FAA MSA Definition Must Change

[damoncooper]

Food for thought: the FAA defines minimum safe altitude for manned aircraft as basically "a low as you like" over open water or undeveloped areas.
But it says UAVs must always remain below 400'. This conflict must be resolved.

I think to maintain safe separation, the FAA will absolutely need to redefine MSA for manned aircraft in §119 of Part 91, parts 3 and 4 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR):

...
3. Over Open Water or Sparsely Populated Areas: an altitude allowing for a linear distance greater than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure;

4. Helicopters: If without hazard to persons or property on the surface, an altitude lower than in definitions 2, 3, and 4 above, provided in compliance with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.
...

This is asking for an accident waiting to happen, as UAV's expect to be able to fly in this airspace.

Unless ADS-B transponders are required equipment on all UAV's, I can't see "under 400" and "any altitude you like" for aircraft creating a "safe integration of UAV's into the national airspace".

 

[CaptainBadge]

Food for thought: the FAA defines minimum safe altitude for manned aircraft as basically "a low as you like" over open water or undeveloped areas.
But it says UAVs must always remain below 400'. This conflict must be resolved.

I think to maintain safe separation, the FAA will absolutely need to redefine MSA for manned aircraft in §119 of Part 91, parts 3 and 4 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR):

...
3. Over Open Water or Sparsely Populated Areas: an altitude allowing for a linear distance greater than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure;

4. Helicopters: If without hazard to persons or property on the surface, an altitude lower than in definitions 2, 3, and 4 above, provided in compliance with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.
...

This is asking for an accident waiting to happen, as UAV's expect to be able to fly in this airspace.

Unless ADS-B transponders are required equipment on all UAV's, I can't see "under 400" and "any altitude you like" for aircraft creating a "safe integration of UAV's into the national airspace".

I can tell you that ADS-B is a serious consideration that has been tabled.

 

[Wormwood]

There goes the FAA again doing their same old song & dance... Oh, yeah, ALL aircraft need to update to ADS-B. Nope, nope this is absolute were no giving any wiggle room on this, now head on down to your favorite avionics shop & throw yourself over the counter so they can stick it to you for another $10k.

The FAA is such a lame duck, All the mfgs. come up with an avionics device that is 20 years behind in technology when compared to every other industry. The FAA mandates it & the aircraft owners have to pay for it! I'm so sick of that circle jerk...

I guess people have forgotten WHY UAS came on to the scene so quickly. It's the price savings compared to an aircraft & not just by a little, but by a lot. However, with the FAA's exemption requiring a pilot's license & the possibility of someone like HoneyWell given an FAA escort into the middle of the UAS industry with ADS-B or Tcas system, there goes a lot of the savings. Also, I've seen some of the Ag outfits are asking $30K for a piece of foam with a modified NDVI GoPro velcro'd to it, you might as well just rent a real airplane.

 

[CaptainBadge]

There goes the FAA again doing their same old song & dance... Oh, yeah, ALL aircraft need to update to ADS-B. Nope, nope this is absolute were no giving any wiggle room on this, now head on down to your favorite avionics shop & throw yourself over the counter so they can stick it to you for another $10k.

The FAA is such a lame duck, All the mfgs. come up with an avionics device that is 20 years behind in technology when compared to every other industry. The FAA mandates it & the aircraft owners have to pay for it! I'm so sick of that circle jerk...

I guess people have forgotten WHY UAS came on to the scene so quickly. It's the price savings compared to an aircraft & not just by a little, but by a lot. However, with the FAA's exemption requiring a pilot's license & the possibility of someone like HoneyWell given an FAA escort into the middle of the UAS industry with ADS-B or Tcas system, there goes a lot of the savings. Also, I've seen some of the Ag outfits are asking $30K for a piece of foam with a modified NDVI GoPro velcro'd to it, you might as well just rent a real airplane.

It would not surprise me to see it go two ways, either equip with ADS B or tether. Commercial operators could be seen as able to afford the ability to equip with ADS B while hobbyists who are seen as the real threat would be forced to tether their equipment to stop the ridiculous stuff we are seeing in the news.