[Scan-DC] Latest UAV Comments (not exactly scanning, but directly related to previous discussion)

[Dewey]

A very happy Memorial Day to all, and a very sincere thank you to ALL who
have made ANY contribution into the freedom of the country!
...
Latest comments on UAVs (drones, Phantoms, quad copters, etc.) posted by
AVWeb:

UAV Technology Won't Wait for FAA

A UAV (or any remotely controlled air vehicle) flown under 400 feet still
has the potential to easily take down a manned aircraft, particularly if
flown near final approaches to airport runways.  I'd imagine that the
400-foot altitude limitation would also make low-flying manned aircraft
vulnerable, near an airport or not.

There seems to be an exploding proliferation of small UAVs that have the
potential to exceed 400-feet altitudes.  They are flown by novice pilots
right out of the box, by hobbyists who should probably know better, and, in
this day and age, by people who have no problem with intentionally creating
hazards to life and property.  Without a transponder aboard the UAV, or a
means of the UAV pilot determining his altitude, how can the 400-foot
limitation be accurately observed?  And how would you be able to see and
avoid a UAV if you were aboard a manned aircraft?

I think that all UAV operators possessing air vehicles capable of climbing
to an altitude where a mid-air collision with a manned aircraft would be
possible be licensed and their UAVs required to be equipped with suitable
exterior lighting, transponders, GPS, and other equipment that would make
operation as safe as possible given a mixed operating environment.  This
needs to be done immediately, not after a long debate, analysis, and wait
for legislative approval.  The technology is not waiting for regulations to
be established.

John Benton

The FAA is right to be cautious about authorizing the use of drones.  The
risks involved are not all known, but they are a clear and present danger.
However, the FAA is taking way too much time to come up with a plan to deal
with this.  These things are being sold right now, and regulation is needed
now, not in 2020.

By the time 2020 comes, they may find that the cat is out of the bag, and
millions of these aircraft are flying unregulated.  The buyers of these
cheap but potentially dangerous toys are not going to be stopped by FAA's
blanket ban on commercial use.  They are already using them that way, and a
judge has already said it is O.K. to do so.

The question now is not whether they will buy and fly these things.  The
question is, "How long will they do it with no regulation?"  The FAA needs
to expedite this, or they will totally lose control of the situation, much
like the FCC did with CB radios.

Marc Rodstein

This issue should be cut and dry.  UAVs operating via remote control (tablet
or transmitter) for personal use should fall under the existing rules of the
AMA, who currently govern the entire private sector for remote-control
models.

If the UAV is operating commercially, either remotely controlled or
autonomously via a preprogrammed GPS route, then it is a piloted aircraft
and should fly under the rules that govern all other pilots, defined by the
FAA.  There are already regulations in place to govern and control these
activities.  Just like the government to reinvent the wheel at a time of
reduced budgets.

John Gray