[SpacemanSpiff]

So as a pilot of a manned aircraft what does this mean for the safety of my flights? Do I need to start trying to avoid unlicensed, unlit, and unannounced drone aircraft whenever I'm below 400ft AGL?

Edit: Thanks to everyone below for your thoughtful comments. My replies are as follows: 1) Regarding model aircraft - I would argue that the low density of these operations at the moment is what has prevented an incident between a manned aircraft and model aircraft. Also the nature of radio control has necessitated that the model aircraft generally be withing sight range of the operator, and as such the operator is still able to avoid other aircraft to some extent. This may not be the case for automated drones.

2) Regarding 400 ft AGL. How do I know that the drone operator won't accidentally end up at 600ft+ AGL (for example), which happens to be at the low end of a standard traffic pattern altitude (800ft)? As far as I know there's no way to know what altitude your drone is above the ground except possibly GPS which does not always give you an accurate MSL (or AGL) altitude. Will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns? What if I want to exercise my privilege to operate below 500 ft. AGL in unpopulated areas? I can think of a lot of cases where I've been below 400ft AGL during takeoff and landing while over densely populated areas.

My perception is that automated drones with no mechanism to avoid manned aircraft at or near traffic pattern altitude at densely populated locations is a big problem.

[imbriaco]

According to FAR 91.119 you already should be above 500 feet AGL unless you're taking off, landing, or above very sparsely populated areas. I'm assuming fixed wing aircraft, so if you're a helicopter pilot the rules are slightly different.

Either way, I don't see this as a huge problem.

[1] http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf...

[m4x]

This ruling only affects commercial use of RC aircraft. By professionals. I don't think you have to worry a lot about a moderately small industry where people make a large mental and financial investment to start a business flying unmanned aircraft.

It does marginally increase the chances that you'll meet a crop/herd surveying drone when flying at low altitude above a farm, but only very marginally (the US is still a very large area). And you should not be flying low over land unless you have explicit permission in any case! It's dangerous and rude for reasons that have nothing to do with commercial drone operators.

There is a legitimate concern that kids will fly RC planes in controlled airspace or otherwise do dangerous things with them. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with commercially operated drones and commercial operators should not be limited just because you're worried about kids. Commercial operators in the public eye will give people a good role model and help with UAV education, so it's actually safest to encourage them.

[lutorm]

I think you're pushing it a bit there. If you exercise your privilege to operate below 500ft AGL, you'd better be sure the area is unpopulated. Since the unmanned aircraft are required to stay within LOS, one would argue that the area there is not unpopulated and hence you are required to maintain 500ft clearance.

As for "will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns?", it seems unlikely that someone wouldn't notice the local air traffic pattern if it includes aircraft at < 500ft AGL.

[dchichkov]

To operate below 500ft AGL the area doesn't have to be unpopulated. As long as it is not a congested area (as in city center) and the pilot is stays 500 feet (distance) from any person, vehicle or structure that pilot is within legal regulations to operate below 500ft AGL.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Nothing changes for you. Also continue to avoid flocks of birds, which by all appearances are oblivious to FAA directives.

[SpacemanSpiff]

And every year there are numerous incidents where a bird strike inflicts significant damage to a manned aircraft. Just because a risk already exists doesn't mean that it's acceptable or wise to increase this risk arbitrarily IMO.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Right, so you're comfortable with the amount of risk today, and you don't want to increase risk. Shall we then freeze and cap the number of Private Pilot certificates issued by the FAA? Wouldn't want to increase the risk (by adding more pilot traffic) merely because someone else also wants to fly an airplane.

[fancyketchup]

Wait, so you're equating the risk of allowing someone to be trained to fly an aircraft with the risk of allowing anyone to fly an aircraft without any training?

[fnordfnordfnord]

No, not at all. Where in my post does it say that?

[CamperBob2]

Unfortunately, you don't live in a society where we're required to remove all risk from your profession.

[bri3d]

To your edit number 1: the FAA notices around model aircraft already require that the aircraft stay within LoS.

Nothing changes with this decision with respect to what can fly or where it can fly. All this decision does is reinforces the common sense conclusion that a model plane is a model plane regardless of what computers it has on it or if someone is getting paid to fly it around.

I do agree that density might increase, but if operators are working within the letter of the law "model airplane" class drones still won't be operating in densely populated areas, around airports, or outside of operator LoS.

It is worth noting that the ruling re-enforces guidelines around model aircraft as simply "voluntary," but that isn't a change from the past.

[mikegreen]

This is where tactical regulations need created and applied. The ultralight world operates in loose regulations and has generally worked well with the airspace system - basically keeping them out of controlled airspace, and having them operate as other aircraft in non-controlled environments. As a pilot, you know you won't be at 400ft AGL at all except landing, or crop dusting, or buzzing open areas of uninhabited land. And, you know that there is no control of that airspace and anything could be flying in it today, sans drone movement.

RC aircraft have had 'recommended regulations' [1] since 1981 [2], and I am struggling to remember the last time I heard of an RC vs piloted plane incident (yes, sure, we pilots see them near the airport but they mind themselves under pattern altitude, and don't buzz the real runways). Those regulations are seemingly benign to the community's enjoyment.

I can see having UAV operators such as photog or surveillance operate under a similar set of guidelines as a protection to the people. I have a drone and a real airplane - I would not appreciate my calm day at the park being threatened with a drone buzzing at 15 feet, nor a real plane.

[1] "Outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators."

[2] http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/9...

[commandar]

The same advisory that puts a 400ft ceiling on model aircraft also requires the operator to contact and get approval from ATC if they're within a 3 mile radius of an airport.

[cjensen]

Remote-controlled model airplane have long existed at those altitudes. How do you cope with them?

[gnaffle]

It's all about how widespread they are. What was before a pretty limited hobby where most people would know about and be mindful of light aircraft (and sometimes share airstrips with them), might turn into a real problem when prices come down and anyone can operate them without much training, as modern drones can with gyro and GPS stabilization.

[gnaffle]

I'm pretty sure that as UAVs increase in capabilities and come down in price, there will be regulations that force them to carry alerting / avoidance systems (like FLARM or similar) and light aircraft will have to carry them, too.

Just like in many countries, restrictions on the sale of high power laser pointers are in effect and vastly limit the amount of people that have easy access to them, and therefore the risk of someone doing something stupid.

[sliverstorm]

the nature of radio control has necessitated that the model aircraft generally be withing sight range of the operator, and as such the operator is still able to avoid other aircraft to some extent

Forget about avoiding aircraft- the constraint of sight is going to mean you won't encounter many aircraft! People fly RC planes in parks, not airport landing strips!