This Fireworks Drone Is Awesome”“and Illegal

An amazing video of eye-level fireworks violates several regulations.

National Journal
Alex Brown
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Alex Brown
July 7, 2014, 1:49 p.m.

The coolest video of this Fourth of Ju­ly week­end also hap­pens to be il­leg­al, thanks to fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions that lim­it the use of small air­craft.

Jos Stiglingh’s drone-shot video of a fire­works show cap­tured mil­lions of views as awed watch­ers took in the up-close-and-per­son­al look of the col­or­ful ex­plo­sions. Sparks and smoke whizzed by the cam­era, at­tached to a small, four-ro­tor drone.

But this post-va­ca­tion Monday’s back-to-real­ity mo­ment in­cludes a re­mind­er that drone pi­lots face strict lim­its on how they op­er­ate their air­craft.

While it’s un­clear how high Stiglingh’s drone flew, the FAA lim­its the air­craft to be­low 400 feet.

Joe Rozzi, vice pres­id­ent of Ohio-based Rozzi Fire­works, said he had seen the video and es­tim­ated a show of that nature has shells ex­plod­ing about 500 feet in the air (at times, the drone ap­peared to be above the level of those ex­plo­sions). “I’m sur­prised the drone didn’t get taken out of the sky,” he said. “I thought it was neat.”

However, Con­gress has carved out some ex­emp­tions to the FAA’s abil­ity to reg­u­late “mod­el air­craft” weigh­ing less than 55 pounds. This only ap­plies to re­cre­ation­al flights, and it’s un­clear if Stiglingh’s flight meets this cri­ter­ia. But the 400-foot ceil­ing isn’t the only reg­u­la­tion pi­lots have to worry about.

When Con­gress gave great­er lee­way to mod­el air­planes, it also dir­ec­ted they had to be flown in the line of sight of their op­er­at­or. It’s im­plaus­ible that Stiglingh’s na­ked eye could keep watch on his drone, hun­dreds of feet in the air, at night, in the midst of near-con­stant ex­plo­sions.

Mod­el air­craft pi­lots must also alert air traffic con­trol­lers when they fly with­in five miles of air­ports. It ap­pears the fire­works show was well with­in that range of Palm Beach In­ter­na­tion­al Air­port. Stiglingh hasn’t spe­cified if he ob­tained clear­ance.

In ad­di­tion, the agency says drones should be flown away from pop­u­lated areas. A fire­works show, along with the in­ev­it­able crowds it draws, is un­likely to meet that de­scrip­tion.

The FAA’s rules also pro­hib­it “care­less or reck­less” fly­ing of air­craft; it’s prob­ably not a stretch to say zoom­ing through ex­plod­ing shells could fall un­der that cat­egory. If a rock­et were to strike the drone and veer off course, it could pose haz­ards to people nearby.

Along with the FAA rules, the Coast Guard had also es­tab­lished guidelines for the West Palm Beach, Fla., show, ban­ning any “vehicle, ves­sel, or ob­ject” in des­ig­nated safety zones near the fire­works.

Stiglingh would also face trouble if he tried to use his drone foot­age for profit. Com­mer­cial drones are cur­rently banned by the FAA.

The video — and the FAA’s re­sponse — il­lus­trate a grow­ing prob­lem for the agency. While drone tech­no­logy be­comes more and more ac­cess­ible, most am­a­teur pi­lots don’t have a full aware­ness of the agency’s policies. As such, the agency has been hes­it­ant to pun­ish users who vi­ol­ate its rules (in the com­mer­cial sphere, it’s only tried to pro­sec­ute one vi­ol­at­or so far, while many more have got­ten away with warn­ings — and free pub­li­city).

As a res­ult, the FAA is stuck play­ing reg­u­lat­ory Whac-A-Mole, wait­ing for vi­ol­at­ors to post videos of their ex­ploits and then swoop­ing in to tell them not to do it again. It would be im­possible to mon­it­or or pre­dict every drone activ­ity, and the FAA lacks the re­sources to po­lice all likely drone hot­spots.

For now, the FAA’s best course of ac­tion seems to be to bet­ter edu­cate the pub­lic on its rules — and hope grow­ing aware­ness keeps fli­ers out of trouble spots. The agency did not re­spond to re­quests for com­ment.

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
3 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
3 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login