Inside Unmanned Systems

FEB-MAR 2018

Inside Unmanned Systems provides actionable business intelligence to decision-makers and influencers operating within the global UAS community. Features include analysis of key technologies, policy/regulatory developments and new product design.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 43 of 67

44   February/March 2018 unmanned systems inside WASHINGTON VIEW by DEE ANN DIVIS all the police organizations that expressed an opinion and a host of powerful technology com- panies including Intel. The schism, however, is wider than the report suggests. Eight of the 74 members did not con- cur with the report and 20 concurred with some exceptions. Of the 28, fully 16 ARC members said that weight should be the standard with most of them worried that leaving out modelers created a serious problem. (12 members did not record an opinion). Calling the ARC report "a significant first step," Budreau said there was a misperception that AMA is fighting against remote ID and tracking and that the issue may merit another look in the future. "We just don't think it makes sense to boil the ocean right away. Let's go after what makes sense first and then let's work out that and then let's build upon that first." Ellman said lawmakers need to revisit the is- sue first. "There needs to be a legislative change," she said, "because Section 336 of the Federal Modernization Reform Act of 2012 carved out model aircraft from requirements. Basically it said that FAA could not further regulate model aircraft." The next step is for the FAA to take the rec- ommendations and craft a new rule that will then go through interagency review where fed- eral agencies like the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security formally weigh in. There is real urgency in FA A to get the ID and tracking regulations in place, Budreau said, who expects some sort of hint from the FAA on what they plan to do as early as March. "Rulemaking can be a long process and that's by design," Budreau said. But there's great urgency, he said, to get remote ID and tracking done so the FA A can start working toward new approaches toward integrating model aircraft and UAS in the airspace. "I don't want to speculate when, but I don't think (remote ID and tracking) will take as long as traditional rulemaking." "If your model can only f ly within a few hundred feet, or within line of sight and you have to directly control it; law enforcement and most of the ARC felt that it didn't require remote ID," said Chad Budreau, AMA's direc- tor of government affairs and public relations. Budreau noted his daughters' once had a f lying Tinkerbelle doll. "I would argue that does not need re- mote ID and tracking, but under that (Alliance) definition it would require it because it's technically a UAS." The ID-for-all approach did not suf f iciently balance the need of owners and operators with those of law enforcement or provide for rea- sonable exemptions for drones "that pose little, if any, safety or security concerns and for which an ID re- quirement's costs and burdens may outweigh its benefits," DJI wrote in its comments. There was no racing drone or 'selfie drone' exemption, for example, and none for drones that cannot carry even a light payload. Budreau agreed a drone with lim- ited capabilities could look just like a more advanced unit that does need to install ID and tracking. "Even if you have two side by side," he said, "and one's capable and one's not; we would say the capable one requires re- mote ID and the tracking, As well the law en- forcement task group within the ARC would say that creates a higher hazard and a higher risk in the national airspace." The Vote The data at the back of the report indicates 34 of the 74 ARC members concurred with the report as written—that is with the two-option approach supported by AMA and DJI. That list included airports, the National Association of State Aviation Officials, key standards bodies and users like BNSF Railroad as well as nearly Chad Budreau, AMA's director of government affairs and public relations "IF YOUR MODEL CAN ONLY FLY WITHIN A FEW HUNDRED FEET, OR WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT AND YOU HAVE TO DIRECTLY CONTROL IT; LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MOST OF THE ARC FELT THAT IT DIDN'T REQUIRE REMOTE ID." Photo courtesy of Chad Budreau.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Inside Unmanned Systems - FEB-MAR 2018