How Many Bullets In The Back Can One Industry Take?

Listening to the cabal spokes-hyena talk about drones and aviation, it is no wonder to me why we are where we are. You have a Chinese toy company Pied-Piper calling the rats to line up behind the monopoly. The RC Hobbyist seen in the picture got his/her comeuppance as part of the Federal Aviation Administration BVLOS (EVLOS) and over people ruse.

Twenty-four companies can legally fly over people. Not sure how many of those are using the FAA blessed parachute system company that the ex-administrator now consults for. The golden parachute may conform to the ASTM F38 standard, but the FAA hasn’t adopted the standards, so I will assume that you will still need a lobbyist to get the prize. BVLOS (EVLOS with a VO) requires a lobbyist too. I don’t care if you cite the ASSURE “research” not happening. Oh, you want to do drone delivery? It might help to hire a freshly retired FAA career person who can get a private meeting with the Transportation secretary. Couldn’t hurt.

Then there are the rest of you who are able to rent the PrecisionHawk pathfinder BVLOS holdover waiver. I got the cold call: $35k to start, and about 6 months out and my company could be raking in the BVLOS dough. Guess who provides the training and the equipment—marked up of course.

Section 336 is gone the way of the Dodo and, golly, just like that Airmap, KittyHawk, and DJI have a working ID and tracking system. Now it is safe to fly over people and beyond visual line of sight. What’s that you say? No practical test (flying) as part of UAS certificate, and we don’t know if people can actually fly their drones at all? MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) numbers are lower than a snake’s belly, and there is no adopted aircraft certification scheme. Is KittyHawk throwing Boeing money at this or is Boeing throwing KittyHawk money at it? Something to think about when submitting your NPRM proposed proposal comments. May want to mention the #LAANC use for the RC hobbyist monetization scheme.

If we move away from the sideshow and into the circus tent, you may catch a glimpse of the elusive certified Detect and Avoid system needed to fly beyond visual line of sight. The D&A conversation must have been forgotten in a rush to celebrate the registration marking on the outside of the aircraft hoopla. Even with that marking, one of our brethren’s aircraft was shot down, but the FAA says no action will be taken.

The cabal is in agreement that ID and tracking is the key for everything to scale and for the NAS to remain safe. I just don’t understand why the ID and Tracking ARC fell apart since DJI wouldn’t let up on the AeroScope. If it was that important, why didn’t they yield to the noncertified cellphone app?  

Previous articleAerial Firefighting Europe Conference and Exhibition Prepares for March 19th Opening in France
Next articleXDynamics Content & Social Media Manager – USA
Patrick Egan
Editor in Field, sUAS News Americas Desk | Patrick Egan is the editor of the Americas Desk at sUAS News and host and Executive Producer of the sUAS News Podcast Series, Drone TV and the Small Unmanned Systems Business Exposition. Experience in the field includes assignments with the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command Battle Lab investigating solutions on future warfare research projects. Instructor for LTA (Lighter Than Air) ISR systems deployment teams for an OSD, U.S. Special Operations Command, Special Surveillance Project. Built and operated commercial RPA prior to 2007 FAA policy clarification. On the airspace integration side, he serves as director of special programs for the RCAPA (Remote Control Aerial Photography Association).