LaMar’s Donuts, appropriately from the Mile High City and just days before National Donut Day, delivered donuts to the city’s mayor. Check out a video about the delivery here:
Drone Dispatch performed the delivery on behalf of LaMar’s, and in the video they state that it was all done legally. Based on their website, I’m assuming they are operating under Part 107, but I’ve reached out to them to find out more. Since Denver’s airport is well outside of the city, I believe they are operating in Class G airspace, but it is clearly a congested area and over people so a waiver under §§ 107.200 and 107.205 of the §107.39 (Operation Over People) provision would have been required. Note, however, that they likely also needed prior authorization from ATC because they are within the “lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport” under §107.41. I’m assuming that given the short distance of the flight (less than a mile as the crow flies, if from LaMar’s on 6th to City Hall), that they had eyes on the UAS the entire time IAW §107.
Also, remember that §107.23(b) allows objects to be dropped as long as it does not create an “undue hazard to persons or property.” However, from the video it appears that a Drone Dispatch employee actually took the bag from the drone, so it wasn’t actually “dropped.” (As a side note, I’m curious why the FAA didn’t use the same language as in § 91.15 “No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.” It seems to have the same legal effect…any insight out there, please send me an email).
A new UAS runway opened in Virginia – with the Governor attending and controlling a UAS! Governor McAuliffe: “I have witnessed first-hand the impact that the UAS industry will have on the future of transportation and our lives will change as we know it. You will be able to do just what I did today – hop in a plane, press a button and the machine takes you where you want to go!” Governor McAuliffe – we’ll be taking about your experience in my Drone Law class today at George Mason Law!
The Trump administration is reportedly advocating to include language in the 2018 NDAA relating to drones. The provision would allow law enforcement to “track, hack and destroy any type of drone over domestic soil with a new exception to laws governing surveillance, computer privacy and aircraft protection.” Allegedly, government agencies would have to protect “privacy, civil rights and civil liberties” in doing so. But we don’t necessarily know what privacy and civil rights exist in regard to UAS usage.
A waterproof drone. For those terrified of crashing into water and the inevitable consequences…
And a drone crashing into a baseball game. Remember, no UAS around major league sporting events! Both because of Part 107 requirements (limiting flight over people) and general aviation airspace restrictions!
More to follow but in short the court ruled that the FAA violations section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization Act by promulgating a rule on model aircraft. They didn’t buy the FAA’s argument that is was ending “regulatory discretion” not to require full blown registration.
Some more XPONENTIAL 2017 announcements that I’ve been tracking from a distance. Both are followups on products I’ve written about previously – Aerovironment multiple times and the Wave glider from XPONENTIAL 2016 in the Big Easy.
Why the ski banner? While, XPONENTIAL 2018 will be in Denver, Colorado. I’m a big fan of skiing, and April 30 is still the tail end of ski season…(Disclaimer: I’m not advocating the use of UAS over ski areas. Please respect property rights and make sure you are flying safely and IAW FAA regulations).
AeroVironment announced Snipe, which is says “is designed specifically to provide dismounted troops with immediate organic tactical overwatch – over the wall, down the alley, around the hill. Weighing less than 5 ounces, this foldable air vehicle requires no assembly and can be out of the case and operational in less than 60 seconds.” Access the Data Sheet here. While announced at XPONENTIAL, this nano UAS won’t be available until the fall.
Wave Glider, made by Liquid Robotics (which has since last year become a Boeing subsidiary), has expanded capabilities, based on their interview with Jane’s This is an unmanned maritime vehicle, but given my background and the technology, I couldn’t help writing about it!
For the first time since I founded Duke of Drones, I won’t be at AUVSI’s Xponential due to other commitments. However I’m tracking the updates and looking forward to the news to come out of the conference.
Improved propulsion technology for reduced noise signature and extended flight time (50 minutes) / 10 km);
Military-grade encrypted and secure data link;
Secure, mesh capable video dissemination across multi-node networks and
Extended range radio for long distance operation at low-flight altitudes.
It uses the TW-600 Ocelot™by TrellisWare for Tactical Scalable Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET) or TSM to provide reliable communications in harsh environments, but which clearly has ITAR implications.
The Indago has evolved from a firefighting UAS to a mobile, military grade tool in only a few years!
What else do we expect out of AUVSI? I’ve heard rumors that the FAA might announce something regarding BVLOS, and that’s what I’d place my bets on.
Why do I say that? While, check out the FAA Safety Briefing (May/June 2017). It’s all about UAS, which is likely not-so-coincidentally timed with Xponential. Check out the topics and you can see what is front and center for the FAA – Integration! There are also articles on registration, part 107, and how to find a “DroneZone,” all of which have integration lying close beneath the surface.
This is great news, in my opinion. We obviously want UAS integrated into the NAS – that’s the only way they’ll ever be able to operate effectively in populated areas, near airports, and around low-flying helicopters. As people adapt to 107 and it proves its worth, I think the next piece is BVLOS – one person per aircraft. Then swarms are the next step. Swarms within VLOS aren’t really that big, so let’s get BVLOS down and we’re making some real progress!
There has been good news coming out of state legislatures.
I’ve been tracking the progress of a bill in my old state of Connecticut, which would have allowed law enforcement to use weaponized UAS. Yesterday it died in committee. I am all for law enforcement being provided the tools to do their job, but UAS are powerful and we as a society are still learning how to effectively incorporate them into ouThere has been good news coming out of state legislatures.
Toms River, New Jersey tabled a proposed ordinance which would have required UAS operators to register and pay a $70 annual fee. It would have prohibited UAS operations below 400 feet in the following locations and over beaches when lifeguards are on duty, dunes, residentially or commercially zoned areas, any roads, or over government or public buildings, property, or parks. Law enforcement agencies and legitimate scientific researchers would have been exempted and use at events would have been authorized with permission of the organizer and notice to attendees. My concerns are two-fold. First, we need to avoid a hodge-podge of broad local and state ordinances. I’m not opposed to local ordinances relating to specifically local concerns (i.e.: beaches during lifeguarded hours and protected dunes), but the FAA needs to be allowed to develop a coherent national system. Secondly, the ordinance, as proposed, is overbroad.
The FAA and the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE) issued a joint report on the severity of UAS impact on humans, specifically in comparison to an impact with wood or steel. They conclude: “Results strongly suggest RCC-based thresholds are overly conservative in terms of injury potential because they do not accurately represent the collision dynamics of elastically-deformable sUAS with larger contact areas in comparison to the inelastic, metallic debris that occurs following the in-flight break up of high-speed missiles found on the national test ranges.” In short, UAS impacts do not transfer as much energy to humans due to their elastic nature (editorial note: I still wouldn’t want one to fall on me).
I saw another article regarding the pizza drone incident. This author didn’t appear as amused by the article or it having been picked up by mainstream media. I don’t agree with his premise, though. A journalist should fact-check an article to ensure it is accurate, whether it be a satire or allegedly real article. On the surface, it should have raised some red flags (for example, the speed at which the case moved through court was shocking as well as the fact that the docket number did not appear on the Merrimack Superior Court’s publically accessible website).
I write today from an undisclosed Caribbean island, but am headed back to Virginia shortly. I start on a light note with a short video and story from Australia, where a UAV operator spotted a shark near some surfers and warned them of the danger. The water is crystal clear, as you can see!
My last post discussed the issue with a commercial filmed near the state capitol in Hartford, CT. As I’ve stressed repeatedly – and focussed on at length in a law school class I taught on UAS – understanding airspace rules is one of the most important aspects of flying a UAS. To that end, the FAA is developing tools for UAS operators such as the UAS Data Deliver System and a website to request an Airspace Waiver/Authorization under 14 CFR 107. Jim Moore of the AOPA discusses this in more detail in an article entitled FAA Begins Drone Map Release.
A friend and colleague, Jon Rupprecht, wrote a great article about how airspace and other issues will affect pizza delivery and Amazon Prime. It’s a great article and I encourage you to read it. He discusses the various airspace impediments to simple neighborhood delivery. In the end, it will be up to the FAA to develop a system that allows for delivery in restricted airspace, in populated neighborhoods, and most importantly with the use of “swarms” (i.e.: multiple UAS launched and controlled by a single operator). He shows a map of Phoenix and illustrates how Amazon Prime will have trouble delivering in the areas around its distribution centers in Phoenix based on current airspace rules.
I’ll end on a light note with a story from Randy Spencer’s Open Mike. NOTE: THIS IS SATIRE AND NOT A REAL CASE! Entitled The Flying Trapizza: Court Addresses, For The First Time, CGL Coverage For A Drone, it chronicles an insurance carrier that denied coverage for a pizza place in New Hampshire when a pizza released early during a drone delivery and landed on someone’s Tesla and then hit his face. The insurance company denied coverage under its aircraft exclusion and the case went to “trial.”
I spent hours looking for information about this case after seeing what appeared to be a legit article about it in Forbes (it has since been removed after the author presumably realized it was not a real case, this is the cached version from Google). I couldn’t find anything, and finally emailed the author of Coverage Opinions, who told me my legal research class wasn’t in vain. I give him credit for a vivid imagination and for writing a fictional case that conveys some serious issues relating to UAS. While satire, it does highlight what I’ve said about ensuring you have appropriate insurance coverage. Great article and good takeaways, even if satire!