Anywho, as a recent New Jersey escapee, I feel compelled to point out the Garden State Parkway and the New Jersey Turnpike are actually completely separate entities. To be clear, the Atlantic City Expressway is managed by a third public/private entity, SJTA, and should also not be confused with either of them.
Just giving you a heads up before one of said organizations files suit against you for associating them with the other...
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles.
No they don't. If they did, there might be less of a problem getting rules adopted. The DoD expressly doesn't want them treated like manned aircraft. In particular, they don't want their "operators" to be required to meet the instrument rating qualifications everyone else has to for flying in controlled airspace. They don't want their guys considered pilots (probably because they'd have to pay them way more).
Having spent several years in labs working on this problem, in my experience the DoD angle is the big reason the FAA is dragging its feet on this. They are really chomping at the bit to fill the sky with military UASes, and there's just honestly no safe way to do it.
I can't believe anyone actually involved in Aviation would ever think AirPooler had a snow flurry's chance in hell of working out. The restrictions on getting compensation for flying people/cargo without a commercial license are very well known and vigorously enforced.
Heck, even the appearance of commercial use is forbidden--see a pilot colleague I knew who rented a car and drove from Boston to Atlantic City International Airport to work on some software (at the airport!), because his company could reimburse him for the car rental but not for a plane rental.
Go listen to the Triangulation interview of Lavar that Leo Laporte did. He detailed (as much as he legally could) the ridiculous lengths he went to try and secure council. He DID immediately hire a lawyer, but then he was summoned to court in DC where that lawyer could not represent him. He was then trapped in a position where he couldn't even discuss the details of his case with potential attorneys and had practically no time to find an alternative.
They stacked the deck against him from the beginning to prevent any chance of getting competent representation.
The Federal Circuit's worship of procedure, and its allowing of flagrantly unconstitutional things to happen because the defense attorney didn't recite the proper magic spell at the appropriate time, is shameful.
No, option B would be bad. If the prosecution has some evidence it used in building its case, it has to give it to the defense. Even though it may not use the evidence at trial, such evidence may have been improperly gathered, meaning anything gathered due to what the prosecution discovered in that initial illegal search is inadmissible.
That's because you think Government can actually do things when they can't!!!
No, I know the FAA does a damn fine job of safely managing the NAS.
They'll have to get it right or else be sued to crashing on top of someone.
That doesn't stop Taser, or any of the other contractors that supply equipment to LEOs and Military. They just get indemnification.
No company in their right mind will just throw up any old drone and cross their fingers and hope it all goes right.
Ehhhh... You should look into the safety record of currently operating UAS, and how often birds that cost tens of millions of dollars get smashed into the ground/ocean due to pilot error... (Nevermind the shockingly bad quality of some of them).
Let any company run their own small trials out in far less crowded area's. Work out all the bugs and other kinks. Come out with some Industry standard so you don't have them crashing into each other from one company to another.
No. Just... No. This isn't even a matter of theory. What you're describing is civil aviation in the first half of the 20th century. We know from experience IT DOESN'T WORK. The Federal Aviation Act was passed because of the failure of the exact sort of approach you're describing: "Well, let everyone do their own thing, no one has to be in charge, I'm sure they'll all try very hard not to hurt each other."
There is no way, be some mad rush to start flying these things everywhere just because the FAA has zero power.
You don't know how wrong you are. The DoD is desperate (for reasons I still don't understand) to fly UAS in the NAS. So is every two-bit, tin-pot Sheriff and Chief of Police in the US, who have apparently decided that having assault teams and armored vehicles isn't compensating enough for their manhood deficiency and so now they need remotely piloted spy cams. And between them are all the military contractors, rubbing their hands gleefully together with dollar signs in their eyes. You can't comprehend how quickly the FAA losing authority over this would be taken advantage of.
What is the expected benefit? And why is it worth the risk? And yes, there is a significant risk: Loss-of-Control incidents are still very common in UAS. Most of the larger platforms have automated "Lost Link" procedures they follow in such circumstance, but those don't always work--and often aren't very conducive to safety of others. Generally they're intended to make re-acquisition by the base station easier under the assumption they're operating in an area where they don't have to worry about hitting anything "friendly".
All of this is really moot, though. There are already UAS operating in the NAS under an individual Certificate of Agreement, including ones being used by the FAA primarily to study the safety problems. What benefit is there to flying them in even less realistic scenarios?
A UAS cannot meet the requirements, as they are currently written, to operate in the NAS. Either we're going to have to loosen the requirements or come to accept this is a bad idea. If we decide to loosen the requirements, then I'm moving to the Marianas Trench or something...
The way to learn to get better control over drones, and what the problems of their use is, is to allow them to fly in uncontrolled airspace, and away from built up areas. Without more experience of drone use in relatively safe areas any regulation will be based on theory, and probably not deal with the actual problems.
And what do you think I meant when I said "I worked for several years with the FAA on studying the use of UAS in the National Airspace System"? That we sat around in a room and thought about what could possibly go wrong?
There are multiple active studies right now, operating in both simulated environments and "live" tests in controlled airspace. I worked on the simulators, myself, and I can assure you they're more than realistic enough to study the problem. Actually, if anything, the problem with the simulations were that they provided the UAS pilots with entirely TOO MUCH information compared to what would actually be available in the field. And it STILL resulted in unsafe operations.
I worked for several years with the FAA on studying the use of UAS in the National Airspace System, primarily by the DoD. The reason the FAA is "dragging its feet" on this is because every experiment we ran showed that it's simply NOT SAFE. The DoD keeps paying for experiments, though, hoping that some tweak will improve the results... Or that we'll give up due to exhaustion, I guess?
If the DoD and FAA can't manage to do it safely, I'm not sure how a commercial operation is going to do a better job...