San Diego has a lot of vested interest in Drones, and it makes sense for San Diego to consider setting up a drone test area as described in this article Drone Test Area This could be somewhat controversial, however the overall issue of Drones is much more complex.
The State of California is having problems passing legislation to put controls on the use of drones. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/28/bills-aim-to-protect-privacy-as-drone-age-dawns/ SB15 was introduced in May by Sen Alex Padilla, AB1327 was introduced by Jeff Gorrell in the Assembly. (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/04/states-consider-regulation-of-drones-in-us-skies/) However, as of mid August 2013, legislation is having problems getting supporg: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/18/tp-state-may-balk-at-limits-on-drones/.
Most other states are also attempting to write legislation to control the use of drones: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/04/states-consider-regulation-of-drones-in-us-skies/
However it appears to me that we need some Federal legislation that could provide an umbrella for all states to embrace. The Federal legislation could include "model" laws for the states to adopt that would allow state-to-state consistency.
I usually agree with ACLU positions -- but I'm not sure I agree with them here. The ability to test Drones by establishing a safe range for them, doesn't seem to connect to their fear of loss of privacy. The drones could probably be tested over the ocean also -- restricting test ranges doesn't seem to directly connect to loss of privacy.
There has been a lot of controversy over use of Drones. Here is a Union Tribune "panel" discussion about drones: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/05/UT-politics-panel-discusses-drones/ Most of the panelists are concerned about allowing law enforcement to use drones. There is little discussion about allowing citizens or businesses to use the drones.
Also a lot of the concern about drones rightfully seems to focus on airspace. However not much is mentioned about the bandwidth space. There is discussion about making it illegal to "shoot" at drones, presumably with guns, however nothing mentioned about jamming drone control signals or jamming video data that might be relayed from the drone.
The Supreme Court apparently ruled that we own airspace up to 83 feet above our property, but between there and 500 feet where FAA has control is still not controlled. So if Drones stay within that 500 ft limit they are not within the FAA jurisdiction
I believe that one rule the FAA should consider is that all drones must be registered and all must have a standard transponder that squawks a unique IFF code. It might even be possible to require the IFF code transponder to be integrated into the control channel. It could also require a standard GPS data reporting along with the squawk, so everyone will be able to know exactly where it is. Then all citizens could buy a device that would tell them if a drone is overhead by monitoring the RF channels for the IFF code. If they have complaints they can record the IFF code and report it to the FAA.
The Supreme Court apparently ruled that we own airspace up to 83 feet above our property, but between there and 500 feet where FAA has control is still not controlled. So if Drones stay within that 500 ft limit they are not within the FAA jurisdiction
I believe that one rule the FAA should consider is that all drones must be registered and all must have a standard transponder that squawks a unique IFF code. It might even be possible to require the IFF code transponder to be integrated into the control channel. It could also require a standard GPS data reporting along with the squawk, so everyone will be able to know exactly where it is. Then all citizens could buy a device that would tell them if a drone is overhead by monitoring the RF channels for the IFF code. If they have complaints they can record the IFF code and report it to the FAA.
No comments:
Post a Comment