FAA Rules Won't Be Ready Until 2017

[ianwood]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/7370 ... least-2017

Let's just call it what it is, a complete and utter failure.

 

[msinger]

But, in the meantime, they are going to spend an untold amount of hours reviewing exemption requests from people who want to use drones for commercial purposes? Unbelievable.

 

[750r]

Yep sounds about right :lol: :lol:
Piss are money away chasing their own tail .
I have to stop reading this stuff :evil:

 

[sdtrojan]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/7370955/the-faas-drone-regulations-wont-be-ready-until-at-least-2017

Let's just call it what it is, a complete and utter failure.

Actually, it's status quo, which in my opinion is not necessarily a bad thing. I ate a burger at "the habit" and they give you one of those buzzer deals for when your order is ready that has the quote "would you rather wait a short while for a great burger, or have a burger wait a short while for you"

I think this applies to the drone legislation dilemma that exists. If not for Pirker, would it really be an issue? Admittedly, I am a newbie to drones, however I think that due diligence will only be a good thing for everyone. Again, just my opinion.

 

[msinger]

If not for Pirker, would it really be an issue?

Yes. It has been a huge issue ever since the first person wanted to legally use their drone for commercial use.

 

[SteveMann]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/7370955/the-faas-drone-regulations-wont-be-ready-until-at-least-2017

Let's just call it what it is, a complete and utter failure.

The Verge is conflagellating what was said in the hearing. Their quote is not precisely what Peggy Gilligan said:

Gilligan went on to add that the FAA has "a balanced proposal that is currently under executive review." The problem is that these proposals generate public comments, which the agency needs to consider before it can issue final rules.

This is what was really said:

Massie:
"Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gilligan, you mentioned that a rule would be coming out shortly, and Mr. Hampton you've documented the ways that we're kind of behind schedule. I understand that things rarely go according to schedule, whether you're in the private sector or the public sector. But when you say that rules will be coming out shortly, to quote a colleague,'is that in a geoligical timescale or in Internet speed?'"

Gilligan:
"The proposal is under executive review at this point sir, so I really can't tell you exactly what the timeframe is. But as I said, I think that all of us who are involved in the project understand how important it is to get this out as quickly as we can now."

Massie:
"I would be remiss in my oversight responsibility here if I don't get a date or some kind of committment at this hearing so that when we're at the next hearing we can measure progress toward that. What are some of your goals in the next year?"

Gilligan:
"Well, for the rule making, the department of transportation has a public website which shows the rules scheduled for release by the end of this year. Once the rule is released we'll go out for public comment, that period will last anywhere between 60 and 90 days and depending on what the community asks for, there is some concern we will get a substantial number of comments, which will delay how quickly we can get to the final rule. But we'll certainly keep your committee informed of how we are progressing once we are able to publish the rules.

 

[sdtrojan]

That is a vastly different statement, Steve. I agree that the license taken with the edit was "sensational."

 

[derrickduff]

It wasn't taken from Gilligan, it was taken from Gerald Dillingham the director of civil aviation for the Government Accountability Office. His direct quote is:

the consensus of opinion is the integration of unmanned systems will likely slip from the mandated deadline until 2017 or even later.

Gilligan on the otherhand was quoted as saying:

We all agree that the project is taking too long

I fail to see how any of this is "sensationalized." It's actually a bit of honest reporting based mostly if not all on the testimony from those present at the hearing.

 

[sdtrojan]

Perhaps sensational is the wrong word. I believe contextually the quote is a little misleading.

 

[SteveMann]

Perhaps sensational is the wrong word. I believe contextually the quote is a little misleading.

As I said, the Verge is conflagellating what was said in the hearing.

 

[Buk]

"conflagellating" Is this an aviation term? I'm trying to find the definition. A bit early in the morning for me to figure out that many syllables.

 

[msinger]

I think he meant "conflagulating". Which means to join together in a destructive manner.

 

[Larry L]

Just read this on MSN
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog ... ar-BBgIo1k

 

[knuckles]

I did hear in that hearing that safe integration of UAV into the airspace will not happen until 2017 or later. I don't remember who said it in the hearing though

 

[Meta4]

2017 !!!
What's the rush?

 

[PsychopathRC]

Sooo.. What about the meantime? We just follow the current rules and avoid Youtube?

 

[ianwood]

Sooo.. What about the meantime? We just follow the current rules and avoid Youtube?

Ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers. Which is a problem unto itself.

 

[yali]

This is really a good news for us. So we do not have to compete with commercial users for sky until 2017!

 

[ianwood]

No. It's bad news. For everyone. On multiple levels. There should be no need to "compete for the sky".