Showing posts with label FAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAA. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 4, 2022
Air Safety and the 5G Rollout? Poor Planning? Or Airline industry CYA?
The Union-Tribune reported this morning an Associated Press column that the mobile phone industry rejected the request from the airline industry to delay the 5G rollout. The planning and design efforts for 5G cellular service started many years ago starting in 2013. The airline industry knew this. My understanding is that the millimeter wave 5G band is well above the frequencies where the airline radar altimeters operate. I also believe that the radar altimeters are a backup capability and are only relied upon when there is a problem with the normal landing system. The airline industry --both the manufacturers and airlines had plenty of time to not only test their devices against mock-ups of mobile phone towers, but apparently did nothing. Now, after the phone carriers invested heavily in buying the bandwidth, and installing hardward all over the country, they are complaining about the risk to flight from the phone towers near airport landing paths. They do not seem to be conducting any tests. In 2019 Korea went active with 5G service and many other countries have also. Did the airlines fly any tests against those systems?
I believe this situation is a failure of the airline industry, the mobile phone industry, and the Federal Government -- FCC and FAA. I think if interference is found, it can be mitigated with better RF filters on the mobile phone tower transmitters and the radar altimeter receivers. There are also operational work-arounds, such as reducing the permitted tower antenna patterns around airport landing patterns.
Meanwhile, I think the airline industry is just trying to "cover their ass" CYA in case there is some sort of an accident. They were asking for a "short delay" in 5G rollout -- but why a month or so now after not doing anything for 8 years?
Friday, September 26, 2014
USA Today - FAA OKs drones for moviemaking
USA Today had an article by Bart Jansen that said that the FAA is now permitting six movie companies to legally use drones. Rules for drone use won't be released for another 18 months.
Eighteen more months is far too long, when the FAA has already been working on the problem for years. Approving companies on a case-by-case basis will result in unfair competition, favoritism for friends, and use too much of the FAA's time. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx seems to be dragging his agencies feet. He is quoted as saying: "These companies are blazing a trail that others are already following offering the promise of new advances"..This statement seems to imply that the agency is going to "learn" from the movie companies, and seems to admit that many other users are out there--but are operating illegally. The FAA says they will learn by taking each application on a case-by-case basis and use that information for helping them craft new rules and regulations. Meanwhile thousands of drone users will be using their drones "illegally" for years, and will have no reasonable guidelines for operation. Farmers, Realtors & Wedding photographers meanwhile will be using drones for their job, but will be subject to arbitrary and capricious enforcement which will be unfair to everyone including enforcement agencies, operators, and nearby citizens.
Interim standards need to be issued ASAP, and then the agency can amend them, as necessary, over the next few years. Interim standards are pretty obvious:
In addition, an FAA website needs to be developed ASAP for registering operators, equipment, and flight plans. The FAA needs to start development now, so it can be "live" within 2 years. As a minimum the web site should allow for:
Eighteen more months is far too long, when the FAA has already been working on the problem for years. Approving companies on a case-by-case basis will result in unfair competition, favoritism for friends, and use too much of the FAA's time. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx seems to be dragging his agencies feet. He is quoted as saying: "These companies are blazing a trail that others are already following offering the promise of new advances"..This statement seems to imply that the agency is going to "learn" from the movie companies, and seems to admit that many other users are out there--but are operating illegally. The FAA says they will learn by taking each application on a case-by-case basis and use that information for helping them craft new rules and regulations. Meanwhile thousands of drone users will be using their drones "illegally" for years, and will have no reasonable guidelines for operation. Farmers, Realtors & Wedding photographers meanwhile will be using drones for their job, but will be subject to arbitrary and capricious enforcement which will be unfair to everyone including enforcement agencies, operators, and nearby citizens.
Interim standards need to be issued ASAP, and then the agency can amend them, as necessary, over the next few years. Interim standards are pretty obvious:
- 400 ft altitude limit,
- line of site to operator,
- permission of property owners,
- notification to residents,
- establish a minimum distance from any airport etc.
- All drones must have a beacon that squawks a unique ID,
- Drones must broadcast their GPS location and altitude.
- Drones must have encrypted/authenticated command & control system to protect from cross-talk, or high-jacking by nearby hackers.
- Drones must have unencrypted payload downlink to allow neighbors to see what is being collected.
In addition, an FAA website needs to be developed ASAP for registering operators, equipment, and flight plans. The FAA needs to start development now, so it can be "live" within 2 years. As a minimum the web site should allow for:
- All drone operators can file and close out all flight plans which include a GPS-coordinate flight track. Flight plan filing should be as simple as drawing a box on a Google Earth map. Flight plans must be filed at least 24 hours prior to a flight. Close out of flight plan within 24 hours of flight completion.
- Website should be public, and should allow citizens to register so they can be notified if a drone flight path is filed within an area defined by the user using GPS coordinates.
- The FAA website should allow operators to register their drone including the unique ID number which the beacon squawks. Registration should include the manufacturer, model number, serial number, RF channel to be used.
- Operators should be able to take an online training course which defines the rules under which the drone is to be operated.
- Following the completion of the short on-line course, the operator should be allowed to register for a license which would include an on-line exam that would result in a license good for a couple of years. Renewal time initially should be relatively short, since the rule-making process will change and operators would need to be updated on the changes. Operators should be able to provide a photo of their driver's license as an identification as part of the registration/licensing process.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Legislation to control the use of Drones.
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.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Drones at home raise fear of surveillance society
I believe we need a serious set of laws for use, licensing, operation and sales of drones. The laws are needed to help control the spread of the technology, and to protect our citizens against incursions on our privacy and freedoms.
Drones of all sorts are a wonderful technology for so many applications by companies, military, and police. They are inexpensive, and can be a "force multiplier" for small military or police forces to allow them to do so much more. However they are a two edged sword, that can end up hurting us. If these same drones were in the hands of terrorists, they could spread diseases, plan attacks against civilian targets, or actually deliver bombs to targets. If our government agencies use the devices to track citizens, it can help them catch "bad guys" but it could also be misused by them to blackmail, "fish" for reasons to arrest political opponents, or simply violate the privacy of citizens. How can we control them?
This Associated Press article was in North County Times this week: Drones at home raise fear of surveillance society: It states that thousands of drones will be patrolling the US skies by the end of the decade. I think this is very conservative -- I would say 10s or 100s of thousands of drones may be patrolling by that time, if there are no other controls. How will we know that the use of drones will be controlled. Are we to assume that we are always under surveillance? Will we be made aware of drones? Will we be permitted to have "anti-drone" technology, such as jammers, dazzlers, or drone warning devices? Or will they be made illegal? For example, when radar speed detection devices were given to the police, many states and cities tried to make radar detection devices illegal. I'm not sure that making them illegal is constitutional, but I don't think it was ever truly tested in the courts. Just like the "watchers" feel they have a right to watch, I believe citizens have the right to "watch back" and to be permitted to use technology to detect when they are being "watched."
There are techniques to detect if a camera is being pointed at you. Those devices are used in movie theaters to detect people who may be trying to video record a movie. Could citizens use those devices to detect drones overhead? Or would they be made illegal? If someone used one of those devices they could inhibit an important criminal surveillance activity. It could also damage the delicate imaging sensor on the drone. If a citizen tried to jam
Ryan Calb wrote an article in March 2012 Wired "Drones, Dogs and the Future of Privacy" which pointed out that the FAA is allowing more drones and requiring licenses, but is resisting attempts to release the names and organizations who are licensed to use Drones in the US. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have tried to sue the FAA to get the list of users under the freedom of information act. However they have been unsuccessful so far. So the Government already is trying to "hide" the use of drones, and are restricting the use by civilians. I suspect that this trend will continue, don't you? Of course the government doesn't want the "bad guys" to know that they are under surveillance, that could cancel out a lot of the benefits from using them. However it could also protect the rest of the citizens from mis-uses of the technology.
This article in the LA Timse today Drone makers urge U.S. to let them sell more overseas points out the difficulty of containing the technology. US manufacturers have restrictions on sale, but China and Israel are selling them to anyone. So if some day Israel is attacked by drones, I don't think they will be able to complain, since they are undercutting our restrictions on sales of these weapon systems to other countries.
It appears that almost anyone can build their own pretty sophisticated airborne drone, let alone water or land vehicles. There was a recent excellent article in Wired Magazine ("How I Accidentally Kickstarted the Domestic Drone Boom" ), by the editor, Chris Anderson, who runs this web site: http://diydrones.com/ -- It is clearly a wonderful hobby to build and use these devices, and they are being used more and more for all sorts of purposes. The sophistication of the drones has grown along with the sophistication of hand held smart phones -- They have inertial navigation, gps, cameras, and all sorts of other wonderful features.
Drones of all sorts are a wonderful technology for so many applications by companies, military, and police. They are inexpensive, and can be a "force multiplier" for small military or police forces to allow them to do so much more. However they are a two edged sword, that can end up hurting us. If these same drones were in the hands of terrorists, they could spread diseases, plan attacks against civilian targets, or actually deliver bombs to targets. If our government agencies use the devices to track citizens, it can help them catch "bad guys" but it could also be misused by them to blackmail, "fish" for reasons to arrest political opponents, or simply violate the privacy of citizens. How can we control them?
This Associated Press article was in North County Times this week: Drones at home raise fear of surveillance society: It states that thousands of drones will be patrolling the US skies by the end of the decade. I think this is very conservative -- I would say 10s or 100s of thousands of drones may be patrolling by that time, if there are no other controls. How will we know that the use of drones will be controlled. Are we to assume that we are always under surveillance? Will we be made aware of drones? Will we be permitted to have "anti-drone" technology, such as jammers, dazzlers, or drone warning devices? Or will they be made illegal? For example, when radar speed detection devices were given to the police, many states and cities tried to make radar detection devices illegal. I'm not sure that making them illegal is constitutional, but I don't think it was ever truly tested in the courts. Just like the "watchers" feel they have a right to watch, I believe citizens have the right to "watch back" and to be permitted to use technology to detect when they are being "watched."
There are techniques to detect if a camera is being pointed at you. Those devices are used in movie theaters to detect people who may be trying to video record a movie. Could citizens use those devices to detect drones overhead? Or would they be made illegal? If someone used one of those devices they could inhibit an important criminal surveillance activity. It could also damage the delicate imaging sensor on the drone. If a citizen tried to jam
Ryan Calb wrote an article in March 2012 Wired "Drones, Dogs and the Future of Privacy" which pointed out that the FAA is allowing more drones and requiring licenses, but is resisting attempts to release the names and organizations who are licensed to use Drones in the US. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center have tried to sue the FAA to get the list of users under the freedom of information act. However they have been unsuccessful so far. So the Government already is trying to "hide" the use of drones, and are restricting the use by civilians. I suspect that this trend will continue, don't you? Of course the government doesn't want the "bad guys" to know that they are under surveillance, that could cancel out a lot of the benefits from using them. However it could also protect the rest of the citizens from mis-uses of the technology.
This article in the LA Timse today Drone makers urge U.S. to let them sell more overseas points out the difficulty of containing the technology. US manufacturers have restrictions on sale, but China and Israel are selling them to anyone. So if some day Israel is attacked by drones, I don't think they will be able to complain, since they are undercutting our restrictions on sales of these weapon systems to other countries.
It appears that almost anyone can build their own pretty sophisticated airborne drone, let alone water or land vehicles. There was a recent excellent article in Wired Magazine ("How I Accidentally Kickstarted the Domestic Drone Boom" ), by the editor, Chris Anderson, who runs this web site: http://diydrones.com/ -- It is clearly a wonderful hobby to build and use these devices, and they are being used more and more for all sorts of purposes. The sophistication of the drones has grown along with the sophistication of hand held smart phones -- They have inertial navigation, gps, cameras, and all sorts of other wonderful features.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)