FAA says Geese are Safe within 1 Mile of my local Airport?

[tcope]

With 1000's of objects in Controlled Airspace that have brought down commercial aircraft compared to the small number of drones in the air. Do you really think all the regulations are justified for a 2.2 lb Phantom Drone? I don't.
I live 3 miles from a small airport. I've lived here for 20 years. I've never seen a plane or helicopter fly under 400 feet over my house. I could fly a 20lb kite at 500 feet and and not call the airport for permission. If you can help me to see your point of view I would welcome it.

In that you used 500' tells me you know of Title 14, I, F Part 101. However, you may want to go back and re-read it:

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

§101.13 Operating limitations.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a moored balloon or kite—

(1) Less than 500 feet from the base of any cloud;

(2) More than 500 feet above the surface of the earth;

(3) From an area where the ground visibility is less than three miles; or

(4) Within five miles of the boundary of any airport.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to the operation of a balloon or kite below the top of any structure and within 250 feet of it, if that shielded operation does not obscure any lighting on the structure.

Here is a better post from the FAA on this:

"14 CFR Part 101 states that...within 5 miles of the boundary of any airport "...No person may operate an unshielded moored balloon or kite more than 150 feet above the surface of the earth unless, at least 24 hours before beginning the operation, he gives the following information to the FAA ATC facility that is nearest to the place of intended operation: (a) the names and addresses of the owners and operators, (b) the size of the balloon or the size and weight of the kite, (c) the location of the operation, (d) the height above the surface of the earth at which the balloon or kite is to be operated, and (e) the date, time and duration of the operation." There are also additional lighting and marking requirements, if the balloon or kite would be operated above 150 feet above the surface of the earth.
Part 101 also states "(a) no person may operate any moored balloon, kite, unmanned rocket, or unmanned free balloon in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or their property, and (b) no person operating any moored balloon, kite, unmanned rocket, or unmanned free balloon may allow an object to be dropped there from, if such action creates a hazard to other persons or their property."

This kite weights in right around 20lbs:

Due to it's physical size (but also it's weight), more strict regulations apply. Regardless, the 5 mile rule still applies to all kites (under or over 5lbs). Also, it's going to be much more visible than most model aircraft.

Because planes don't fly under 400' above your house does not mean that they don't fly below 400' and don't fly below 400' in other areas (many posts here about that very same thing). Also, there is no regulation limiting Phantom flights to under 400' for hobby use.

With that said, I don't disagree with the your view on this subject. I do think the FAA regs on UAV use are extremely limiting, confusing and that the FAA has done an extremely poor job over the past 3 years in giving out good and correct information.

 

[johngussman]

birds are smarter than a lot of humans.

 

[jwmcgrath]

I appreciate the logical dialogue. And I have some further thinking to do. I think sar104 used a key term, "conservative" meaning it's better safe than sorry. But my problem is I'd rather it be conservative the other way. Rather that bow to some hysterical notions that life and limb are at immediate peril because of this new technology, time is taken to evaluate what the true risk assessment might be by using the data we currently have, and looking to create new tests and real world examples. Has a Remote Controlled plane ever hit and damaged an aircraft prior to the dawn of drones?? Once legislation is in place restricting any aspect of our lives it rarely get rescinded or curtailed. What if? seems to control us. "What if" can be tailored to excuse most any restrictive legislation. "What if" without any any real example, without a shred of data.

I also think our bureaucrats and legislators should ask themselves how the rules they propose work within the framework of a free society. I'm not opposed to logical rules, someone once said that laws should fit a man like a loose set of clothes. Meaning a society's rules should be something that's comfortable to live in.

Also excellent points Rod.

I do feel that with regard to commercial aircraft safety, it's better to be cautious, but follow that up with a commitment to STUDY, rather than wait for and learn from a crash.

But the fact is I could have easily presented the message that our Transport Minister provided myself, in a much more cooperative fashion that would have left everyone feeling that he truly had the best interests of everyone at heart...

Simple terminology like "these interim measures will precede study, to which I commit these $ and this time frame and will provide the results before enacting legislation"...

And "this exciting and emerging technology is a great time for learning and growth but we need to ensure that safety is protected while we evaluate all implications"...

NOT by saying "the nightmare scenario of a collision with a plane keeps me up at night" and follows that up with a restriction from roads, buildings, animals, birds, and etc's.

Maybe he just needs a better press liaison, or speech writer.

Yes, by all means let's protect air traffic. But not without thought and consistency and statistics and at least as much study as they put into pothole strategies. Lord knows they love their studies. Do one.

And when this extended to birds and animals, I very much concur with your feeling that "bureaucrats and legislators should ask themselves how the rules they propose work within the framework of a free society." 100%.

 

[Mallettron]

Now imagine firing just a phantom battery alone, never mind the entire aircraft, at the same velocity at the same object.

I always think is an unfair test, the velocity of firing would probably disintegrate the battery on its way, the test should be an object hitting the drone at 200mph

 

[sar104]

I always think is an unfair test, the velocity of firing would probably disintegrate the battery on its way, the test should be an object hitting the drone at 200mph

Frame of reference makes no difference - it's only the relative speed of the collision that is important to the outcome.

 

[Mallettron]

Yes but at 200mph the drone would probably break apart coming out the gun, if its braced that would nullify the test

 

[sar104]

Yes but at 200mph the drone would probably break apart coming out the gun, if its braced that would nullify the test

That's taken care of in the launch design for this kind of test.

 

[jwmcgrath]

Yes but at 200mph the drone would probably break apart coming out the gun, if its braced that would nullify the test

That's why I said "imagine"! [emoji6]

What I'm trying to emphasize is the impact of such an object on such a target at that speed. It's the launching that is hard to create for testing purposes but the physics of the impact should be about the same.

 

[BigAl07]

Yes but at 200mph the drone would probably break apart coming out the gun, if its braced that would nullify the test

If it was that critical a stationary UAS could be suspended from a tiny cable and the aircraft assembly could be shuttled on a TROLLEY system to impact the stationary (relatively so) UAS.

 

[sar104]

If it was that critical a stationary UAS could be suspended from a tiny cable and the aircraft assembly could be shuttled on a TROLLEY system to impact the stationary (relatively so) UAS.

They could, but it is not necessary. It's always easier to launch the impacting object than to launch the engine or windshield assembly.

 

[jwmcgrath]

We could always ask Fabio if we can launch HIM.

 

[MacPhantom]

I am just waiting for the requirement of drones to have an ads-b transponder.....

 

[BigAl07]

I am just waiting for the requirement of drones to have an ads-b transponder.....

Micro ADS-B are being tested and tweaked across the globe right now. The new DJI M210RTK has built in ADS-B but it adds to the price tag significantly. Once the technology is small (aka light) enough and inexpensive it will be required I feel confident.

 

[jwmcgrath]

 

[Matchlock]

I believe that all this talk about a drones maximum altitude is absolutely irrelevant.

If an aircraft cannot fly any lower than 500 feet except while taking off or landing, and a drone cannot (by law) fly any higher than 400 feet, then how in the world can the two aircraft ever come into contact with each other? I don't think that those that are making drone laws, have thought about this at all. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the two aircraft to meet in any airspace so why is the distance we must stay away from an airport so great?

I think that two miles from an airport would be just as safe as ten miles given the altitude limitations of an airplane and a drone. THE TWO TYPES OF AIRCRAFT CANNOT POSSIBLY COME IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER.

Bud

I think what others are trying to say is that the presence of uncontrolled, and basically uncontrollable, risks, such as birds, is not a justification for not attempting to control other, controllable risks.

Assessment of probability, as well as consequence, is obviously relevant, but currently there are few data on the effects of drone collisions with aircraft, and so a conservative approach is being taken. That said, my professional opinion would be that a relatively rigid object, such as a drone, would present a significantly greater risk of damage to turbines and penetration of windshields than would a goose or other bird, even though those may well be heavier. Quite different dynamic material response. Considerable design effort has gone into bird-proofing aircraft; none into drone-proofing them.

 

[sar104]

I believe that all this talk about a drones maximum altitude is absolutely irrelevant.

If an aircraft cannot fly any lower than 500 feet except while taking off or landing, and a drone cannot (by law) fly any higher than 400 feet, then how in the world can the two aircraft ever come into contact with each other? I don't think that those that are making drone laws, have thought about this at all. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the two aircraft to meet in any airspace so why is the distance we must stay away from an airport so great?

I think that two miles from an airport would be just as safe as ten miles given the altitude limitations of an airplane and a drone. THE TWO TYPES OF AIRCRAFT CANNOT POSSIBLY COME IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER.

Bud

It sounds like you have relatively little experience of aircraft or flight operations. There is no blanket prohibition on aircraft flying below 500 ft AGL and they regularly do in many areas, especially helicopters, and especially LE.

US aviation law, in 14 CFR 91.119 lays this out quite clearly:

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.​

 

[bsartist]

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

And once again I state that my little Phantom is a tiny problem in comparison.

"State"? You really mean "guess", right? Because you don't know.

I mean, unless you have the resources to conduct actual tests, using geese (frozen or not), Phantom aircraft, and other objects into an actual jet engine turbines.

I wonder who does have the resources. Hmmm...

 

[Matchlock]

Hi sar104, you're absolutely right. I have no experience with full sized aircraft at all, but could have sworn I read somewhere that 500 feet was the minimum altitude for a fixed wing aircraft unless landing or taking off, and that's why I posted that. Thank you very much and I stand corrected.

Bud

It sounds like you have relatively little experience of aircraft or flight operations. There is no blanket prohibition on aircraft flying below 500 ft AGL and they regularly do in many areas, especially helicopters, and especially LE.

US aviation law, in 14 CFR 91.119 lays this out quite clearly:

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.​

 

[Spokane Bob]

Interesting thread. It immediately reminded me of the Sept 22, 1995, downing of an E-3 AWACS at Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage), AK. I lived in Anchorage at that time and was on my way to work that morning when I saw a huge plume of black smoke coming from the AFB. Only when I got to work a few minutes later did I learn that an AWACS went down and later found that it was due to a bird strike. In the early 80's, I served as a 'weapons director' on the AWACS, so it really hit me hard learning that the AWACS had gone down. Since I'd flown on the AWACS, I chose to attend the memorial service for the crash victims - truly 'not a dry eye in the place' occasion - it was a tough one. I often think of those folks and also my time on the AWACS whenever I fly my little Phantom 4. Further info: 1995 Alaska Boeing E-3 Sentry accident - Wikipedia and Yukla27.Org Keep flying, but always do it safely!!