaud the FAA proposal and do hope they get it into the regulatory regime and with no other tweaks!

FAA Needs to Prevent Drones Taking Over Our Skies After Disclosure of Crashes (Revised With Updated News)

As I’ve written about before, the prospect of opening American skies to drone flight is both reckless and inviting disaster. It’s bad enough we’ve had countless ‘near misses’  between ordinary aircraft in the skies the past few years and now the drone-fetishists want to risk direct collisions between these unstable, unmanned vehicles and commercial aircraft – endangering the lives of thousands.

While it's generally known that public opposition has centered on civil-liberties concerns, such as the morality and legality of using drones to spy on people in their back yards, there has been scant scrutiny of the safety record of remotely controlled aircraft. A report released June 5 by the National Academy of Sciences, however,  concluded that there were “serious unanswered questions” about how to safely integrate civilian drones into the national airspace, calling it a “critical, crosscutting challenge.

None of this would have been an issue had the drone manufacturing industry 3 yrs. ago, under the aegis of The Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, (AUVSI)  the industry’s trade group in Washington, hadn't begun a full court press on our lily-livered congress to pass legislation allowing mass drone implementation.

The take was there was nothing to fret over. Michael Toscano, president of the AUVSI wasn't bothered as he argued in a 2012 interview that:

"“Car crashes kill 35,000 people a year, but we don’t talk about banning cars. We need to be honest about the costs and the benefits.”

Oh just terrific! So, as long as the drone -aircraft collisions don't snuff out more than the number perishing in automobile crashes, Toscano is just fine with them. And what exactly are the benefits? I dismissed these so-called benefits in my first blog about the issue:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-to-more-drones-in-us-skies.html

Now, after a Washington Post investigation, we know there is much to worry about. While the air hazards of drones might have been speculation years ago, the findings by the Post shows concerns are very real and can’t be swept away by the drone fiends’ obsession with getting millions into the skies.

The findings? More than 400 large U.S. military drones have crashed in major accidents around the world since 2001, a record of calamity that exposes the potential dangers of throwing open American skies to drone traffic. This according to a year long Post investigation.  (Let me say it is refreshing to see a Neoliberal paper getting back to investigative reporting of the type that originally made its name, i.e. with the exposure of the Watergate conspiracy in 1973).

According to the Post:

"Since the outbreak of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military drones have malfunctioned in myriad ways, plummeting from the sky because of mechanical breakdowns, human error, bad weather and other reasons, according to more than 50,000 pages of accident investigation reports and other records obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

 Two hundred and twenty-four drones crashed in Class B accidents that, under current standards, cost between $500,000 and $2 million. Officials withheld basic details about those mishaps, such as the dates and locations, on the grounds that the lesser damage totals did not warrant a public investigation."  

 

Despite this, commercial drone flights are set to become a widespread reality but the basis for drone crashes has never been properly addressed. The inherent problems,  as noted by the Post report, include:

A limited ability to detect and avoid trouble. Cameras and high-tech sensors on a drone cannot fully replace a pilot’s eyes and ears and nose in the cockpit. Most remotely controlled planes are not equipped with radar or anti-collision systems designed to prevent midair disasters.

Pilot error. Despite popular perceptions, flying a drone is much trickier than playing a video game. The Air Force licenses its drone pilots and trains them constantly, but mistakes are still common, particularly during landings. In four cases over a three-year period, Air Force pilots committed errors so egregious that they were investigated for suspected dereliction of duty.

Persistent mechanical defects. Some common drone models were designed without backup safety features and rushed to war without the benefit of years of testing. Many accidents were triggered by basic electrical malfunctions; others were caused by bad weather. Military personnel blamed some mishaps on inexplicable problems. The crews of two doomed Predators that crashed in 2008 and 2009 told investigators that their respective planes had been “possessed” and plagued by “demons.”

Unreliable communications links. Drones are dependent on wireless transmissions to relay commands and navigational information, usually via satellite. Those connections can be fragile. Records show that links were disrupted or lost in more than a quarter of the worst crashes.

 

Among the models that crashed most often is the MQ-1 Predator, the Air Force drone manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, of San Diego. Almost half the Predators bought by the Air Force have been involved in a major accident, according to purchasing and safety data.  It is clear that the FAA must know of this, as it ought to know of incidents and defects with other drone craft. Given this it is also clear the FAA needs to be conservative in respect to mandating drone performance meet specific performance standards before turning millions loose in our skies.

 

 

The Post has noted that pent-up demand to buy and fly drones has engendered an obsession with getting them into the skies.  Law enforcement agencies, which already own a small number of camera-equipped drones, are projected to purchase thousands more; police departments covet them as an inexpensive tool to provide bird’s-eye surveillance for up to 24 hours straight. Businesses see profitable possibilities for drones, to tend crops, move cargo, inspect real estate or film Hollywood movies. Journalists have applied for drone licenses to cover the news. Amazon.com chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos wants his company to use autonomous drones to deliver small packages to customers’ doorsteps. Is there no end? Not really! Even ordinary folks want to get their own drones.

 

As I pointed out before, much of this pent up demand surfaced after our bought and sold out whore congress passed legislation giving in to the lobbyists of the drone makers. (The drone industry, which lobbied Congress to pass the new law, predicted $82 billion in economic benefits and 100,000 new jobs by 2025) . Not forecast is how many commercial air crashes are likely to occur if U.S. air space is opened up – which some estimate to be over 4 per year with hundreds of lives lost. Again, because of the inherent defects and instability of drone performance and lack of operator control - as detailed earlier.  In 2012 Medea Benjamin made reference to the spectacle of congressional corporate compliance and being bought out by the drone makers, as she said:

 

"They’ve been able to write the drone legislation and get their lackeys in Congress to push it through and get the president to sign it.”
 

In other words, the congressional rats and whores placed the bottom line of corporations over citizen welfare. But this is what we expect in a corporatocracy.   What's not a good thing is how our slimy congress critters actually think they can slide this crap right past our noses and make it stick. They all ought to be ashamed of themselves, but when laws are dictated by the corporate paymasters you know a once great Republic is already on its last legs

 

A prelude of what we’re in for if the FAA caves in is highlighted in one particular incident the Post discovered - when on Aug. 15, 2011, a C-130 Hercules weighing about 145,000 pounds was descending toward Forward Operating Base Sharana, in eastern Afghanistan. Suddenly, a quarter-mile above the ground, the huge Air Force plane collided with a 375-pound flying object.

 

“Holy shit!” yelled the Hercules’s navigator, according to a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder. “We got hit by a UAV! Hit by a UAV!”

 

(A UAV is an ‘unmanned aerial vehicle’)

Not emphasized until now are the dozens of misses of commercial aircraft with drones, near major airports - highlighted in the FAA map below:


These incidents include one in which a pilot descending into LaGuardia observed a drone with a 10 -15 foot wingspan above lower Manhattan. In another LA incident, two separate pilots reported a drone "the size of a trash can" perilously closeby.  The FAA was not able to pursue or identify the offenders because either "radar data was not available" or "the operators could not be identified." (Denver Post, 'Drone Close Calls', June 25th, p. 17A)   The Post notes that (p. 22A):

"The close calls were the latest in a rash of dangerous encounters between civilian aircraft and drones flown in contravention of FAA rules intended to safeguard U.S. airspace.."

Beyond that, the Post reports that "in 15 cases the past two years, drones flew dangerously close to airports or passenger aircraft" (including the incidents noted above in New York and LA.) The accumulating incidents so spooked one commercial pilot (Greg Cromer) that he actually wrote a letter to the FAA opposing the whole insane idea of opening U.S. airspace to these mechanical beasties, writing (ibid.):

"I can see no way to prevent a collision with something that could be as small as a bird or a plane or kitchen appliance."

In addition, "the NASA database confirms that dangerous brushes between drones and passenger aircraft are more common than the FAA acknowledges."  Is the FAA already co-opted and bought out? We hope to hell not!  According to the database, there've been 50 incidents since 2005, including potential disasters. Meanwhile, Chris Stephenson, an operations coordinator with the National Air Traffic Controllers' Association, described the pending integration of drones into national airspace as "a tsunami headed for the front porch". Other drone advocates (e.g. General Dynamics' Krista Ochs) are concerned with how the industry will be set back if and when the first major crashes with commercial airlines occur.  As she put it (ibid.):

"If we have a major catastrophe that involves some type of midair collision it could set us back years."


She has a point!

 

Since most congress critters are clearly  whores to the drone industry, the FAA is the last regulatory bulwark standing between sanity and opening our skies to a threat that will dwarf anything that terrorist acts could create. Our otherwise terror-obsessed lawmakers  could have acted with courage to prevent this but were too blinded by the immediate lure of commercial profit and responding  to the ubiquitous dog whistle of “jobs” . Is there no one who will stand his ground and say ‘No!’ Well, we had better hope the FAA does and doesn't mutate into another bought out agency - as many of us suspect.

 

If not, we the citizens need to get our game faces on, put away the smartphones, and get our congress critters to back away from this insanity! (By writing actual hard copy letters addressed to these mutts, in D.C.)   We’ve given away most of our civil liberties to feel temporarily “safe” after 9/11,  but are we also prepared to open the skies to even more sinister threats on the basis of expanding profits for drone manufacturers?

 

 

This will be a test of whether this nation is certifiably psychotic or in any way  residually rational.

I’d make a bet but I’m not confident of winning!  The power of money as "speech" obviously so far has trumped the voices (and votes) of citizens.

 

If my Revolutionary War ancestor Conrad Brumbaugh was alive he'd be aghast at how the Republic he visualized had descended into another aristocratic plutocracy - where the People can barely be heard above the media din and PR pushers.  As for the claim of money as "speech" he'd have likely taken his musket out and fired at anyone making such a whacked statement. (Conrad didn't suffer fools lightly!)

 

Let's hope we don't have to wait for dozens of mid-air collisions with drones or "UAVS" before reason finally re-asserts itself and stiff regulations keep drones limited in number and out of our skies -  until they can show all the performance defects are resolved.