UAV and the FAA, a path forward

A topic I have a feeling that will get addressed again and again will be what the future could and should look like for model aviation.  How do we, as pilots find our place in the sky?  Though I am usually a law and order type of guy I don't think additional laws that are complex in nature would be useful.

The issues with non-compliance laws

If the FAA decides to enact laws that are widely ignored they will do more harm than good.   Once people start to believe that the FAA is an organization that you don't need to take seriously, the FAA will have a harder time establishing trust in the  RC community in the future.  Worse yet, they will become increasingly skeptical of the risks of flying well into controlled airspace.   The FAA doesn't have the manpower to go out and extensively enforce drone laws with the hobbyists.  Relying on local police agencies to do this for them also won't work.  Thus, part of the 'secret sauce' of successful drone laws is cooperation from the hobbyist community. There has to be trust, and it has to be a 2-way street.

CBO's as enforcement?

One thing that I heard from an FAA investigator which was interesting was that they were looking for community-based organizations (CBO)  to help them regulate the sky.  This particular investigator felt that certain CBO's in the General Aviation community did an outstanding job  So, they are somewhat expecting the same thing from the model aviation community.  Organizing people who mostly fly out of general aviation airports and who are not only known by the FAA but licensed by them is easier than licensing UAV pilots. We can fly just about anywhere and there is an ever-growing diversity in what we fly.

 How many RC pilots are out there?

The first question is, how many of us are there?   How many people own something that can fly regardless if it has been flown recently?  I would dare to guess that it's one in 10 Americans or nearly 33 million people.  Of that 33 million if we were to figure out the number of people who have flown something for 2 or more hours in the past year, I'd say that it's 20?% of that number or around 6 million people.   These numbers are much larger than the 200,000 members of the AMA and 800,000 American followers of Flite Test. Checking the total number from drone units sold doesn't tell the whole story, nor do statistics from the AMA or FAA.   So, six million pilots is a conservative estimate.   If a number of factors work out, I can easily see our numbers grow from 2% of the US population to 4% over the next decade.   We'll never be a truly mainstream hobby.  But, there are enough of us to make the insurance industry take notice.

Insurance companies as an intermediary?

The issue becomes that we're literally spread out all over the place, by age, location and interest.  Addressing us will be very difficult.    The one thing that may appeal to hobbyists is insurance.  This is of concern to the cities that host drone pilots as well. The cities don't want to be on the hook for any accidents.  If we had insurance companies taking the lead, it would help the FAA.   The insurance companies could spend more time analyzing the risks and assigning insurance based on factors to a degree that the FAA wouldn't care to delve into.  Premiums would be based on what you fly and where you fly.

Data analytics for risk assignment

The problem becomes that there are far too many aircraft types to rate them all by simple factors such as size and weight.  Insurance companies would have a financial interest in sorting this out.  They could assign risk factors and frankly describe what they will and won't insure.  A ten-pound long-range FPV plane may not be insured within the city.   If you choose to fly it, you'll be responsible for the damages.

Simple an inexpensive black box recorders could record the time, duration  coordinates and if a barometer is added, the altitude and speed of the flight. These could be mass-produced for not too much money and kept small enough to work on most UAV with the possible exception of a 3" quad.    In order to work, there needs to be a real-world analysis of how pilots truly fly.  Insurance companies as an intermediary would be a safer bet.  I think pilots would feel safer sharing information with an insurance agency than with the FAA.

The insurance companies would randomly ask for BlackBox readings from their customers on an ongoing basis and look at all the factors.  In order for a UAV to be insurable, it would have to have recorders that are always working.  A UAV that gets in an accident without a functioning BlackBox recorder wouldn't be insured.

People would be assigned risk factors based on age, location,  what they are flying, and previous flight analysis.


How we would work with the insurance companies.

In order to fly in the United States you would either have to post a bond or have insurance.  There would be a $10 premium for the lowest level of insurance.  It would have a $5000 deductible but would be a basic liability insurance product with fairly low caps such as $100,000.,  To get this insurance all you need to do is breathe and pay $10.   There would be no black box requirements and you would be insured for UAVs up to 1 lb. The caveat is that you would only be eligible for this for the first six months.  After this time, if you're still flying you would have to get on 'The Program.'

The Program

The Program would be about education and compliance.  In order to be insured to fly certain UAVs you would need to earn it.  If you would like to break the rules at least you won't be able to plead ignorance.  The idea would be to get us to a certain level of compliance where the insurance companies feel we're a safe risk and the FAA would feel that they would need to mitigate the risks of the hobby with more disproportionate laws.

Instead of making up a series of meaningless hoops to jump through the tests would be correlated to real-world data analysis from other pilots flying aircraft in the same class.  But what would make the most sense is that people would work their way up from smaller, lighter UAVs and with enough flight hours they would be eligible to start testing for larger and more elaborate UAVs.  There may be some more hardware requirements as they move into more sophisticated systems.

Remote ID

Remote ID has to be part of any solution we think of with the FAA.     I don't believe every UAV needs to be registered with the government.   All that is needed is something that blasts out a low power signal so that can be picked up by radio two kilometers away.   It would shout out a serial number, the serial number would shared with the the insurance company and the FAA.  The pilot could have the option of moving the radio beacon from UAV to UAV.  If they are cheap enough they would be permanently mounted on each UAV.  It would be nice if there was an option to have them stay alart after the UAV is powered off and allow the pilots the ability to track lost UAVs.

The idea would be that instead of broadcasting GPS coordinates an approaching UAV could detect signal strength  as it approaches and figure out how to stay clear  of the  UAV..   This should be more than good enough to meet FAA requirements. Canadian Geese are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the UAVs flown.  And they don' broadcast any signals.

Higher risk ventures

We have to be realistic in the respect that UAVs do have needs to enter controlled airspace.  Instead of pretending this doesn't happen why not layout the groundwork to make it safe?  If an insurance company would insure a flight into controlled airspace, it means they have confidence in the pilot and the systems in place to be okay with it.    This should be good enough for the FAA.   Instead of applying for waivers from the FAA the paperwork would go through the insurance company.  There may be an additional premium attatched to the evemt which would include any fees to the FAA for entering the controlled airspace. The UAV would also need to provide a signal strong enough to be picked up by the local air traffic control and the pilot would need to be in radio (or phone) contact with the tower.

Media and associated stringers would have special Remote IDs that would have their phone numbers also broadcast. Often times they would be in areas where first responders are working and they would need the ability to quickly communicate with the pilots.

Emergency alert

What would be benificial is for the FAA to devise a system advising pilots of a pending emergency in the area and to bring down our UAVs.  It would most likely be incorporated into flight systems in the future but,  in the meantime, it would be great to use as a phone app.


Pilot card

This wouldn't be a formal recognization from the FAA but it would serve to show your local police that you're insured to fly.  The card would have a QR code where the police could log onto the insurance company's website and go right to your profile. The police can list any issues that they have.  This would save the paperwork of dealing with the FAA and allow the police an avenue to moderate conduct.   If a pilot racks up a certain number of complaints in a year's time they may get their pilot's card suspended.

Legal Representation

Part of the insurance would be a certain amount of legal representation.   It may be the in-house counsel for the insurance company that would help advise you on your legal rights and point out how to get more legal representation should you need it.

Non-Compliance

Make insurance mandatory.  If a pilot flies rarely or in areas that wouldn't get noticed then they may wish to push their luck.  Instead of steep fines the violating pilot once caught could sign up for insurance and complete some mandatory, online education.

Interfacing with the FAA

The FAA could not simply ask for all the pilots who flew over 400 feet in the previous year so that they can hand out fines.  But, if there was an investigation occurring the FAA could request data. for specific instances from the insurance companies.

The other benefit would be that the insurance companies could be in contact with the FAA  and discuss the entire subject of UAV flights in the United States.  Two things to keep in mind.

#1.  The insurance companies would have better data on UAVs than the FAA.   One of the issues we're having is that politicians are editorializing our existence and we have very little data to back up our case.

#2.  You need to have an advocate who needs to have a financial interest in your existence.   The AMA was supposed to be that advocate for us.  But, they truly represent just one small and getting ever smaller segment of the entire UAV flying population.  They have a financial interest in more of us joining their club fields.   There are a fair number of people who want to advocate on behalf of the hobby and seem invested.  But, when push comes to shove they are advocating for their segment of the hobby.   What could end up happening is that the  FAA may end up dealing with dozens of different advocates who all want a voice in policy.

Final thoughts

There is a large enough base of pilots for insurance to be a lucrative thing for at least a couple of insurance companies.  The insurance company can act like a buffer between us and the FAA.   I do believe that most UAV pilots would like to help keep the skies safe and don't want to cause problems or damage.  We have a safe hobby with relatively few problems. This is the type of thing that insurance companies would love to insure because we'd be a great source of revenue.  The FAA would breathe easier knowing that they wouldn't have to rethink the rules every few years to address a rapidly changing hobby.  We can grow the hobby and keep the skies safe even in the era of changing technology that creates more air traffic.

What I have presented is fairly simple. I don't suspect it's the ultimate solution,. but hopefully gives a few idea about how to move forward and perhaps lead the way for better ideas.

FAA Conspiracy Theory