The Experts below are selected from a list of 6 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Albert J. Plawinski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Making civilian drones safe: performance Standards, self-certification, and post-sale data collection
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 2016
    Co-Authors: Henry H. Perritt, Albert J. Plawinski
    Abstract:

    I. INTRODUCTION¶1 The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") acknowledges that its traditional processes for assuring the safety of airplanes and helicopters are unsuitable for the growing number of small drones:[T]he FAA's current processes for issuing Airworthiness . . . Certificates were designed to be used for manned aircraft and do not take into account the considerations associated with civil small UAS [Unmanned Aircraft Systems] . . . .[O]btaining a type Certificate and a Standard Airworthiness Certificate . . . currently takes about 3 to 5 years . . . . [I]t is not practically feasible for many small UAS manufacturers to go through the certification process required of manned aircraft. This is because small UAS technology is rapidly evolving at this time, and consequently, if a small UAS manufacturer goes through a 3-to-5-year process to obtain a type Certificate, which enables the issuance of a Standard Airworthiness Certificate, the small UAS would be technologically outdated by the time it completed the certification process. For example, advances in lightweight battery technology may allow new lightweight transponders and power sources within the next 3 to 5 years that are currently unavailable for small UAS operations.1¶2 Some advocates for traditional aviation and engineers of $15 million military drones2 sneer at small UAS as "toys,"3 but Amazon sold 300,000 small civilian drones in 2014.4 More than 2,000 purchasers have gone to the trouble of filing petitions with the FAA, under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ("Section 333"),5 for exemptions to permit them to fly the drones commercially, and the FAA has granted more than 2,000 Section 333 exemptions.6 These exemptions cover, among other things, support for precision agriculture, motion picture and television production, event photography, newsgathering, and infrastructure inspection.7 The market for drones is outrunning regulation, despite broad agreement that some kind of regulation is appropriate to mitigate the risks associated with widespread use of drones. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7¶3 On July 9, 2014, Modovolate Aviation8 filed a petition for rulemaking with the FAA proposing that the FAA streamline the regulation of microdrones by imposing pre-sale technology requirements that would make the drones law-abiding right out of the box, obviating the need for detailed conventional operating rules and pilot certification requirements.9 Eight months later, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("NPRM"),10 proposing a new part 107 to the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") that would establish operating rules and a new category of airman certification for drone operators ("DROPs"). Subsequently, in a series of articles, the managers of Modovolate Aviation explained how the law-abiding-drone approach fits within the overarching regulatory regime proposed in the NPRM.11¶4 A lingering question is how the law-abiding-drone proposal can be implemented without imposing requirements that suffer from the vices of traditional Airworthiness and type certification. This article addresses that question.¶5 It argues that the FAA can specify the characteristics of a law-abiding drone by imposing performance requirements regarding autonomous safety features, allowing self-certification of compliance by drone vendors, and by making use of the extensive flight and system-performance data already being collected in thousands of microdrone flights. Performance Standards alone, however, are not enough. The FAA might still require preapproval before sale premised on the vendors demonstrating that performance Standards are satisfied. Similarly, self-certification by vendors is not enough; test protocols to ensure satisfaction of the performance Standards may be so extensive that substantial cost and delay would result before the vendor can certify compliance.¶6 The FAA should, following the example of the FCC, prohibit sale of any drone for which the vendor has not issued a Certificate of conformity. …

Henry H. Perritt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Making civilian drones safe: performance Standards, self-certification, and post-sale data collection
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 2016
    Co-Authors: Henry H. Perritt, Albert J. Plawinski
    Abstract:

    I. INTRODUCTION¶1 The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") acknowledges that its traditional processes for assuring the safety of airplanes and helicopters are unsuitable for the growing number of small drones:[T]he FAA's current processes for issuing Airworthiness . . . Certificates were designed to be used for manned aircraft and do not take into account the considerations associated with civil small UAS [Unmanned Aircraft Systems] . . . .[O]btaining a type Certificate and a Standard Airworthiness Certificate . . . currently takes about 3 to 5 years . . . . [I]t is not practically feasible for many small UAS manufacturers to go through the certification process required of manned aircraft. This is because small UAS technology is rapidly evolving at this time, and consequently, if a small UAS manufacturer goes through a 3-to-5-year process to obtain a type Certificate, which enables the issuance of a Standard Airworthiness Certificate, the small UAS would be technologically outdated by the time it completed the certification process. For example, advances in lightweight battery technology may allow new lightweight transponders and power sources within the next 3 to 5 years that are currently unavailable for small UAS operations.1¶2 Some advocates for traditional aviation and engineers of $15 million military drones2 sneer at small UAS as "toys,"3 but Amazon sold 300,000 small civilian drones in 2014.4 More than 2,000 purchasers have gone to the trouble of filing petitions with the FAA, under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ("Section 333"),5 for exemptions to permit them to fly the drones commercially, and the FAA has granted more than 2,000 Section 333 exemptions.6 These exemptions cover, among other things, support for precision agriculture, motion picture and television production, event photography, newsgathering, and infrastructure inspection.7 The market for drones is outrunning regulation, despite broad agreement that some kind of regulation is appropriate to mitigate the risks associated with widespread use of drones. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7¶3 On July 9, 2014, Modovolate Aviation8 filed a petition for rulemaking with the FAA proposing that the FAA streamline the regulation of microdrones by imposing pre-sale technology requirements that would make the drones law-abiding right out of the box, obviating the need for detailed conventional operating rules and pilot certification requirements.9 Eight months later, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking ("NPRM"),10 proposing a new part 107 to the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") that would establish operating rules and a new category of airman certification for drone operators ("DROPs"). Subsequently, in a series of articles, the managers of Modovolate Aviation explained how the law-abiding-drone approach fits within the overarching regulatory regime proposed in the NPRM.11¶4 A lingering question is how the law-abiding-drone proposal can be implemented without imposing requirements that suffer from the vices of traditional Airworthiness and type certification. This article addresses that question.¶5 It argues that the FAA can specify the characteristics of a law-abiding drone by imposing performance requirements regarding autonomous safety features, allowing self-certification of compliance by drone vendors, and by making use of the extensive flight and system-performance data already being collected in thousands of microdrone flights. Performance Standards alone, however, are not enough. The FAA might still require preapproval before sale premised on the vendors demonstrating that performance Standards are satisfied. Similarly, self-certification by vendors is not enough; test protocols to ensure satisfaction of the performance Standards may be so extensive that substantial cost and delay would result before the vendor can certify compliance.¶6 The FAA should, following the example of the FCC, prohibit sale of any drone for which the vendor has not issued a Certificate of conformity. …

Gilbert, Jacqueline A. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Summary of Griffin v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 42
    Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Law, 2006
    Co-Authors: Gilbert, Jacqueline A.
    Abstract:

    Appellant Griffin, after sustaining severe personal injuries when a plane piloted by Kevin Jensen crashed into Griffin’s yard, sued Jensen in Nevada state court. Jensen carried an Old Republic Insurance Company aviation policy for the plane. The Old Republic aviation insurance application contained a clause, which Jensen initialed, stating that the aircraft would not be covered “unless a Standard Airworthiness Certificate is in full force and effect.” Further, the policy excluded coverage when “the Airworthiness Certificate of the aircraft is not in full force and effect” or when “the aircraft has not been subjected to the appropriate Airworthiness inspection(s) as required under current applicable Federal Air Regulations for the operations involved.” When Jensen purchased the policy he possessed a current Airworthiness Certificate. However, at the time of the crash, the Airworthiness Certificate had lapsed. Old Republic sought declaratory judgment in United States District Court of the District of Nevada claiming it had no obligation to pay damages to either Griffin or Jensen because the policy expressly excluded coverage without a current Airworthiness Certificate. Griffin maintained that Old Republic should not be able to avoid liability because no causal relationship existed between the lapse in the Certificate and the loss incurred. The federal district court granted summary judgment to Old Republic because Nevada law did not require a causal relationship between the exclusion clause and the loss. Griffin appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit submitted a certified question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court, which this opinion addressed