Originally Posted by
aa777888
Not at all. Giving the operator the benefit of the doubt, it appears that the UAV was below 400ft AGL, just barely outside the Class C, and in LOS to the operator, i.e. operating in accordance with US rules and reg's. This event could just as easily happened if the other aircraft was a Cessna 150. (It may also be worth noting that the recent UAV collision with the Israeli ag. helicopter also involved two aircraft both being operated completely within the letter of the law.)
- 107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
- (a) Each small unmanned aircraft must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the small unmanned aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
- (b) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
- § 101.41 Applicability.
- (d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any mannedaircraft
Doesn't matter if he flew under 107 or 336 (PL 112.95 / Part 101). The operator failed in this case, and was clearly NOT operating within the letter of the law.
1. In the US it is trivial for UAV operators to file a NOTAM. This might still seem onerous to some UAV operators, but given the near impossibility of seeing a UAV nevertheless seems like a reasonable compromise. skyvector.com already does a fabulous job of displaying what skyvector calls "DROTAMS", i.e. UAV related NOTAMS. If these started showing up as nicely in Foreflight, Garmin Pilot, etc., or were carried on the FIS-B data stream, that would help a lot.
It's the onus of the UAS operator to see and avoid, not burden full scale pilots with tons of circles on the map whenever Johnny Hobbyist wants to take their Mavic up for a spin.
2. Create a radio frequency or two specifically dedicated to UAV operations, and require UAV operators to have and monitor an aviation radio. Then comm's could be established by aircraft entering UAV NOTAM'd areas (US rules do not prohibit entry). Aircraft and UAV operators could self-announce in a manner similar to that used at uncontrolled airfields. Again, a cost and regulatory burden to the UAV operator, particularly hobby types, but the price for being effectively invisible. Perhaps provide also for NORDO op's below 100ft AGL only, as a SOP to the low end of the hobby.
You're probably aware that the FCC doesn't permit handheld radio use by those lacking a station license, which is either tied to a fixed location station providing services, or to an aircraft (when the radio is operated from inside the aircraft).
There are plenty of NORDO aircraft ops. Aircraft are only expected to monitor 121.5 when able, and otherwise can have radios effectively shut off when outside B/C/D airspace, if the pilot desires.
3. It is always said that "helicopters should avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic". Perhaps the same should be said for "avoiding the flow of UAV traffic", i.e. stay above 400ft. Just a reminder: US helicopter operations are not under the same 500 and 1000 foot AGL restrictions as fixed wing aircraft are in the US, although it would seem to be common sense.
Again, UAVs must avoid aircraft. That's how the right of way works. Pilots often choose to fly above 500' because of hazards down low that aren't limited to drones (birds, towers), but that's a personal choice.
This alone would have prevented the event in the video above.
Nope, it wouldn't. As a holder of all of the certs you have, you're probably aware that a 400' ceiling is not codified for Part 101 UAS flights, only Part 107.
I specifically left out ADS-B for UAVs. It would be cost and weight prohibitive for most UAV op's.
Again, we're crossing paths here. ADS-B for drones is not only a good idea, it's the future. ADS-B transmitters have been miniaturized enough that they're totally feasible to add to UAVs, for when the integration time comes. This unit weighs less than one ounce:
https://uavionix.com/downloads/ping2...-sheet-ap0.pdf
Also possibly worth noting: I have an FAA registered heliport on my property. Twice now I have received calls from UAV operators advising me that they would be operating within a 5NM radius and looking to coordinate for safety. So Part 107 is having an effect, people are starting to get the hang of things.
I'm confused here. Part 107 does NOT require operators to notify when they're operating within 5NM. That's a Part 101 regulation.