Regulation vs. Innovation - Scalability for Drone and Air Taxi Companies
Navigating air rights and shooting drones
Thank you to all my readers. Those of you who have been asking about your air rights and how www.skytrades.io can help please email me jonathan@skytrades.io and I would be happy to help. Enjoy this weeks newsletter. Thanks
Drone companies have been striving to achieve operational scalability for over a decade, with venture capital funds typically seeking timely exits within that timeframe. Their promise has not been realised in the West, yet.
What are the bottlenecks?
Flying too close to the sun
In the annals of Greek mythology, the tale of Icarus serves as an informative narrative that has resonated down the ages. Icarus, the offspring of the ingenious Daedalus, takes centre stage. Trapped on the isle of Crete under the gaze of King Minos, father and son seek an escape from their confinement, stuck on the ground. Daedalus employing his formidable talents, fashions a pair of wings using feathers and wax, giving them the ability to fly.
Daedalus warns his son of two perils that await him: the blistering heat of the sun, capable of liquefying the wax securing the feathers, and the dampness of the snot green sea, whose relentless moisture threatens to weigh down the wings. The warm embrace of the sun and the thrill of flight mean Icarus throws caution to the wind.
With an irrepressible desire to ascend ever higher, Icarus defies his father embarking on a daring ascent towards the sun. As the sun's relentless heat melts the wax that bound the wings, the feathers give way, betrayed by the force of gravity Icarus plunges into the watery depths of the soon to be named, Icarian Sea
While some see the tale as a reason to tread more carefully, the reality is to know what forces can be tamed and what ones can not. After all physics can be understood. Regulations can be changed, often they are not, but keeping the ones in place that melt the wax on our wings stunts all our growth. The act of flight is the desire for freedom and an escape from constraints.
However we have regulators that have taken the tale of Icarus to mean they are to be our father. The cautionary side of Daedalus, protecting us from ourselves not the side that is crafting new ways for us to fly. Their default is not to promote innovation as innovation is risk but to encourage compliance with whatever Frankensteinian monster of regulatory framework is in place, good bad or indifferent.
A cursory glance shows that over the last 50 years thousands of new laws and regulations have come to pass and hardly any removed. So many new laws are passed in fact we need hundreds of thousands of people to dream them up, armies to advocate for them and then crowds to police them. This is all leading to paralysis when it comes to any real level of ground breaking transportation innovation.
When a ground breaking innovation does arrive, regardless of your personal feelings it’s shut down or regulated into obscurity. From new banks and new currencies to nuclear energy and new cities. Low emission flying cars and skies with drones taking care of everyday needs like food and medicine delivery is tantalisingly close, we must not let more regulation strangle us.
Do people care about their air rights?
Over the years, a series of incidents involving the shooting down of drones has raised questions about low altitude air rights, how they can be used and by who. The lack of clarity is the cause of many of the problems.
In Pennsylvania shooters at a local hunt club targeted a drone flown by an animal rights group. The activists aimed to draw attention to pigeon shooting, but this marked the fourth time their drone had been shot down. No criminal charges were filed in this incident. In New Jersey in 2014, a man shot down a drone he pleaded guilty to criminal mischief. Another incident occurred in Pennsylvania, where an unidentified person shot a drone flying at an altitude of 390 feet. Although the drone sustained damage, it managed to land safely. The shooter's identity remains unknown, as the drone operator contacted state police but did not file a complaint.
In Modesto, California, an incident took place where a man allegedly instructed his minor son to shoot down his neighbour's drone. The drone was destroyed, and the neighbour, claiming that the drone was not over the man's property, won $850 in small claims court for damages and costs. Had the drone been confirmed as over his property the outcome would have been very different.
In Kentucky William Meredith became annoyed by a drone flying over his backyard while he was enjoying a grilling session with friends. Frustrated, he decided to take matters into his own hands and shot the drone when it crossed over his property. The drone's owner, a neighbour, promptly called the police upon discovering the destroyed device. Meredith was arrested and faced charges under local law for firing a gun in a populated area.
During the subsequent trial, the judge dismissed the charges, citing the invasion of privacy as justification for Meredith's actions.
In Oklahoma, a woman shot down a drone flown by a construction company employee who was inspecting gutters in the neighbourhood. Although the police investigated the case, they announced that they did not expect to file charges. In Colorado a shooter downed a drone. It remains unclear whether the drone was above the shooter's property. The pilot reported the incident to local police and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but the identity of the shooter remains a mystery.
In Virginia a woman allegedly used her 20-gauge shotgun to shoot down a drone. She claimed that the drone was hovering 25 to 30 feet above her property in her air space. The two drone operators left the scene upon being notified that the police were being called, and no charges were filed.
In Florida, an individual reportedly attempted to shoot down a neighbour's drone with a handgun. The man claimed that the drone was hovering just a few feet above the ground on his property. The police intervened, cautioning the man about the dangers and legal risks associated with shooting down drones. No charges were ultimately filed.
In Long Island, New York, where a man allegedly used a shotgun to shoot down a drone being used by an animal rescue group in search of a lost dog. As with previous cases, it remains uncertain whether the drone was flying over the man's property. Consequently, he faced charges of third-degree criminal mischief and prohibited use of a weapon.
These incidents highlight the diverse range of situations and legal outcomes surrounding the shooting down of drones. What is crystal clear is people care deeply about their air rights. The need for the property owners air rights to be defined in order to give them the opportunity to approve the air spaces use or not is vital for the eco-system. www.skytrades.io
Writing papers and making rules
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently taken a step forward in the development of air taxis by releasing the hotly anticipated Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM). This document focuses on pilot certification and the operation of powered-lift aircraft, which are capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low-speed flight. The FAA recognises the potential of powered-lift aircraft in various applications such as offshore transportation, air ambulance services, and urban air taxi operations where they will enter private air spaces..
To ensure the safe integration of powered-lift aircraft into the national airspace system, regulatory changes are necessary. The NPRM proposes a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) for ten years, which includes modified pilot certification rules and the establishment of a qualification pathway. The FAA envisions a system where powered-lift aircraft manufacturers' pilots serve as flight instructors. Operational rules would draw from helicopter and airplane regulations to accommodate the unique characteristics of powered-lift aircraft.
One fly in the ointment is most of the eVTOL manufacturers have only one seat for a pilot (if any) so where is the instructor going to sit? Maybe the FAA should have talked to them, but as they were busy regulating and writing the over 500 page paper they may not have had the time.
It suggests limiting preventative maintenance to remote areas within Part 135 operations and requiring Part 91 operators to inspect critical parts rather than complying with current Part 43 requirements. The NPRM does not introduce new type certification requirements for powered-lift aircraft.
One in a billion
Adam Goldstein, CEO of Archer Aviation, expressed concerns in the FT that EASA's regulations would make it exceedingly difficult to bring electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft to the market in Europe. The EASA's approach emphasizes high safety standards similar to those for large commercial jetliners, with a target of one catastrophic failure per one billion flight hours.
Archer Aviation went public in 2021 and has a market capitalisation of approximately $800 million. While EASA has published formal guidance for eVTOLs, other regulators, like the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have yet to establish a standard. The FAA is expected to set a target safety level of one catastrophic failure per 10 million or 100 million flight hours.
Both EASA and the FAA are working towards a common certification approach for eVTOLs, allowing companies to operate across regions. Disagreements over safety levels have caused some friction among industry competitors, with European companies advocating for EASA's stringent standards to apply to all. The goal for the industry is to establish standardised rules for eVTOLs internationally, ensuring clarity and consistency in certification requirements.
Regulators don’t make wings
The journey towards widespread adoption of drones and flying cars faces challenges and bottlenecks, but they can be overcome. The tale of Icarus serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between pushing the boundaries of innovation and safety. While the warning was not to fly too close to the sun the innovation was the wings that gave the ability to fly. If the warning had preceded the making of the wings, perhaps Icarus would never have flown. While regulations and compliance play an important role in ensuring safety, there is a need to strike a balance that fosters innovation rather than stifling it.
The proliferation of laws and regulations, coupled with the lack of repeals, has created a climate of paralysis that hampers groundbreaking advancements. When innovative solutions do emerge, they often face resistance or are buried under excessive regulations. To unlock the potential of low emission flying cars and drones, we must not only resist the temptation to impose more restrictions that hinder progress but remove the useless restrictions that we have.
Air right rights are the keystone. The incidents of drones being shot down highlight the need for clarity and the establishment of a system for air rights that address the property owners concerns. Clarifying ownership and usage rights will mitigate conflicts and promote responsible drone operations. www.skytrades.io
As we navigate these challenges, it is important to remember that innovation and progress are born from the desire for freedom. By embracing a regulatory framework that encourages innovation as its driver while ensuring safety, we can have our flying cars and the seamless integration of drones into our daily lives.
Thank you to all my readers for your support. If you have any questions about your air rights and what we are building www.skytrades.io can assist you and please feel free to email me at jonathan@skytrades.io.
