At Last - Arms Makers Are Going To Target Nuisance Drones

Waiting passengers at Gatwick Airport, UK, after a drone scare jhalted flights in December.


Recall some 5 years ago, a  Denver Post, piece: 'Drone Close Calls'(June 25th, 2014,  p. 17A)   referenced dozens of perilous close calls of commercial aircraft and drones, e.g.(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.."

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 pestiferous interlopers, 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."

Since then the incidents have increased more than twenty fold and had pilots dodging the damned things with many even closer calls, over major airports.

Then in December the immediate nuisance nature of these devices came to the fore when thousands of passengers at Gatwick Airport (UK) had flights canceled or postponed on account of drones in the airspace.  ('Drones Shut Down Major UK Airport', WSJ, Dec. 21, p. A8). 

More worrisome, around the same time we beheld the suspected collision of a small drone with an AeroMexico plane ('Risk Of Airliner-Drone Crash In Focus After Incident', WSJ, Dec. 17, p. A6) .   As reported in the piece about the near mid-air collision (ibid.):

"The AeroMexico incident is bound to prompt greater focus on the various ways airports, regulators and drone operators are experimenting to reduce the risk of such midair crashes, particularly in the vicinity of airports when planes are more susceptible because they are flying slowly and low."

And, of course, I've been warning  for years about the dangers posed by these flying electronic interlopers,  with renegade operators.  Also I've explained why  something needs to be done about them proactively - instead of waiting for a drone-aircraft collision taking lives,  e.g.

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

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/time-to-snuff-this-drone-bullshit-now.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-drone-pandoras-box-how-long-before.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/drones-gone-wild-why-moire-air.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/06/drone-makers-whats-little-risk-for.html

Now, at last,  it appears something will be done.  This is with arms manufacturers creating assorted ways and means to bring the little pests down or otherwise de-activate and down them. (See e.g. 'Arms Makers Declare War On Drones',  WSJ, Business & Finance,  p. B2, March 4).  As the piece notes:

"Arms makers are targeting the growing menace of drones at airports and on battlefields with a rush to develop new missile systems , radar jammers and laser cannons.  Commercial flights at some of the world's busiest hubs - in New York, London and Delhi - have been grounded in recent months amid concerns the drones could endanger airlines.

The rising number of (airport) incidents has put the threat in the public eye and propelled interest in antidrone technology.  Defense industry officials say armed forces still account for most spending."

However, the piece goes on to point out there is a growing market for non-military weapons and devices, i.e. to take down or disable drones near airports.  Indeed, "this fast growing category could become a lucrative market for arms makers".

Currently we learn  the only means to defend against wayward drones are feeble and iffy at best. For example, for airports "the principal way to counter drones is to disrupt their radio and navigation links."  But all those in the know understand this isn't good enough. Although London Gatwick Airport has said it has bought "unspecified military grade counterdrone equipment."   This was after Gatwick "endured three days of disruption in December."

Let us hope that Gatwick, and other major airports, grasp that it's now time the kid gloves come off and real weapons be used - like small missiles or laser cannons -  to take out nuisance drones.  The article is correct that armed forces "have more leeway to use greater force", i.e. because they "don't have to worry about nearby airplanes and civilians".  But if the airspace is already cleared of commercial flights, then surely a well- aimed laser cannon can be used on any offending drones without adverse repercussions.

In any case, it is gratifying to learn "That has prompted an arms race  among manufacturers to develop new anti-drone technology"  Already Diehl Defence has "developed a system to fire electronic bursts at a drone to fry its electronics.  It has a range of more than 0.6 mile."

It also comes in a "smaller, civil version with about half that range."

In other words,  perfect for knocking out nuisance drones near airports.  The sooner airports get these weapons in place, and put to use, the better for all air passengers. After all, if we're going to go all out to protect the friendly skies from t'errists we need to do it for reckless drone operators as well!

Drone Disruptions, Close Calls, Show Current Regulations Are Way Too Lax

Can we finally say 'enough is enough'  with the millions of drones infesting the world's skies especially after what happened recently at Gatwick Airport  ('Drones Shut Down Major UK Airport', WSJ, Dec. 21, p. A8)?  Not to mention the suspected collision of a small drone with an AeroMexico plane ('Risk Of Airliner-Drone Crash In Focus After Incident', WSJ, Dec. 17, p. A6)  a week ago?  I mean,  what is it going to take? A drone ripping into a Boeing 767 engine with hundreds of lives lost before regulators get their collective act together?

As reported in the piece about the near mid=air collision (ibid.):

"Wednesday's AeroMexico incident is bound to prompt greater focus on the various ways airports, regulators and drone operators are experimenting to reduce the risk of such midair crashes, particularly in the vicinity of airports when planes are more susceptible because they are flying slowly and low."
\
And in regard to the Gatwick disruption (ibid.):


"Authorities took the dramatic step Thursday of grounding flights all day at one of Europe;s busiest airports, upending plans for more than 100,000 passengers after what was said to be a deliberate attempt to use drones to disrupt travel.

The incident at Gatwick Airport, about   an hour's drive south of London, punctuates the growing threat to civil aviation by unmanned aircraft....Worries over drones have disrupted airport operations before but never for such a long time at such a large airport."

And, of course, I've been blogging about this issue since the drone menace first reared its ugly head, e.g.

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

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/time-to-snuff-this-drone-bullshit-now.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-drone-pandoras-box-how-long-before.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/drones-gone-wild-why-moire-air.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/06/drone-makers-whats-little-risk-for.html

Look, there are many players to blame in this, from a weak-willed, bought out congress anxious to get campaign donations from the drone makers, to the manufacturers themselves - who want as few regulations as possible.  Then to the likes of the drone users, including Alphabet, Inc. and Amazon who've bet big on the drone future.

Indeed, as long ago as February, 2012 I had written:

"Yet another federal agency (FAA) is now being held hostage to the corporatist-industrial complex,  attempting to find new avenues for drone production since the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending (well the first has officially ended, the second nearly so....

In the case of this new FAA bill, worth some $63 billion (and already four years in the lobbying and rewriting phases), U.S. skies would be inundated with tens of thousands of unmanned drones sharing airspace with commercial planes - and recall these are already at the beck and call of overworked air traffic controllers, as gauged by nearly 300 near misses per year. Imagine if they now had to contend with thousands of these unmanned drones flying who knows where?

Certainly the commercial pilots themselves aren't too enthused. As a WSJ article observes ('U.S. Skies Could See More Drones', Feb. 4, p. A7):

"Barely hours after the 374-page bill became public pilot union officials urged a more deliberate approach. Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents 53,000 pilots across North America, said his organization remains worried about safety issues such as training and certification of those unmanned aircraft."


Then, in a Feb. 27, post some weeks later I cited a Denver Post front page story noting:

"Congress has told the FAA that it must allow civilian and military drones to fly in civilian airspace by 2015"

In other words, even then congress myopically invited the potential for  a slew of near collisions! All for what? MONEY! Each drone that ended up in the skies put lobbyist money in the craven congress critters'  pockets, likely from the "Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International".This is the selfsame "industry trade group"   that has pushed this bullshit down the FAA's throat and used congress as the Trojan Horse to do it....with billions of dollars of money exchanging paws in the background.

I then quoted a PR specialist for the same AUVSI outfit, a Ben Gielow - who could barely control his drooling:

"The potential civil market for these systems could dwarf the military market in the coming years if we can get access to the airspace.."

If?....Well hell, they've now gotten that access to the civilian commercial airspace and with disastrous results.   Some may ask:  what's so wrong with companies pushing to use drones more, and lobbyists getting in on the act too? Plenty! Starting with none of these actors has clue one  - or any real experience - with the historically slow pace of crafting aviation rules. I am talking here not just about getting drones into commercial airspace, but being able to protect large transport craft with hundreds of humans using that airspace.

 

That problem has not been solved, and when stringent proposals were offered by the Obama FAA, i.e. making all drone operators get a pilot's license to conform to a certain standard - the drone makers and congress went ballistic.   True, in some nations, e.g. Germany, there is now a push for those elements manage the country's air traffic control system, to make steps toward "a harmonious and safe coexistence of manned and unmanned aviation".  (WSJ, Dec. 24, p. A9).

 

However, even the most optimistic observers including specialists in aviation and regulatory agencies admit when pushed that "even partial integration is many years away and is dependent on technical leaps still on the drawing boards."  (Ibid.)

More daunting for the drone mavens and operators:

 

"Some drone proponents worry the Gatwick incident could lead to regulatory backlash. The British Airline Pilots Association, which has long called for tighter rules for private drone use, this week called on the British government to raise to 3.1 miles (from 0.6 miles) the drone exclusion zone around airports. It also called for drone licensing and registration requirements."

These are also changes I've endorsed in previous blog posts for U.S. drone management.  The reason is simple:  despite what the drone lobbyists, users and aficionados may say,  it's much better to preemptively make the skies safer for commercial aircraft using stiffer regs, than to wait for a catastrophic drone-airline  collision that kills hundreds to change. After which many may want ALL unmanned craft banned permanently from within 100 miles of  major airports. 

All of these matters should have been thought about when the first legislation appeared nearly 7 years ago. However, the lobbyists, drone makers and a cowed congress were too much in a hurry.  They all  felt the need to dash to the finish line when more sobriety, reflection and temperance was required. The displaced passengers at Gatwick may well be the first adversely affected in mass numbers, but they won't be the last.   And as drone specialists note, it will take years - perhaps as long as a decade- before an effective integration of aviation regs is achieved. In the meantime, what to do?  Common sense screams that the FAA must implement powerful provisional regulations including licensing and registration of all would-be operators.

Cumbersome? Maybe. But preferable to having irresponsible jerks bring down a jetliner with hundreds sacrificed to political and financial expediency.  (And yes, unfortunately in the current 'Drone world', "Peter has to pay for Paul".)

 

If There's A Drone-Airline Collision and Crash, Blame CONGRESS!

No, it wasn't terrorists but rather a motley crew of half-assed drone operators who disrupted air traffic across the nation last Sunday unleashing a swarm of rogue drones near major airports.  The near misses included a white drone startling the pilot of a Jet Blue flight before it landed at LAX, then a quadricopter whizzing just below an Allegiant Air flight and in D.C. a Cessna pilot reported a drone cruising at 1,500 ft. in restricted airspace above the capitol. Then in Louisville, a silver and white drone nearly collided with a training aircraft and over Chicago United Flt. 970 reported a drone passing close by. Twelve near misses in one freaking day!

The news (WSJ, Aug. 14, p. A3, Denver Post, Aug. 20, p. 14A) that there have been 700 close calls with commercial aircraft so far this year (defined as being close enough to see the little bastards) has to have any sober air traveler worried. Because he'd  realize it's only a matter of time before one of the little fuckers collides with a passenger jet or is sucked into an engine causing a catastrophic event with possibly hundreds of lives lost.

The 700 number, through August 9th, according to the FAA,  vastly eclipses the 238 for all of last year. So what the hell gives? What gives is it's "drones gone wild". Thanks to a congress full of poltroons, cowards and venal weasels there are now more than 1 million consumer drones vying for airspace - as if besieged air traffic controllers don't have enough objects to worry about on their screens.

Already the FAA has fined drone operators in 20 cases of drones flying too close to aircraft, but this is like a slap on the wrist. The FAA head meanwhile promises "tough countermeasures" and "strict enforcement" but let's face it - these words are mostly hot air given none of the drones are unregistered  and can't be GPS-tracked. The operators almost have to turn themselves in in order to mete out any punishment. What we really need is for Homeland Security - which is to protect air travel over the U.S. - to have sophisticated weapons available to disable these intruders. If we are expending so much to defend against terrorists we must do the same for these damned rogue drones, and not wait for a disaster.

This is all the more pressing as the Washington Post recently obtained hundreds of near miss reports from a gov't official who objected to the FAA secrecy on the matter. Including that the rogue drones had penetrated some of the most guarded airspaces in the country. That these intrusions could be allowed, and moreover be kept secret (out of a feeling of FAA impotence) is abominable.

If there is, god forbid, a drone -airliner calamity, what then? Then I blame not only the irresponsible drone operators but congress!

The existence of the relevant bill was first reported on Feb. 4, 2012 in The Wall Street Journal  ('U.S. Skies Could See More Drones', p. A7)and it came as a shocker of sorts. First, because it disclosed yet another federal agency (FAA) held hostage to the corporatist-industrial complex, attempting to find new avenues for drone production since the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan were ending.. And second, because it disclosed how secretive this corporate-benefiting information  and cronyist legislating really is.

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 Neoliberal corporatocracy.  In the case of the FAA bill, worth some $63 billion to the drone lobbyists, we've now beheld the sour fruit:  U.S. skies inundated with a million unmanned drones sharing airspace with commercial planes.

The WSJ piece insists "the FAA and the drone industry are working to educate users that explains the rules, including that drones generally can't fly above 400 feet or within 5 miles of an airport."

But given the close calls, it appears the campaign isn't making a dent. Operators continue to flout the rules, and some aviation "experts" aren't helping the matter by claiming that "drones don't pose a threat to large commercial aircraft". I dispute that, given at least two commercial aircraft have been brought down by small birds being sucked into engines. And make no mistake, a 4-5 lb. drone is every bit as large, in fact larger, than most birds. So this take is bollocks. 

Meanwhile, as it's the 'wild West' in the skies, our congress critters are stuffing their pockets and mouths on all the largesse brought to them compliments of the pro-drone lobbyists.

But if there is one airliner-drone collision resulting in a crash that costs lives, the bastards ought to be made to attend each and every funeral! Also, in the case of any serious injuries - pony up the money to pay for all the hospital bills!

HiTech To The Rescue - To Take Out Drones Where They Don't Belong!

Nuisance small drones, which some idiots treat as exotic toys, are now becoming dangerous nuisances and need to be brought under control. Since the FAA appears impotent to act, there are at least others who are making headway technologically into putting these irritating little bastards out of commission - and potentially rendering them techno-junk.

In the past month alone, there've been over a dozen near misses of drones with commercial aircraft which ought to scare the bejeezus out of any air traveler. In one case the damned drone - one of those small outfits that are the main nuisances - went way over its allowed altitude and came to within 200 ft. of a jetliner attempting a landing. Fortunately, the pilot saw the damned thing in time and was able to dodge it, but next time we may not be so lucky. As one air line safety specialist put it, all it takes is one getting sucked into a jet engine and it would be all over. Yeah, there'd be the usual weeping and gnashing of teeth after the fact, but most of us who've been carping about the litany of such near misses in the past two years would be asking 'Why wasn't something done?'

Then, there've been the incidents barely a week ago where firefighters near San Bernardino CA had to pull back their efforts because the damned drones were hovering over the flames - hampering their efforts. The result? The fire fighting planes were delayed 26 minutes and dozens of cars were burned up on a highway stretch through the fire zone.

Many have been noticing these incidents and are now planning to do something about it. This according to a recent WSJ piece  ('Meet the Drone Killers', July 24, p. B1).

In France, after several drones meandered above nuclear power stations, the government awarded contracts to small military research teams to develop weapons that can be used to bring down the bird-sized nuisances. French defense electronics firm Thales SA is also working on a system to use radar to spot a drone, then use jamming tools to take control  of it.

In the U.S. especially after the near-miss  airline encounters, companies are developing counter drone systems that use microphones or radar to detect nuisance drones then take them out.  Authorities have already used some of these systems to safeguard prisons, secure sporting events and government buildings.  Many of the counter drones have mechanisms in place to capture any unwelcome drones and even destroy them.

These can't come into play soon enough given the FAA can't seem to control airspace after being pushed by a dummy, venal congress to allow U.S. skies to be overrun - thanks to pressure from drone makers.  The existence of the relevant bill was first reported on Feb. 4, 2012 in The Wall Street Journal  ('U.S. Skies Could See More Drones', p. A7)and it came as a shocker of sorts. First, because it disclosed yet another federal agency (FAA) held hostage to the corporatist-industrial complex, now attempting to find new avenues for drone production since the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending (well the first has officially ended, the second nearly may not until 2024). And second, because it discloses how secretive this corporate-benefiting information is.

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.  In the case of the FAA bill, worth some $63 billion (and nearly four years in the lobbying and rewriting), U.S. skies would be inundated with tens of thousands of unmanned drones sharing airspace with commercial planes.

 

A dozen or more incidents last year were exposed in an investigation by the Washington Post and  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 close by.  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.."

 

The FAA in the wake of these has had to come clean and reveal many other near misses, forcing it to at least appear to be doing something. That includes at least mouthing proposals that would require all drone operators to be subject to testing and have pilot licenses. Sounds good, but up to now I've seen nothing further other than in Neoliberal newspapers where editorials have raked the FAA over the coals for the plan.  But what do these numb nut editors propose given all the nincompoops with drones running loose who ought to be locked up in rubber rooms?

Right now, the Federal Aviation Administration requires that drones remain below 400 feet, making it difficult for most potential users (including farmers, cops etc.) to use them effectively, The problem is when the regulations are flouted for the sake of effectiveness (or by loonies with no business flying them at all) and  hundreds of  people's lives are wantonly put at risk.

This is exactly why we need high tech robot, anti-drone 'police' systems manning the skies to shoot the little bastards down or otherwise neutralize them if their owners flout rules. If we can't trust the FAA for control, and the drone operators act like drunken fools,  at least we might be able to trust anti-drone technology coming onstream!

Drones Gone Wild- Why More Air Disasters May Be On the Way If The FAA Keeps Dragging Butt

The Youtube video of a wayward drone scoping out people below on the observation deck of the Seattle Space Needle has commanded lots of attention, as it should.  In fact, this drone - shown in an ABC segment last night - was sent on its mission by some goober in a nearby hotel - who released it from his window. This stunt followed an earlier one a month or so ago when a drone flew high over the wedding of the daughter of a congress critter (who had a hand in fashioning the 2012 bill allowing millions of these things to take to our skies by next year)  In both cases the unleashed drones were in violation of laws prohibiting such drone flight until late next year.

The existence of the relevant bill was first reported on Feb. 4, 2012 in The Wall Street Journal  ('U.S. Skies Could See More Drones', p. A7)and it came as a shocker of sorts. First, because it disclosed yet another federal agency (FAA) held hostage to the corporatist-industrial complex, now attempting to find new avenues for drone production since the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending (well the first has officially ended, the second nearly may not until 2024). And second, because it discloses how secretive this corporate-benefiting information is.

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.  In the case of the FAA bill, worth some $63 billion (and nearly four years in the lobbying and rewriting), U.S. skies would be inundated with tens of thousands of unmanned drones sharing airspace with commercial planes - and recall these are already at the beck and call of overworked air traffic controllers, as gauged by nearly 300 near misses per year. Imagine if they now had to contend with thousands of these unmanned drones flying who knows where?
 

Well, we no longer have to imagine! We now know how bad it can be! Records and data are now available showing dozens of near misses of commercial aircraft with drones, near major airports - highlighted in the FAA map below:



These incidents, exposed in an investigation by the Washington Post,  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 close by.  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!

This past week saw three air disasters racked up, one in Ukraine (the shoot down of MH-17 with 298 onboard), one in Taiwan, and one over Africa. Nearly 500 lives lost in a skein of disasters that even has the most savvy frequent fliers biting nails. Steve Kornacki, on his show this morning, observed how the three plane disasters has him asking why (after taking 13 flights and surviving) he'd ever fly again. An aviation guest he had on said he needs to stop his "catastrophic thinking" and give control back to his rational brain.

But that will be hard for any rationalist knowing that because of a worthless, bought out congress commercial aircraft will be under constant threat when millions of unmanned drones with very few regulations, are released.

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.

 

The FAA was to have issued regulations controlling drone flight in commercial airspace - but so far they are dragging their bought out asses. According to a disturbing report in The Denver Post ('Flying Blind', July 6, p. 1D)

 

"...an agency official reportedly has warned that the entire rulemaking process could take up to a decade."

 

A decade! That means the rules governing unmanned drone flight won't be available until 7 or so years AFTER the drones take to the skies!   The Post article goes on:

 

"Although rule-making for small, unmanned devices could begin by the end of the year, even the Inspector General of the Transportation Department has concluded 'the FAA will not meet the September 2015 deadline for safe drone integration and it is uncertain when it will be achieved,"

 

Then the solution ought to be obvious to our illustrious congress critters: the integration of drone flight into commercial airspace needs to be postponed! No unmanned drones going up until such time the FAA has its house in order and proper regulations published and mandated.

 

According to the piece, the FAA "disputes that it is creeping along" and even put out a pamphlet, 'Busting Myths' purporting to show how on target they are and calling out "myths and misconceptions".  One myth, according to the FAA, is that it is "lagging behind other countries in approving commercial drones."

 

But to show how Neoliberal logic has infected even federal agencies, the FAA  - as the Post article notes - "never explicitly denies it is lagging behind other countries in approving rules."

 

The Post goes on: "Because it can't.  Australia, Japan and even Britain has moved on with their own regulations".   But wait, the FAA has a built in excuse:

 

"The comparison is flawed, because the U.S. has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world" and "developing rules is a very complex task".

 

Okay, fair enough. Then delay the integration of drone craft until you have the rules in place!

 

Do not be pressured by the drone makers or their congressional whores! Do what is in the interests of the citizens for once!

 

Steve Kornacki may well worry about three airline crashes in a week - but what if that turns out to be 30 incidents a month by September 2015? That could happened if the FAA allows drones to run wild in our commercial airspace before it has solid regulations in place.

 

It is time for government to act in the interest of we the people for once, and not the corporations who are only interested in making profits.