FAA permits first commercial drone over land

[Himanshu Arora]

In an effort to ease restrictions on commercial drone use in the US, the Federal Aviation Administration for the first time has granted permission for a commercial drone to fly over land.

The government agency has permitted oil company BP and drone manufacturer AeroVironment to fly unmanned aircrafts over Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, which is home to North America's largest oil field. The drone-maker said it was awarded a five-year contract with BP.

The Puma AE, a hand-launched drone that is about 4½ feet long with a wingspan of 9 feet, will be used to survey pipelines, roads, and equipment for BP. AeroVironment flew the drone on its first commercial flight Sunday.

"These surveys on Alaska's North Slope are another important step toward broader commercial use of unmanned aircraft", Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said. "The technology is quickly changing, and the opportunities are growing".

With a battery life of 3.5 hours, the small aircraft typically flies less than 45 mph between 200 and 400 feet off the ground. It can capture images and data that can then be processed into 3D computerized models.

Until now the FAA has approved drones for public safety, such as for policing, or for academic research, on a case-by-case basis.

Earlier, the government agency had permitted the Puma and Insitu's Scan Eagle, another small drone, to fly over Arctic waters, but yesterday's announcement came after AeroVironment showed that the Puma could perform such flights safely.

The news comes nearly a week after the FAA said it's considering giving permission to seven movie and television filming companies to use drones for aerial photography.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/57074-faa-permits-first-commercial-drone-over-land.html

 

[wastedkill]

The FAA can do whatever they wont, still wont stop me from using my drone its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I cant so I just ignore it all and fly my drone.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I wonder if they'll give me permission to fly a drone over Area 51, Andrews Airforce Base and through Fort Knox and the Oval Orifice equipped with an IR camera all that other good stuff...

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

, still wont stop me from using my drone its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I cant so I just ignore it all and fly my drone.

"The FAA can do whatever they wont"
Elucidate... I don't quite understand that.

 

[p51d007]

I just wish people would stop calling them "drones" which keeps in the minds of the average low IQ person, planes flying overhead with bombs, missiles etc, ready to blow you up.
Call them what they are, either UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) or RC's (remote controlled aircraft).

 

[davislane1]

, still wont stop me from using my drone its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I cant so I just ignore it all and fly my drone.

"The FAA can do whatever they wont"
Elucidate... I don't quite understand that.

I think this is a run-on followed by an awkward contraction. Though, I am at a loss for what competition the FAA was participating in:

"The FAA can do whatever; they won it."

 

[davislane1]

I just wish people would stop calling them "drones" which keeps in the minds of the average low IQ person, planes flying overhead with bombs, missiles etc, ready to blow you up.
Call them what they are, either UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) or RC's (remote controlled aircraft).

You know how the average low-IQ person perceives such things? Please, enlighten us, Sir Right of the Curve.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

You know how the average low-IQ person perceives such things? Please, enlighten us, Sir Right of the Curve.

He's right you know. Drones is a very overused and used out of context word (huh) but we get the gist of the story. The proper word for that unmanned flying thingy in the article is a RC aircraft... or a UAV if you like... Oh too hell with it, just call it a drone then there's no confusion.

 

[davislane1]

@Skidmarksdeluxe I agree with the assertion that the term 'drone' is, with regularity, inaccurately used. The idea that someone has a low IQ because they may contribute to this phenomenon, however, is quite the bone-headed statement.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Since I'm thought of as having a low IQ, I think I will refer to them as butterflies! lol

 

[captaincranky]

Oh hell, that's not a drone. A drone has at least a 30 foot wingspan and carries "Hellfire" missiles.

That's a run of the mill radio control model airplane. Other than ground distance covered, it flies at the general speed and altitude of a mid-trainer.

We used to hand launch "spear chuck" our RC planes like that in the old days. Especially when nobody mowed the grass at the field....

 

[SNGX1275]

, still wont stop me from using my drone its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I cant so I just ignore it all and fly my drone.

"The FAA can do whatever they wont"
Elucidate... I don't quite understand that.

I think this is a run-on followed by an awkward contraction. Though, I am at a loss for what competition the FAA was participating in:

"The FAA can do whatever; they won it."

I disagree with your interpretation. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Original: The FAA can do whatever they wont, still wont stop me from using my drone its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I cant so I just ignore it all and fly my drone.

My interpretation: The FAA can do whatever they want, still won't stop me from using my drone. Its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I can't so I'll just ignore it all and fly my drone.

Really, all he did was type an 'o' instead of an 'a' and leave out some punctuation. Hardly worthy of the confusion and discussion that has ensued (this post included).

 

[davislane1]

I disagree with your interpretation. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[. . .]

Really, all he did was type an 'o' instead of an 'a' and leave out some punctuation. Hardly worthy of the confusion and discussion that has ensued (this post included).

I respectfully disagree. Had the post in question been satisfactorily composed and executed, there would have been no obvious opportunity to run off on a meaningless tangent. In all likelihood, this would have reduced the entertainment value of the discussion thread and severely set back scientific advances towards a cure for female aging. (I also have it on good authority that, if typed in all caps, the substitution of an 'a' for an 'o' in the referenced comment would have drastically increased the rate of global warming, causing the planet to spontaneously burst into flames. So, there's that.)

While I appreciate your compelling response to the matter, one cannot hope to point out the flaws in deliberate bull5h1t with anything resembling reasoned logic. This is, of course, assuming your response isn't a very clever counter-troll. In such an event, I commend you for an excellent bait. (y)

 

[cliffordcooley]

The only thing I understand is those butterflies can now fly over land.

 

[davislane1]

The only thing I understand is those butterflies can now fly over land.

That's fine. Just remember that, if you fly one over certain properties, nature will run its course:

 

[captaincranky]

Here, have fun with this:

Class G
Class G airspace includes all airspace below flight level 600 not otherwise classified as controlled. (AIM 3-3-1) There are no entry or clearance requirements for Class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G airspace is typically the airspace very near the ground (1200 feet or less), beneath Class E airspace.

Radio communication is not required in Class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G is completely uncontrolled.

VFR visibility requirements in Class G airspace are 1 mile (1.6 km) by day, and 3 miles (5 km) by night, for altitudes below 10,000 feet (3,050 m) MSL but above 1200 ft AGL. Beginning at 10,000 feet MSL, 5 miles (8 km) of visibility are required, day and night. Cloud clearance requirements are to maintain an altitude that is 500 feet below, 1000 feet above, 2000 horizontal; at or above 10,000 feet MSL, they are 1,000 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 1 mile laterally. By day at 1,200 feet (370 m) AGL and below, aircraft must remain clear of clouds, and there is no minimum lateral distance.

And, as I said before, the craft in this article is a fairly typical radio controlled airplane.

It's only distinction is going to be its distance of overland travel. Keep in mind if it doesn't encounter any population centers, or terminal control areas, IMO, they didn't even need to, or barely needed to, ask for the FAA's permission. (I am admittedly wrong about this. But, I believe that distance attempts have been flown with model aircraft, and I'm not sure how much intervention occurred from the FAA).

For example:
Do I need to get approval from the FAA to fly a model aircraft for recreation?
No. FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft. FAA guidance says that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas and full scale aircraft, and are not for business purposes.

You see the only stumbling block there is, "not for business". Other than that, no permission would be needed.

For more troll food, go to the horse's mouth: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/?print=go

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

I disagree with your interpretation. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Original: The FAA can do whatever they wont, still wont stop me from using my drone its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I cant so I just ignore it all and fly my drone.

My interpretation: The FAA can do whatever they want, still won't stop me from using my drone. Its not fair that others can use theirs and yet I can't so I'll just ignore it all and fly my drone.

Really, all he did was type an 'o' instead of an 'a' and leave out some punctuation. Hardly worthy of the confusion and discussion that has ensued (this post included).

We know what he meant, We're just teasing him because it sounds funny.