This was posted on ArsTechnica


The Federal Aviation Administration has pushed forward strict rules  for the operation of small consumer drones. Drones weighing more than  250 grams (a little more than half a pound) will have to be  registered with the FAA, and there are restrictions on where they can be  flown. The regulations are largely prompted by fears that the toy-sized  flyers will pose a danger to commercial and civil aircraft—fears that  new research suggests are unfounded. That research, shown in a study just published by George Mason University's Mercatus Center, was based on damage to aircraft from another sort of small, uncrewed aircraft—flying birds.
Much of the fear around drones hitting aircraft has been driven by  FAA reports from pilots who have claimed near-misses with small drones.  But an investigation last year by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)  found that of the 764 near-miss incidents with drones recorded by the  FAA, only 27 of them—3.5 percent—actually were near misses. The rest  were just sightings, and those were often sightings that took place when  drone operators were following the rules. The FAA also overcounted,  including reports where the pilot said explicitly that there was no near  miss and some where the flying object wasn't identified, leading the  AMA to accuse the FAA of exaggerating the threat in order to get support  for its anti-drone agenda.
There hasn't yet been an incident in which a drone has struck an  aircraft. But bird strikes (and bat strikes) do happen, and there's a  rich data set to work from to understand how often they do. Researchers  Eli Dourado and Samuel Hammond reasoned that the chances of a bird  strike remain much higher than that of an aircraft hitting a drone  because "contrary to sensational media headlines, the skies are crowded  not by drones but by fowl."
The researchers studied 25 years of FAA "wildlife strike" data,  reports voluntarily filed by pilots after colliding with birds. The data  included over 160,000 reported incidents of collisions with birds, of  which only 14,314 caused damage—and 80 percent of that number came from  collisions with large or medium-sized birds such as geese and ducks.
Despite the rise in reported bird strikes over time (largely driven  by improvements to the FAA's reporting system), the number involving  damage has remained relatively constant, numbering in the hundreds per  year—a statistical blip, considering that there are approximately 27,000  commercial aircraft flights per day in the US. And in 25 years, there  have been only 37 incidents of wildlife strikes that caused injuries or  death. The most dramatic of them, the water landing of US Airways Flight  1549 in 2009, was caused by a flock of geese being sucked into both the  plane's engines. The one commercial aircraft fatality was caused not by  a bird strike but by a collision with a pair of deer during landing in  2000.
"On average, only 3 percent of reported small-bird strikes ever  result in damage, compared to 39 percent of large-bird strikes," Dourado  and Hammond reported. "Given the voluntary nature of strike reporting,  the true percentage of strikes causing damage is probably much lower, as  strikes that do not cause damage can be either missed or  underreported."
Using the FAA data and bird census data, the researchers calculated  the probability of airborne wildlife striking an aircraft. "In 2014,  there were 13,414 reported collisions with birds and flying mammals,  counting incidents in which flocks of birds hit an aircraft as a single  collision," the researchers noted. "As there are on the order of 10  billion birds in US airspace, this means that plausibly 1 bird in 1  million collides with an aircraft every year."
Birds spend much more time in the air than consumer drones, which  have a short battery life. Birds also don't necessarily avoid areas  where airplanes are apt to hit them. Based on usage statistics, compared  with bird behavior, the researchers estimated that for every 100,000  hours of flight time for drones weighing up to 2 kilograms, there would  be 0.00000612 collisions causing damage to aircraft. "Or to put it  another way," the pair wrote, "one damaging incident will occur no more  than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time."
And the frequency of injuries caused by drone collisions, they  estimated, would be another two orders of magnitude smaller—happening  once every 1.87 million years of operation. "This appears to be an  acceptable risk to the airspace," they concluded.

Aloha Gregory,

     Actually, it is not the FAA but sensationalists, like journalists looking for a story, etc., who are at the core of this problem.  The FAA is a relatively small bureaucracy with no agenda more than to keep the skies safe.  They are seriously abused by self-promoting politicians.  If you actually read the Proposed Rulemaking, you will see that the FAA is bending over backwards to make the skies safe for small and micro drones.  All this boogieman business is to sell advertising, not accurately report FAA activities.  Re-read the article you posted above.  None of the opinions come from the FAA - just sensationalists using FAA data out of context to sell advertising.

     The first sentence only notes that the FAA is tasked with keeping aircraft accountable.  Your drone crashes, the FAA wants to find the owner and ask what hapened.  That is all part of safely maintaining our airspace.  There are very strict regulations in place already about where you can fly any aircraft be it a micro drone or a 747.  Nothing has changed and nothing different is being proposed.  This is all boogieman.  Read the proposed rulemaking!  Not the sensationalist BS promoting advertising!  

Aloha and Drone On!

Cetaman Posted at 2016-3-21 23:28
Aloha Gregory,

     Actually, it is not the FAA but sensationalists, like journalists looking for a ...

Did you only read the headline, and not the article?

Thanks for posting that Gregory80.  Transport Canada is also going thru rule changes due to the high number of drones being sold.  It's nice to see some actual numbers instead of the media hype!  Anything to sell the paper! (Or commercials.)  Thanks again.

Solid information, thank you for posting.

thanks                                       

Unfortunately,  the actual numbers won't make a difference.  People base their actions on emotion - not on facts!!!

People can't control the risk of hitting a bird or other wildlife.  However, people think that they can and should eliminate risk that they can control - no matter how small that risk.  Add to the fact that everything around aviation is blown waaaay out of proportion, and you can see people demanding change to fix a non-existant problem.

Sid

Gregory80 Posted at 2016-3-21 06:10
Did you only read the headline, and not the article?

Aloha Gregory,

     Of course I read the entire article and it looks like you fell for the sensationalist fodder.  Did you read my post?  Read the article again carefully.  It is the FAA that collects the data because it is part of their mandate, just like the Proposed Rulemaking.  Now read carefully how others take the extensive data and make it say things that the FAA is not saying or doing.  The FAA is just the "messenger" not the speaker.  Mostly, Congress is the speaker who makes the FAA put out the message but others also get in on the act.  For example, the first "strict rule" is registration - mandated by Congress, managed by the FAA.  As I said at the beginning of my second paragraph; "The first sentence only notes that the FAA is tasked with keeping aircraft accountable.  Your drone crashes, the FAA wants to find the owner and ask what happened.  That is all part of safely maintaining our airspace."  

     The FAA provides anyone, including GMU's Mercatus Center and the AMA with the data they collect.  How were the MC and AMA able to create a misinterpretation of the data?  Because the FAA did what it was told and collected the data that "overcounts".  In data collection, this is called context.  It is available as part of the database.  If it was not available, the MC and AMA investigations would not have been able to make their misinterpretations of the database.  One benefit of the MC and AMA investigations is that it balances out the out of context and irrational sensationalism of some Congressmen and organizations with an Anti-Drone Agenda.  But it is not the FAA saying these things.  The MC, AMA and you have that wrong, just like the people with an anti-drone agenda have it wrong.

     The FAA is tasked with keeping our skies safe.  You know as well as I do that there are idiots out there who fly drones.  If there are no regulations to enforce to get the idiots out of protected airspace or doing other stupid things, then the idiots cannot be convicted of violating any regulations or flight rules - they can keep on being stupid and endangering manned flight and people on the ground until UAV flight becomes illegal across the board.  There has to be a fair and equitable use of the airspace (the FAA's mandate) and allowing idiots to fly in protected areas, etc., is neither fair nor equitable.

     Read the Proposed Rulemaking to see what the FAA is really saying, especially the commentary.  This document is what the FAA was tasked to do and it is fair and equitable and now is the time to comment on it.  For example, it encourages commercial operations with our P3s (micro-drones) and the self certification of those P3 operators - no test.  It contains none of the overkill interpretations made by MC and AMA.

2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

Aloha and Drone On!

Mary Ann Posted at 2016-3-21 08:09
Thanks for posting that Gregory80.  Transport Canada is also going thru rule changes due to the high ...

Aloha Mary Ann,

     Please read the Proposed Rulemaking to see what the FAA is really saying, especially the commentary.  This document is what the FAA was tasked to do and it is fair and equitable and now is the time to comment on it.  For example, it encourages commercial operations with our P3s (micro-drones) and the self certification of those P3 operators - no test.  It contains none of the overkill interpretations made by MC and AMA in the ArsTechnica posting.

2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

Aloha and Drone On!

microcyb Posted at 2016-3-21 09:10
Solid information, thank you for posting.

Aloha micro,

     Please read the Proposed Rulemaking to see what the FAA is really saying, especially the commentary.  This document is what the FAA was tasked to do and it is fair and equitable and now is the time to comment on it.  For example, it encourages commercial operations with our P3s (micro-drones) and the self certification of those P3 operators - no test.  It contains none of the overkill interpretations made by MC and AMA in the ArsTechnica posting.

2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

Aloha and Drone On!

Gregory80 Posted at 2016-3-22 03:10
Did you only read the headline, and not the article?

Cetaman is one of the most polite and nicest guys on the forum, did you read his post.
No need for the sarcasm.

Rob_stal Posted at 2016-3-21 12:02
Cetaman is one of the most polite and nicest guys on the forum, did you read his post.
No need for ...

Aloha Rob,

     Well, maybe if I get up on the right side of the bed!  All I am trying to do is to get our forum readers past the sensationalism that creates so much paranoia about how government is going to regulate drones out of the sky.  That is not going to happen.  If it did happen, there would be so many law suits that the regulations would never get implemented (maybe even a decade from now) and we need regulations implemented to keep the crazies away from their drones.

     The Proposed Rulemaking document below allows you to see what the FAA is really saying, especially the commentary.  This document is what the FAA was tasked to do and it is fair and equitable.  For example, it encourages commercial operations with our P3s (micro-drones) and the self certification of those P3 operators - no test.  I really like that!  It contains none of the overkill interpretations made by MC and AMA in the ArsTechnica posting.

2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

     Mahalo for the kind words!

Aloha and Drone On!

Rob_stal Posted at 2016-3-22 11:02
Cetaman is one of the most polite and nicest guys on the forum, did you read his post.
No need for ...

He's a little too emotionally involved in this subject for my liking and sounds like an FAA shill. I just saw an interesting article about possible drone strikes that is backed up with actual FAA data about bird strikes and copied and pasted it.

I don't live in America. I don't even own a drone. I'm less invested in this than anyone else here.

But you should drone on buddy. Aloha and Hakuna Matata!

Gregory80 Posted at 2016-3-22 21:08
He's a little too emotionally involved in this subject for my liking and sounds like an FAA shill. ...

Aloha Gregory,

     You should really get a Phantom.  They are unreal good fun!

     BTW Greg, all I am is someone who speaks up when they have first hand experience that differs from the information provided in mass media.  I read the proposed rulemaking and other FAA documents.  (I am fluent in bureaucratese.)  I prefer accuracy and truthfulness.  We have enough problems with government screwing the public over here.  I find it refreshing that the FAA actually appears to be doing its job!  And it is a concern to me that maybe we are being lulled into a false sense of security with this rulemaking comment period.  But still, if the FAA screws the small and micro drone operators, the lawsuits will jam them up forever because we are a very large constituency.

Aloha and Drone On!

C'mon guys, every time I get on this forum there's some kind of tiff occurring.  Reminds me of our elections.  Mature adults understand that people have different points of view and can discuss such differences without resorting to sarcasm or insults.  Pride and arrogance are hindrances to the type of useful exchange we desire on a forum such as this.

The thing that immediately comes to mind is that wildlife is not trying to hit airborne vehicles whereas humans just might.  That's a big difference which to me, voids the article above.

We know that criminals won't follow the rules but good flyers will.  Criminals will hide.  Good flyers shouldn't mind helping authorities catch criminals.  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Cetaman Posted at 2016-3-22 13:16
Aloha Rob,

     Well, maybe if I get up on the right side of the bed!  All I am trying to do is t ...

Aloha Cetaman

I get where you're coming from, It seems to be a bit of a touchy subject across the forum at the moment.
Does't bother me much at the moment as I fly mostly in rural areas and folks out there don't really care, they're more intrigued by the tech then anything else. Most of them are farmers who end up getting me to fly around so they can get a look at their farms, those that don't have their own heli's that is.( the little Robinson's are quite popular with farmers out here)

Cheers and fly safe

P.S is " Aloha" used as both a greeting and a goodbye

Rob_stal Posted at 2016-3-23 03:41
Aloha Cetaman

I get where you're coming from, It seems to be a bit of a touchy subject across th ...

Aloha Rob,

     Yes, and there are many other uses for aloha, but mostly Hi & Bye.

     These guys on the forum really are touchy as you say.  That is why I keep trying to let them know that the proposed P3 level commercial certifications cost and testing are generous.  Certifications cost - estimated at $214.  Testing - self certify (meaning you sign a statement saying you understand the new rules and existing regulations that apply to micro drones).  It says so right there in the proposed rulemaking.

     Some of the issues addressed in the 107 document are really interesting and the discussion is very sympathetic to small and micro drone operators.  People in other countries should want to read the document because the depth of inquiry is both futuristic and applies to all airspace conflicts.

Aloha and Drone On!

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2016-3-23 01:50
C'mon guys, every time I get on this forum there's some kind of tiff occurring.  Reminds me of our e ...

Aloha spiderbot,

     Yes, the price of freedom is is eternal vigilance!  Without regulations you cannot be vigilant because there are no violations.  

     What seems odd to me though is the forum users seem to show no interest in how easy the FAA is trying to make it to start a micro drone commercial operation.  None of the 333 Exemption requirements will apply because the 333 Exemptions only apply to the current regulations, not the proposed ones.  Maybe I need to start a thread dealing directly on the subject?  Or maybe even a poll followed by what the proposed regulations actually say; and do that with every contentious issue.  Hmmm.

Aloha and Drone On!

It would be cool if this thread was just about what was originally posted and about those studies and that data and how it has been interpreted and peoples opinions about it.

It would also be nice if anyone who wants to, could just go and make their own threads about how awesome the FAA is and it could be all about how amazing and helpful and generous and loving and thoughtful and kind they are... If only the option to do that was available instead of posting here.... Well, maybe that could be posted in a different thread, and then not everyone has to get an overly gracious reply to every single godamn post that is pushing a different agenda so cheerfully but remaining disagreeable and completely disregarding others opinions.

Hakuna Matata!

Gregory80 Posted at 2016-3-24 05:37
It would be cool if this thread was just about what was originally posted and about those studies an ...

I understand your frustration.  It's difficult to bear having to wade through everyone else's opinion, especially when they don't agree with you, right?

But I wonder why you would not be interested in what other countries' governments are doing with regard to UAVs.  It might give you an insight on your own government and laws.

I'm really glad my post actually referenced the original post.

Cetaman Posted at 2016-3-23 18:00
Aloha spiderbot,

     Yes, the price of freedom is is eternal vigilance!  Without regulations you ...

I respectfully disagree.  Vigilance is required with or without regulations.  Regulations simply allow an authorised body to prosecute.

It's too bad that this article will never see the light of day in the mainstream media. It does not create a sensational fear inducing headline that will get clicks or ratings.

Please read my latest forum post if you feel this way. ..

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2016-3-25 01:37
I understand your frustration.  It's difficult to bear having to wade through everyone else's opin ...

My frustration is with cetaman replying to every single post and every poster voicing his opinion about wanting to have an FAA love child and needing everyone to agree with him.

I can respect your opinion while also disagreeing with it and finding it laughable. Being fearful of things falling into the hands of criminals is classic American scaremongering, and I'm not buying into any of it. But if you feel this way I don't feel compelled to try to sway your opinion. Are you actually suggesting that felons in America shouldn't be able to buy firearms or drones?

Current drone terrorism threat level: Magenta

Do you think Mexicans will try to fly their drones over Trumps wall?

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2016-3-24 02:40
I respectfully disagree.  Vigilance is required with or without regulations.  Regulations simply a ...

Aloha spiderbot,

     Good point, certainly true.  Vigilance is required in unregulated environments as well.   In fact, there is almost no time when you can relax and not be vigilant.   Probably more like the price of life, not just freedom.

Aloha and Drone On!

The agencies themselves are often only interested in ensuring safe use of the airspace. So they are actually pro flight industries in general. Hence they are not neccesarily against use of UAVs.

Like someone said, it's usually the sensationalists that are against it. People like journalists looking for a story and something to name and shame, lay people who are not into the hobby, politicians who fear monger or who latch onto something voters complain about, etc.

Its like that with everything though. Law abiding gun owners face the same problem. Everybody who doesn't own guns are scared of guns. Yet most gun owners are law abiding citizens. You as a drone operator might think what you're doing is fine and isn't a big deal, but there are scare mongers who are afraid of their privacy being breached by your camera equipped drone or you damaging their property or physically hurting them with the drones.

You live in a world where there are many different viewpoints and many different opinions. There ought to be a middle ground somewhere.

Gregory80 Posted at 2016-3-24 11:56
My frustration is with cetaman replying to every single post and every poster voicing his opinion  ...

Aloha Greg,

     Why are you frustrated?  Did you read what I said that you may have a point?
"We have enough problems with government screwing the public over here.  I find it refreshing that the FAA actually appears to be doing its job!  And it is a concern to me that maybe we are being lulled into a false sense of security with this rulemaking comment period."

     You are completely entitled to your opinions, but when you post something verifiable in a public forum that deals with a "hot topic" subject and people choose to address that hot topic, why should that frustrate you?  You brought it up.  What ever happened to free speech and the exchange of public discourse?  

     Come on now, admit it, you have not read all of what I have written on this subject in this thread.  On the other hand, I had to read your posts, look up the reference papers, read the abstracts of the papers so I could then comment on some serious misunderstandings of the data involved and how data is processed, managed and incorporated into academic literature.  And that is after I have already done my due diligence regarding current FAA regulations and the Proposed Rulemaking.  Why should that frustrate you.  You are making me do all the work to discredit a sensationalist article that is blowing smoke.

     I have no problem with you having your own opinions, but posting what amounts to a bad joke that keeps getting taken way too seriously is inviting a response to the article, not your opinions.  You do not seem to realize that papers and articles like what you posted are a serious threat to the flying rights of American small and micro drone operators.  Yet you claim to not fly in your own right and do not even live in the US where this is a problem.  Should you be frustrated, or should those who disagree with the article you posted be frustrated?  You appear to be doing this "on a lark".  But, this is our future flying small and micro drones, to us.  Come on now, cut us some slack here.

Aloha and Drone On!

Cetaman Posted at 2016-3-25 06:18
Aloha Greg,

     Why are you frustrated?  Did you read what I said that you may have a point?

It's not what you think.  Reread his posts.  He says he doesn't feel compelled to sway opinion but then comments on specifics.  It has nothing to do with you.  He's like the little ego behind the wheel of a big truck.  He's just an angry sort using the net to vent his personal frustrations knowing we'll never know his identity.  Ignore him.

But it's interesting.  Notice how he lives in a remote part of the world, a country never affected by harsh realities like what's happened recently in Europe.  It doesn't happen to him so it must not be worthy of prevention.

Cetaman Posted at 2016-3-26 00:18
Aloha Greg,

     Why are you frustrated?  Did you read what I said that you may have a point?

Go and make a thread about it and fill that with as many posts as you want.

Hakuna Matata!

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2016-3-25 08:12
It's not what you think.  Reread his posts.  He says he doesn't feel compelled to sway opinion but ...

Do I need to raise the drone terrorism threat level for your safety? Fine.

Drone terrorism threat level: Burgundy  

spiderbot.sb Posted at 2016-3-25 02:12
It's not what you think.  Reread his posts.  He says he doesn't feel compelled to sway opinion but ...

Aloha spiderbot,

     The fact that he does not engage in discussion and is only incendiary does support what you have said.  At least others will be able to read this thread and see the failures of Greg's folly.

Aloha and Drone On!

I don't understand the phrase "near miss." If they nearly missed, doesn't that mean that they hit?  Gotta love government terminology. Lol.

If you were working in a bureacracy where you were paid BIG bucks (taxpayer bucks) to tell an entire department of lowers what to do, and you "liked" being in control of others would you......

A).  Try your best to cut staff and reduce your responsibilities through efficiency and truth detecting, such that taxpayers might not be so heavily burdened?

OR...

B).  Make sure every headline becomes MAJOR living proof (regardless of the validity) that your department needs MORE underlings and MORE taxpayer dollars and a BIGGER budget ?


There, that explains it (and also the fundamentals of ALL government activity) ......  and aloha to ALL