The Professional Society of Drone Journalists 2001 Sheffield Road Oklahoma City, OK 73210 Dronejournalism.org

April 24, 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

Docket Operations M-30

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590-0001

ATTN: Docket No. FAA-2015-0150

Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Professional Society of Drone Journalists (PSDJ) represents the interests of more than 450

reporters, photographers, educators, engineers, and other small unmanned aircraft operators who

currently are or are working to augment free speech rights by using small unmanned aircraft

systems for journalistic purposes. Our organization has members in more than 37 countries,

including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, all of which

currently have regulations that make news coverage with UAS possible.

Founded in 2011, the bylaws of this organization give the PSDJ the mission of “Fostering the

development and safe operation of unmanned vehicles for journalistic purposes,” “Furthering the

adoption of unmanned vehicles by the press through education, outreach, and promotion,” and

“Advocating freedom of responsible and ethical use of unmanned vehicles by journalists.”

Whereas the FAA’s current policies greatly inhibit the ability for our members in the US to fly

and gather news in the public interest, the PSDJ previously commented on rules regarding hobby

(or “model”) aircraft (docket number FAA-2014-0396). The PSDJ also is internationally

recognized as having expert knowledge on the intersection of unmanned systems and press

freedoms, having been called on by the United Kingdom’s House of Lords Subcommittee on the

EU Internal Market, Infrastructure, and Employment to submit evidence on civilian use of drone

aircraft in the European Union.

Therefore we, the undersigned officer and board members of the PSDJ, are compelled to

comment on the proposed rules for small unmanned aircraft systems in the United States. We

appreciate the opportunity to comment, and thank the Federal Aviation Administration for its

hard work in producing the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking.

Summary

Broadly, the proposed rules for small unmanned aircraft systems presented by the Federal

Aviation Administration are sensible regulations that will open the skies to small UAS in a

responsible manner, and are a welcomed departure from existing policy.

First and foremost, if this rulemaking is promulgated, small unmanned aircraft operators will no

longer be required to obtain a private pilot’s license, as it is currently required for operators

working under existing Section 333 exemptions. This requirement is unreasonably expensive and

unnecessary, as a private pilot’s license is no indication of proficiency in operating small

unmanned aircraft systems.

Additionally, the regulations avoid expensive and burdensome airworthiness certification of

unmanned aircraft under 55 pounds. At the same time, the FAA holds the operator responsible

for keeping the aircraft in good condition, and for registering the aircraft, thus providing essential

avenues for accountability.

However, there are additional rules contained in the NPRM that are not as reasonable, and may

continue to restrict journalists, other members of the press, and citizens from using small

unmanned aircraft systems to conduct newsgathering on essential public events. Among these

restrictions is the age requirement for operators, which will exclude many young individuals

from educational experiences, or from carrying out invaluable newsgathering.

We note that many of these issues may be resolved by the creation of a micro UAS class, which

would have reduced restrictions but still would not compromise the safety of the NAS or of

people on the ground.

Specific Comments

III Discussion of the proposal

D. Operating rules

1. Micro UAS classification

A micro UAS category, defined as UAS weighing less than 2 kilograms, is proposed in the sUAS

NPRM. The proposed rules for micro UAS are very similar to the small UAS rules in Canada

and Australia, which are widely regarded as having the best balance of rules. PSDJ members in

those countries have reported that the rules there are not overly restrictive, and that existing rules

allow for a wide range of safe journalism operations. But this is only thanks to lighter restrictions

for micro UAS.

The FAA announced intent to set the minimum age for small UAS operators at 18. This

minimum age requirement would prevent a number of young journalists from using UAS, either

in high school or college programs. However the micro UAS classification provides a means for

younger operators to both learn about UAS and potentially serve their communities, because it

appears to have no such age requirements.

There is a great difference in the kinetic energy of a 55 pound drone travelling at 100 miles per

hour, and a 4.4 pound drone travelling at 100 miles per hour, and so it is appropriate that there is

a smaller class with fewer restrictions to match the reduced risks of micro aircraft. However, the

requirement that the micro UAS be made out of “frangible material” is confusing and

unnecessary. Firstly, there is no definition provided by the FAA of what constitutes as a

“frangible material,” other than they are made of materials that “break, distort, or yield on impact

so as to present a minimal hazard to any person or object” in the event of collision.

Examples are given such as breakable plastic, paper, wood, and foam. But this is not a very

scientific definition, and no engineering specifications or parameters are provided that would

help in deciphering the real meaning of “frangible.” It is unknown whether materials such as

carbon fiber composites, which may greatly improve the flight dynamics and therefore the safety

of operating micro UAS, would be allowed under this rule. Additionally, banning the use of non-

frangible components on the aircraft could prevent the use of sensors, camera gimbals, power

supplies, solar arrays, and other mission-critical electronic devices.

In Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conducted its own investigation of sub 2-

kilogram micro UAS, which analyzed risk based on kinetic energy and not frangibility. In an

NPRM for its CASR Part 101 regulations, CASA wrote that the “general consensus is that RPA

with a gross weight of 2 kilograms and below have a very low kinetic energy, pose very little

risk to aviation and have a low potential for harm to people and property on the ground and other

airspace users.”

Thus, frangibility requirement for micro UAS should be removed, as it invites confusion, puts

the US out of step with the international aviation community, and unfairly restricts the use of

more advanced materials that improve operational capabilities and safety of operation.

2. Operator and Visual Observer

The FAA has requested comment on whether visual observers should be required to stand close

enough to the visual operator to allow for unassisted verbal communication. This same section

notes that communication-assisting devices such as radios can facilitate communication over a

distance, thereby extending the range where a visual observer may be placed. Because no units

of measurement are given, and as hearing ability may vary from operator to operator, it may be

difficult for operators to determine whether they are within the regulations.

By allowing radios and similar devices to be used in a sUAS operation, operations can be made

safer, as these devices can ensure communication over distance. For example, if a pilot and a

visual observer were operating in a relatively quiet outdoor space that allowed for verbal

communication, and an unexpected motorcycle, automobile, or industrial process made a loud

noise that suddenly prevented accurate verbal communication, a radio could ensure the sUAS

ground crew were still in compliance with regulations.

The FAA is correct in its estimation that certification of visual observers would not result in a

significant safety benefit. Such a requirement would be overly burdensome and expensive, and

would prevent many journalists from providing an important service to the public. The only

requirement for visual observers should be that they are capable of visually observing the sUAS

and are capable of communicating with the pilot in command. As states require visual tests in

order to obtain a driver’s license, a driver’s license should provide evidence that the visual

observer is capable of observing the sUAS at a distance.

3. See-and-Avoid and Visibility Requirements

Additional visibility requirements in the NPRM state that a sUAS must be no less than 500 feet

below clouds and 2,000 feet horizontal from clouds. This would render many types of storm and

weather coverage impossible, along with many research projects that aim to use sUAS to study

atmospheric phenomena (for example the Storm Penetrating Air Vehicles project at Oklahoma

State University).

The FAA has acknowledged in its NPRM that UAS may replace high-risk manned flights, “such

as inspecting towers, bridges, or other structures.” Likewise, storm analysis and coverage also is

recognized as a high-risk activity. UAS could increase the distance between dangerous storms,

and the meteorologists, scientists, and journalists who study and report on them, but only if the

final regulations remove the cloud distance requirements.

4. Containment and Loss of Positive Control

Given the difference in size between a 4.4-pound aircraft and a 55 pound aircraft, it is difficult to

say what would be an appropriate numerical distance to limit sUAS operations. A 55-pound

aircraft may be visible from a much longer range than a 4.4-pound aircraft.

Additionally, it is understood that there currently is an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARC) dedicated to working on rules for Beyond Visual Line of Sight operations

(BVLOS), which should in time result in an NPRM for UAS flights that go beyond visual range.

Those BVLOS rules should determine the distance at which additional restrictions should follow,

not the general sUAS regulations defined in the NPRM.

With regard to operating the sUAS from a moving vehicle, it is the experience of PSDJ members

that piloting the unmanned aircraft from a car or boat takes additional skill beyond the typical

UAS pilot. There are increased risks when operating from a moving platform, and this type of

operation should not be permitted without special training and safeguards.

The 500-foot ceiling is appropriate for sUAS, because as the FAA has stated, most manned

aircraft operations must fly above 500 feet AGL over uncongested areas. The airspace where

journalists seek to use unmanned aircraft is airspace where manned aircraft are mostly not

allowed to fly. But it is also important to point out that buildings may exceed 500 feet, and in

those instances, pilots of manned aircraft are expected to fly at least 1,000 feet above the tallest

obstacle, and outside of a 2,000-foot radius from the obstacle (14 CFR 91.119). That airspace

above and around buildings, too, should be considered to be in the domain of legal sUAS

operations.

E. Operator Certificate

The NPRM outlines what would be contained within the knowledge test that sUAS operators

would be required to pass. There are ten core competencies required to pass the knowledge test:

1) knowledge of the regulations, 2) classification of airspace, 4) flight restrictions, 5) weather

and micrometeorology, 6) calculating weight and balance of sUAS as it relates to aircraft

performance, 7) emergency response, 8) aeronautical decision-making and crew resource

management, 9) understanding of airport operations and radio communications procedures, and

10) understanding the physiological effects of drugs and alcohol.

These are important concepts for a sUAS pilot to understand, and encompasses all the relevant

knowledge to safely operate sUAS. As long as the specific questions are catered towards

operators who seek to use unmanned aircraft under 55 pounds, this should be an appropriate

examination.

Importantly, this is knowledge that can be gained from independent study, which keeps the cost

down for independent journalists and those without large news organizations to support their

professional development. And because this is knowledge that can be gained from independent

study, the FAA should neither mandate nor certify any training program.

Given how reporters and journalists may be situated all over the country, and not always in a

convenient distance from the nearest FAA testing location, the knowledge test should also be

given online. This would reduce the cost of travel for reporters, and also would reduce

scheduling conflicts. The FAA asked for comment on whether any recurrent knowledge test

should also be administered online, and indeed there should be an opportunity for recurrent tests

to be taken online.

IV Regulatory Notices and Analyses 4. Benefit Summary

In its proposed sUAS rules, the FAA notes that many new industries could be created, and that

there are real safety benefits to using sUAS. The FAA mentions aerial photography in the

proposed rules, but one of the new fields that could be created is “drone journalism,” or news

reporting that utilizes small unmanned aircraft to gather images, video, and other type of

information to augment news reporting.

Currently, news stations with the financial means may operate or contract the use of (manned)

helicopters to help inform the public on a number of topics, from ordinary traffic reports, to life-

endangering situations such as natural and man-made disasters. This is not without considerable

risk, as evidenced by the KOMO-TV news helicopter crash in March of 2014, and the midair

collision between two news helicopters above Phoenix, Arizona in 2007. Many more examples

exist of such dangerous incidents, and removing barriers for news stations to use sUAS for

reporting will reduce the need for manned flights in the future.

The FAA requested in its NPRM that commenters provide data that could further illustrate the

economic benefits of sUAS. The PSDJ requests that the FAA also consider that many benefits

are not so easily tallied in terms of money – such as the ability of an empowered, professional

press to provide valuable news and information to American citizens, aided by small UAS.

Conclusion

The sUAS NPRM is an important step to opening the United States to small unmanned aircraft

systems. These tools may quickly become essential to news reporting, as they can increase the

distance between reporters and dangerous situations, may reduce the number of manned

helicopters operating in the NAS, and can shed light on essential issues and events in America.

There are some rules contained in the rulemaking, however, that would make certain types of

operations difficult or impossible. For the reasons discussed above, we, the undersigned officer

and board members of the PSDJ, urge the FAA to consider our recommendations involving

micro UAS frangible materials, visual observers, see-and-avoid requirements, and operator

certification.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your work towards expanding the opportunities

for journalists to use UAS in the United States.

Respectfully,

Matthew Schroyer

Founder, President

Faine Greenwood

Board Member

Parker Gyokeres

Board Member