Just Received This UAS Risk Reduction FAA Bulletin

[FlyerFocus]

Just received in my email from faa.gov. I invite discussion:

UAS Risk Reduction
Notice Number: NOTC7257

At the recent meeting of the Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team (UAST), the team created three risk reduction working groups.

• UAS Loss of Control (LOC) is a very real safety concern. Due to the number of UAS sightings at extreme altitudes and close proximity to manned aircraft one can reasonably assume a loss of control to be a factor in some of these instances. FAA reports, news reports and social media provide many instances of operators losing control of their unmanned aircraft. These sightings and reports warrant the creation of a working group to address this emerging safety issue.
• Injury Reduction: Due to the number of reports online that indicate individuals are injuring themselves in a variety of ways, the UAST will investigate ways to reduce these injuries.
• Safety Culture: improving the UAS safety culture to mitigate some risk. A majority of new operators to the NAS (700,000 non-commercial, 50,000 commercial) do not come from a traditional manned background. It would be beneficial for UAST members to promote a culture where safety is a priority.

Each group will analyze currently available data to develop specific safety enhancements.

Additionally, the UAST launched two important efforts aimed at data collection and analysis. The Anonymous Reporting System will allow and encourage UAS operators to self-report hazardous situations anonymously. The data will be analyzed by UAST teams to look for opportunities to enhance the safety of UAS operations. The anonymized data will be held by a non-governmental organization and access will be strictly limited. Data is critical to the efforts of all the UAST groups. The Collaborative Analysis Demonstration Group will have a small group of industry members volunteer flight data to examine the benefits of analyzing different datasets. This in turn will help in developing a long-term data strategy for the UAST. “In a very short time, the UAST has made great strides toward executing on its mission of developing industry-led safety enhancements,” said Ben Marcus, Industry Co-Chair of the UAST. “The work we’re doing together with our partners at the FAA demonstrates the drone industry’s commitment.”

About the UAST

The Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team (UAST) is an Industry-government partnership committed to ensuring the safe operations of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national Airspace system. The UAST supports the safe integration of UAS with data-driven safety enhancements and collaboration among members of the UAS industry.

FAA Administrator Michael Huerta announced the formation of the team on August 2, 2016. Administrator Huerta committed that the FAA would work with stakeholders to charter a team to address safety issues related to the increasing number of UAS operations. The Safety Team is co-chaired by Ben Marcus, Co-founder & CEO of AirMap, and Earl Lawrence, Executive Director of the FAA’s UAS Integration Office.

For more information: [email protected]

Home

 

[Meta4]

UAS Loss of Control (LOC) is a very real safety concern. Due to the number of UAS sightings at extreme altitudes and close proximity to manned aircraft one can reasonably assume a loss of control to be a factor in some of these instances. FAA reports, news reports and social media provide many instances of operators losing control of their unmanned aircraft. These sightings and reports warrant the creation of a working group to address this emerging safety issue.

Although we see plenty of cases of people letting their drone get blown away or fly beyond signal range, I can't think of very many drones that go sky high when you lose control.
I wouldn't think that loss of control is a reasonable assumption at all in those circumstances.
There main factor to consider for UAS sightings at extreme altitudes is the assumption that what was reported was actually a drone.
Here are some examples of the kind of reports that this is based upon from the same FAA database quoted:

The Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team would do well to get some members that understand something about drones, what they can and can't do and apply a little skepticism before getting too excited about anything based on the FAA's very dubious database records

 

[Stevedots]

Just hearing the name of yet another new Government bureaucracy I remember something Ronald Reagan said with sarcasm and as a criticism of the federal government.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

 

[cr6]

Everyone with a DJI account got that letter. I got it twice since I have two different emails registered.

 

[Phill2]

Everyone with a DJI account got that letter. I got it twice since I have two different emails registered.

I didn't get one and I have an account ??

Sounds like UFOs to me

 

[Drestin Black]

Everyone with a DJI account got that letter. I got it twice since I have two different emails registered.

I didn't get one nor any of my buddies with accounts, now long ago did you get yours?

 

[cr6]

That's interesting. I got mine a few days ago.

 

[FlyerFocus]

I was kinda of hoping to spark a conversation more about the violations than who got their copy when. Oh well.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I think this is the UAST is a good and fine thing.

I have on more than one occasion lost GPS lock on a UAV in a public area with a variable wind present, I was happy to find that I could retain control of the craft in ATTI mode (though it certainly keeps you on your toes in some conditions).

After such incidences, I wonder how many of the 700k recreational / non-commercial fliers (figure quoted from the OP) have even tried to control their craft outside of the comfortable safety of P mode.

One hopes that organizations like this would help reduce these issue and increase awareness, all in addition to keeping tabs on high-flyers (whether that be from enforcement or at least managing the many bogus reports of near misses way up there).

Chris

 

[Nick Mendocino]

Manned aircraft pilots normally report altitude = height above mean sea level. UAV pilots think in terms of height = based on the launch point. How else to reconcile the Piper pilot's report of seeing a UAV 1000 feet above him while he flew at 11,000 feet altitude? No one can even see a Phantom drone 1000 feet away. What was ground level at that location? Maybe 10,000 ft.?

To the best of my knowledge there has still never been a collision between a hobby UAV and a manned aircraft, nor is there likely to be. There's a lot of hypothetical and overhyped scare stories in the media.

 

[ArmyVet]

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Just saying...............

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

infinite monkey theorem

*yawn*

Alternate response: "the time frame required for a bunch of monkeys randomly banging on a keyboard to produce the works of Shakespeare is longer than the anticipated existence of the Universe"

See this site for ze math (or use common sense, your choice):

The rational thought on that tired monkey theory

Chris

 

[ArmyVet]

*yawn*

Alternate response: "the time frame required for a bunch of monkeys randomly banging on a keyboard to produce the works of Shakespeare is longer than the anticipated existence of the Universe"

See this site for ze math (or use common sense, your choice):

The rational thought on that tired monkey theory

Chris

Your point is???

Bill

"Snipe"

See the internet for one of the definitions (or use common sense, your choice):

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Your point is???

Bill

"Snipe"

See the internet for one of the definitions (or use common sense, your choice):

Well, it's interesting that you would refer to a snipe, considering the reasonable proposal given in the original post, that you responded to with no small amount of scorn with the monkey theorem.

My point was clear: not just that I found it a boring and tired cliche (overused theme), but it was disrespectful to a sensibly proposed notion that has plenty of merit. It really is the responsible thing to do, but even if you don't agree, it's hardly worthy of your derision.

Eh?

 

[N017RW]

No one can even see a Phantom drone 1000 feet away.

Well maybe you can't.

My street is 1200 ft long and I can see mine at about 1000ft.

I routinely fly LOS to, around, and back from a cell tower ~900 ft from another frequented location.

Making such absolute statements makes your subsequent declarations dubious.

 

[Phill2]

Manned aircraft pilots normally report altitude = height above mean sea level. UAV pilots think in terms of height = based on the launch point. How else to reconcile the Piper pilot's report of seeing a UAV 1000 feet above him while he flew at 11,000 feet altitude? No one can even see a Phantom drone 1000 feet away. What was ground level at that location? Maybe 10,000 ft.?

To the best of my knowledge there has still never been a collision between a hobby UAV and a manned aircraft, nor is there likely to be. There's a lot of hypothetical and overhyped scare stories in the media.

Unfortunately there was one this week.
A small plane got a scratch on the wing.
After seeing the way planes and engines are tested I really can't see a Phantom bringing one down.

 

[N017RW]

Who cares if it can or not.

You are seemingly obviously not a pilot

Why would any pilot or aircraft owner/operator want to find out?

I find this debate ludicrous.

If there are souls aboard you are placing others at risk at worst and damaging others property at best.

How about while driving down the road I throw beverage cans, old shoes, batteries, or other trash at your car?

Won't wreck your car but it will damage it. But that's OK right?

Tell me you would not attempt to ID me and seek compensation.

Ludicrous.

 

[Meta4]

Unfortunately there was one this week.
A small plane got a scratch on the wing.

Despite misleading headlines, so far, there's no evidence that a drone was involved beyond the pilot hearing an impact and there being a small dent in the wing.
No drone seen and nothing about the dent to indicate it was a drone.
The only thing that's brought a drone into the story is that the pilot said it might be because there was no blood.
That's a very long way from anything at all conclusive.

 

[John Tarvin]

Although we see plenty of cases of people letting their drone get blown away or fly beyond signal range, I can't think of very many drones that go sky high when you lose control.
I wouldn't think that loss of control is a reasonable assumption at all in those circumstances.
There main factor to consider for UAS sightings at extreme altitudes is the assumption that what was reported was actually a drone.
Here are some examples of the kind of reports that this is based upon from the same FAA database quoted:

The Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team would do well to get some members that understand something about drones, what they can and can't do and apply a little skepticism before getting too excited about anything based on the FAA's very dubious database records

Hmmmm... The end of UFO sightings, and the beginning of UAS sightings. let's assign Scully & Mulder to this!

 

[Phill2]

Despite misleading headlines, so far, there's no evidence that a drone was involved beyond the pilot hearing an impact and there being a small dent in the wing.
No drone seen and nothing about the dent to indicate it was a drone.
The only thing that's brought a drone into the story is that the pilot said it might be because there was no blood.
That's a very long way from anything at all conclusive.

If we're talking about the same one here in Aus it was on the TV news and the pilot said it was a drone as he was landing