Tag: GSS Monthly

In a Surprising Move, the FAA Proposes Lightweight Commercial Rules for Small UAS
After much criticism in the mainstream and technology media about the commercial use of UAS (unmanned aerial systems), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been remarkably proactive in integrating the commercial use of UAS in the United States National Airspace System (NAS) the past two months. Just last summer, media like the Washington Post, fueled by a government audit, were reporting that the FAA will miss the September 2015 deadline, which is spelled out in the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012, to integrate commercial UAS usage into the NAS.

By proactive, I mean the rate at which the FAA is issuing UAS exemptions for commercial use. Two weeks ago, the FAA issued eight more commercial UAS exemptions, bringing the total to 24 since June 2014, with the vast majority of those being issued in the last two months. The latest exemptions issued were for aerial mapping, motion picture and television production, and bridge inspection. You can view the entire list of exemptions and the intended applications here. All of the exemptions have more than 30 conditions and limitations the operator must follow, of which a FAA private pilot (or better) certificate and a FAA third-class medical certificate is required, as well as a second person, the Visual Observer (VO). That’s fine. There’s nothing new on that front since I last reported on this.

However, earlier this week, the FAA issued an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) for commercial operations of “small” UAS, with surprisingly lightweight conditions compared to the exemptions granted thus far. Following are the key points of the NPRM:
- Pilot must be 17 years of age or older.
- Pass an FAA-approved aeronautical knowledge test and retest every two years.
- Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating.
- Obtain an FAA Class II airman medical certificate.
- Be vetted by the Transportation Security Agency (TSA).
- Maintain visual line of sight without aids (except corrective lenses).
- Not operate over any person who is not part of the mission.
- Maximum UAS weight is 55 pounds.
- Maximum airspeed of 100 mph.
- Maximum altitude of 500 feet above ground level.
- Minimum weather visibility of three miles.
- Yield right-of-way to other manned and unmanned aircraft.
- Contact air traffic control or airport operator when flying within five miles of an airport.
These conditions are certainly lighter than the conditions imposed on the exemptions issued thus far. However, instead of requiring an FAA private pilot certificate, the FAA proposes creating a new type of certificate named an “unmanned aircraft operator certificate.” Digging into the documentation, the new “small UAS pilot certificate” consists generally of the following:
- At least 17 years of age, although the FAA seems open to reducing it to 16 years of age.
- Read, write, speak English (with exceptions).
- Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test, which tests the applicant’s understanding of FAA regulations, airspace, flight restrictions, collision avoidance, weather/meteorology, weight/balance calculations, emergency response, aeronautical decision-making, airport operations, and drug/alcohol impairment.
- Demonstrate flight proficiency and aeronautical experience. The FAA is asking for suggestions on these two.
For a summary description of the proposed Small UAS Limitations and Certifications, click here.

For a detailed description of the proposed requirements for the FAA small UAS pilot certificate, click here.

The FAA Class II Airman medical certificate requirement is somewhat surprising because it’s more stringent than the Class III medical certificate required in the exemptions issued thus far. Perhaps the FAA is rethinking this because of the line-0f-sight requirement that puts a premium on sharp vision for UAS pilots. Class II requires distance vision of 20/20 in each eye separately while Class III only requires distance vision of 20/40 in each eye separately. Click here to see the requirements for Class I, II and III medical certificates. To give you some idea, I had an FAA Class III medical exam completed last month. It took about an hour. Although I have an FAA private pilot certificate, one is not needed to obtain an FAA medical certificate.

FAA Class III Medical Certificate

Perhaps a bigger challenge than passing the FAA medical exam, which wasn’t difficult, was finding a certified FAA medical examiner near you. You can search for an examiner near you by clicking here.

So, it seems the FAA is making progress, and we should give them credit for that. But, we are still very early in the process, and as the mainstream and other media predict, the FAA will likely burn through the September 2015 deadline well into next year, albeit chipping away and issuing exemptions on a regular basis as they have been for the past two months. You can bet that exemption applications are piling up. To view the growing list of exemption applications, click here. In reading the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012, it states “The FAA is required to initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for site integration of UAS within 18 months of the date of enactment of the integration plan.” Hmmm, 18 months from now = October 2016, and this NPRM is for small UAS only. Stay tuned….

Thanks, and see you next month.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
February 19, 2015
FAA Issues More UAS Exemptions
The Trimble UX5.

In December, I wrote about the five new commercial UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) exemptions issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), with one commercial exemption being issued to Trimble Navigation for its UX5 mapping UAS. The precedent was a major step towards integrating commercial UAS operations into the United States airspace. This month, the FAA issued two more commercial UAS exemptions, one of them opening a new world of commercial UAS operations.

Speaking of exemptions, there’s a pile of commercial UAS exemption requests awaiting review by the FAA. From Amazon.com, who garnered lots of UAS attention when television news magazine 60 Minutes interviewed Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos about its drone delivery concept, to Agribusiness giant Wilbur-Ellis Co. If you’d like to view the list of requestors as well as read their submissions, click here. How much time does it take from submission to a exemption approval? The FAA doesn’t provide that estimate, but I’ve spoken to several organizations that have been granted exemptions and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The quickest timeline I’ve heard is three months.

The Phantom 2 Vision+ UAS

As I mentioned above, two new commercial UAS exemptions were issued earlier this month. One went to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC, who was granted an exemption to fly the Swiss-made eBee Ag UAS for precision agriculture. At US$25,000 each, the eBee Ag is for the serious drone connoisseur.

The other commercial UAS exemption was issued to a realtor in Tucson, Arizona. This exemption is interesting because it’s the first one issued that makes use of the DJI Phantom II Vision+ quad copter UAS. The Phantom II Vision + sells for well under US$2,000 and is generally considered a consumer UAS rather than one purpose-built for commercial users. However, it clearly has the capability of being used by realtors, and thanks to support by Pix4D, a Swiss-based commercial UAS imagery software maker, it can be used for capturing imagery for mapping and generating 3D models.

At well under $2,000, the DJI Phantom II Vision+ price point is affordable for even the most basic commercial UAS application. The cost is relatively insignificant compared to the cost of image processing software from PIX4D, which at US$7,500 is more than five times the cost of the Phantom.

No matter which model UAS is being approved in the exemptions, the FAA expects all operators to adhere to many rules in common. One is that the Pilot in Command (PIC) must possess at least an FAA Private Pilot certificate. What does it take to qualify for an FAA Private Pilot Certificate? It’s not a small or inexpensive undertaking. Generally speaking, you need to:
1. Pass a written knowledge test after completing ground school.
2. Accumulate 40 hours of flight instruction and solo flight time.
3. Possess an FAA third-class medical certificate.
4. Pass a flight test administered by an FAA examiner.
In terms of cost, a typical small aircraft (Cessna 152) suitable for training will cost you upwards of $90/hour to rent (including fuel). Add all the other costs in and you’re looking at spending more than $10,000. This doesn’t include the time you will spend studying, and there’s a lot to study, from weather phenomena to instruments to aircraft performance to maps.

Now, the FAA exemptions don’t specify that the exemption holder must have a Private Pilot certificate. If you possess such an exemption, you can hire a Private Pilot to act as Pilot in Command (PIC) of the UAS, but costs start adding up quickly if you have to hire a PIC and also have a Visual Observer (VO) present, which the exemptions are requiring.

Things are certainly heating up in the commercial UAS world. I have to commend the FAA for stepping up to the plate and taking action to allow commercial UAS operations (however limited) well before the U.S. Congress-imposed deadline of September 2015 for releasing rules for integrating commercial UAS into the United States airspace.

Thanks, and see you next month.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
January 15, 2015
Five New FAA Commercial UAV Exemptions — What Do They Mean?
The Aeryon SkyRanger.

UPDATE: 1 p.m. US Pacific Time, Dec. 12. See statement from Trimble Navigation below.

In a major step towards allowing unmanned aerial systems (UAS, UAV, drones) to be used for commercial purposes in the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted five exemptions to four companies this week, allowing commercial UAS operation with an extensive list of conditions and limitations.

If you recall from previous articles such as this one, the FAA says it’s illegal to operate a UAS for commercial purposes in the United States.

But, take a look at this article: FAA Says Commercial Drone Operations Are Illegal… Public Says So What?

Then, when the FAA attempted an enforcement action against a person (Pirker) using a UAS for commercial purposes, an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) administrative law judge sided with the person, not the FAA.

Clear as mud?

Of course, the FAA appealed the NTSB opinion v. Pirker, and won. Click here to see the documents explaining the decision. Essentially, the NTSB ruled that a UAS is considered close enough to a manned aircraft that UAS fall under similar rules, and that the FAA is within its rights to apply the rules of careless or reckless operations to UAS as it does with manned aircraft.

So, after some legal wrangling, the rules seem to be as the FAA has stated: no commercial UAS operations. However, under order from the Obama Administration, the FAA is working on developing rules to allow commercial UAS operation in the U.S. The deadline for those rules to be released is September 2015, but there is much speculation that this deadline will not be met.

That said, the FAA is not waiting until September 2015.

In June 2014, the FAA issued the first UAS commercial use CoA (Certificate of Waiver or Authorization) to BP (British Petroleum) to allow commercial use of a particular UAS for surveying roads, pipelines and equipment in Alaska.

Then, in September 2014, the FAA issued CoAs to six aerial photo and video production companies in the film and television industry.

It should be noted that each CoA includes an extensive list of conditions and limitations, which are not necessarily the same, but similar (more on that below).

That brings us to yesterday, December 10, 2014. On that day, the FAA announced it has issued exemptions to four companies for commercial UAS operations: Trimble Navigation, VDOS Global LLC, Clayco, and Woolpert.

Looking at these four companies, it’s interesting that three of them are service providers and one is a manufacturer of UAS: Trimble. One might assume that, since Trimble is a manufacturer of UAS, the FAA exemption might carry over to its customers. After checking in with several people on this, the exemption appears to be only for Trimble owned-and-operated UAS, not customers. However, it doesn’t appear that the operator must be a Trimble employee (as opposed to a contractor). In that case, Trimble, as a manufacturer, could potentially deploy UAS under this exemption and have contract pilots operating Trimble-owned UAS.

Following is a statement from Todd Steiner, Trimble’s marketing director for geospatial imaging solutions:

“In the near term, Trimble will use this exemption to begin conducting research activities, sales demonstrations, and flight training with our partners and customers within the U.S. We will also initiate commercial activity as we pursue follow on steps with the FAA.

“In addition, we are working to determine how this exemption might be further leveraged to help our partners and customers. With Trimble’s authorization in place, we can directly support their needs where that is appropriate. Our customers and partners will also be able to apply for authorization to operate our UAS under the conditions of our exemption.

“We believe that these authorizations will be available on a more streamlined basis now that Trimble has received its exemption. We will communicate to our partners and customers as more information is available.”

The exemptions are valid until December 31, 2016, unless rescinded or superceded.

Conditions and Limitations

For each FAA exemption granted, there’s a long list of conditions and limitations for each grantee. You can read the detailed list of these at the bottom of each document issued to the specific company.

Trimble

VDOS Global LLC

Clayco

Woolpert #1, Woolpert #2

Although the conditions and limitations vary with each exemption issued, there are some common to all:
- UAS must operate below 400 feet above ground level.
- UAS must obey the speed limit (varies by UAS).
- UAS must be within VLOS (visual line of sight) at all times by pilot in command.
- All operations must have a second person, a VO (visual observer).
- Pilot in command must possess at least an FAA private pilot certificate (some exemptions require a commercial certificate) and a third-class airman medical certificate.
There are many more conditions and limitations, but this gives you an idea of what is required. The Trimble exemption contains 35 such items, so before you get too excited, take a look at the complete list of conditions and limitations. It’s not a simple endeavor.

On a positive note, the FAA is making an effort and making progress. For an agency that has a reputation of moving very slowly and methodically, this is near lightning speed.

Thanks, and see you next month.

Happy Holidays!

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
December 11, 2014
Whatever Happened to SketchUp? — Trimble Dimensions

Earlier this month, I attended the Trimble Dimensions conference in Las Vegas. More than 4,000 attendees made it the largest Dimensions conference to date. Since Trimble has been on a corporate acquisition binge for the last 10+ years, one has to pick an area of interest to focus on; otherwise, it’s easy to be overwhelmed with their wide offering of geospatial technology. In my Survey Scene newsletter earlier this month, I focused on Trimble’s satellite-based GNSS augmentation services. In this month’s GSS Monthly newsletter, I’d like to touch on Trimble’s activities in the geospatial software arena.

If you recall, Trimble bought SketchUp from Google a couple of years ago. SketchUp is software for 3D modeling used for a wide range of apps from interior/exterior architectural design to video game design. It’s not hard to understand why Google would want to sell SketchUp. Google products like Google Earth and Gmail are everyday consumer-friendly products that have mass appeal to a huge audience. SketchUp is a product that takes a higher level of geospatial user knowledge and time investment to use. It seems to be a perfect fit for a geospatial-oriented company like Trimble.

I used to be involved in a lot of 3D modeling projects in the landscape architecture area. I know how labor-intensive it is to generate high-quality 3D models and 3D video fly-throughs. I also understand the value that 3D models offer in bringing a proposed design to life. For example, look at the following photo taken of an unimproved site:

To visualize the golf course architect’s design, following is a 3D model of a proposed golf hole overlaid on an image of the unimproved land:

Imagine how much more effective it is to show a client this sort of visualization, rather than trying to explain this using a 2D set of architectural or engineering plans.

This is the kind of visualization that SketchUp is designed to address, but more structure (building) oriented. The impact on the the client is the same, bringing 3D and color to design ideas. In fact, SketchUp goes further than just helping designers visualize their ideas for their clients. In some cases, it can produce a list of materials to construct the building. At a short briefing I received at Dimensions, Trimble said that the following structure was designed, and a list of building materials was generated, using SketchUp.

OK, it’s not a high-rise building and SketchUp can handle more complex designs than this, but this illustrates where the technology is headed and that the fundamental workflow exists. Also, it shows that this type of technology is becoming available to a wider audience. I recall that 10 years ago, we needed a lot of computing horsepower, sophisticated software (such as 3D Studio Max), very specialized technicians, and a lot of time to generate 3D visualizations. SketchUp brings this capability to a wider audience.

For geospatial professionals, there’s obviously a lot of applications for SketchUp. A simple, yet powerful task is bringing Google Map imagery and topography data into SketchUp to give your buildings context. Following is a five-minute video describing how to import a Google Map into SketchUp:

To learn more about SketchUp (free and Pro versions), a number of YouTube videos are available, as well as videos of SketchUp’s annual conference called SketchUp 3D Basecamp.

Seven Best New Features of SketchUp 2014 (five-minute video):

Lastly, following is a collection of YouTube videos from SketchUp 3DBasecamp 2014 (60 minutes) for you to peruse if you’re interested:

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

Of course, UAS are still all the rage. While Trimble showed off its UAS product lineup (a la its 2012 acquisition of GateWing), last month in Reno, Nevada, there was a conference entitled UAS Mapping 2014 that was focused on UAS for mapping. More than 500 geospatial professionals attended to view the UAS technology demonstrations. We’ll have a report on this conference in next month’s GSS Monthly newsletter. UAS technology is still in the early stages of development (and, of course, still not legal to use commercially in the U.S., according to the Federal Aviation Administration) so a lot is happening.

There’s certainly a push toward using low-end UAS for GIS mapping. The UAVs themselves are becoming so inexpensive that the image-processing software ends up costing more than the UAV. For example, one image-processing company I hear about quite a bit is Pix4D. The company recently announced its Pix4Dmapping app that will turn a $900 DJI Phantom 2 Vision UAV into a 2D mapping and 3D modeling system. If you’re interested in the capabilities of this low-cost UAV mapping system, take a peek at the following 60-minute webinar from Pix4D.

Thanks, and see you next month.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

November 18, 2014
Unmanned Systems Buzz at InterGeo, Plus: Webinar Follow-Up

The world’s largest geospatial conference took place earlier this month in Germany. InterGeo is located in Germany every year, changing cities. More than 16,000 people attend the conference annually, mostly from Europe (83%) and only a small percentage from North and South America (~5%). I’ve promoted to the organizers that a similar conference is needed in the West because the most significantly attended geospatial conferences in the West are organized by specific vendors (Esri, Autodesk, Hexagon, Trimble, etc.) rather than being vendor-agnostic. The result is that Westerners only see a sliver of the geospatial products and services that are available.

InterGeo is always a lot of fun, with a myriad of geospatial hardware and software. Every year, I look for a specific technology that stands out. In the past couple of years, it’s been unmanned aerial systems (UAS). This year, I attended a vendor presentation, and I think they summarized it best: “Positioning is becoming a commodity.”

Whether it’s RTK GNSS, UAS, optical instruments or imaging instruments, it’s getting easier and less expensive to collect high-precision data. A good example of this is the Topcon LN-100W (sorry for the lack of audio during the video) introduced at InterGeo. It’s an instrument designed for BIM (Building Information Modeling) layout and mapping. It self-levels and works within about a 100-meter radius.

Then, of course, there’s the new wave of RTK GNSS receivers. South Survey Instrument Co. introduced a palm-sized RTK GNSS receiver, as well as Sokkia, Altus, Comnav, Geneq, CHCNav, Trimble, Carlson, Eos, Stonex, and I’m sure I missed a few others. As I’ve written before on several occasions, the increased availability of RTK GNSS receivers at increasingly lower cost puts centimeter accuracy in the hands of a wide geospatial audience, not just specialists.

Then, there’s UAS. UAS, UAVs, drones, or whatever you want to call them, have been hyped to the point that they may be over-hyped. Whereas I saw only a handful of UAS at InterGeo a few short years ago, now there are many tens, maybe a hundred, UAS on display. In fact, there was an outdoor UAS flight demonstration area. We shot a video of the new Reigl RiCopter, which Reigl claims is the first UAS with a LIDAR sensor on board.

Lastly, VectorNav introduced a great example of sensor fusion. It’s a very small device (4.5 x 4.4 x 1.1 cm) weighing less than 30 grams. It contains two u-blox GNSS receivers (capable of L1 RTK) as well as VectorNav’s MEMS technology (3-axis accelerometers, 3-axis gyros, 3-axis magnetometers) resulting in a high-precision, inertial navigation system that doesn’t rely on magnetic sensors. One of the primary target markets? ….UAS.

The week following the InterGeo show, Alan Cameron and I conducted a webinar as a follow-up. You can view the webinar recording by signing up here. It contains good information about the current status of UAS for commercial use in the United States. You can visit the FAA’s UAS webpage to read the latest information it has released. During the webinar, we conducted three audience polls. You might be interested in the results, so here they are.

Poll 1: Do you currently use a UAS for geospatial work?

Do you currently use a UAS for geospatial work? (54 votes)

Comment: I’m not surprised by this poll result, especially given the lack of regulations for commercial UAS operations that exist.

Poll 2: Do you anticipate using a UAS in your geospatial work in the future?

Do you anticipate using a UAS in your geospatial work in the future? (64 votes)

Comment: This poll result doesn’t surprise me either. There are a broad range of applications for UAS for geospatial users, from agriculture to accident reconstruction and remote inspection. Furthermore, if a geospatial user isn’t directly operating a UAS, he or she will eventually likely be using data that was generated from a UAS.

Poll 3: If you were to purchase a UAS for geospatial work, how much would you be willing to spend on a system?

If you were to purchase a UAS for geospatial work, how much would you be willing to spend on a system? (56 votes)

Comment: This poll result surprises me. It says a lot about the belief and confidence that geospatial users have in the geospatial value of UAS. In other words, about 40% of the audience is willing to spend more than $10,000 on a UAS. Clearly, this means those users see the value that UAS bring and believe they can keep one busy enough to make the capital investment.

Thanks, and see you next month.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

October 22, 2014
InterGeo: The Worldwide GIS Showcase

Did you know the largest GIS conference in the world is held in Germany every year? Last October, more than 16,000 geospatial geeks traveled to Germany to attend the InterGeo Conference. In just a few short weeks, Geospatial Solutions’ staff will travel to Berlin and mix it up with the world’s leading geogeeks. If you want to see the latest and greatest GIS technology, both hardware and software, it is the best show in the world, bar none.

The second largest GIS conference in the world is the Esri International User Conference. It’s a great conference, with one major caveat; it’s a user conference for Esri users. Competitors and perceived competitors are not invited.

InterGeo is open to any company that can afford an exhibit booth. That’s one major difference. The other major difference is that there are very few technical sessions. That means all 16,000+ attendees are wandering around the exhibits. The exhibit aisles are packed with people, all the time for all three days, and the energy is fantastic.

The InterGeo conference is an eye-opener for North Americans who attend for the first time. This is because they will see a much wider variety of brands than they are exposed to in North America and, in many cases, they will see products with lower price points. It’s all about marketing. The African, Asian and European markets won’t pay as much for products as North Americans will, and seeing how 83% of the InterGeo attendees are from Europe, you can imagine how the products are marketed. Only 2.4% of the 2013 attendees were from North America. Following is a map illustrating where last year’s attendees traveled from:

InterGeo 2013 attendance.

Not only are there commercial exhibits, but also technology displays such as this mapping machine from the 19th century that was displayed during the 2012 InterGeo Conference.

At this year’s show, we expect to see a lot of UAVs. Last year, there were 25 exhibits showing UAVs. This year, I expect that number to double as new UAVs are being introduced almost weekly and, unlike in the U.S., UAVs are legal to fly in many countries of the world.

I also expect to see a wider variety of RTK GNSS receivers, at more competitive prices than last year.

Stay tuned to Geospatial Solutions and GPS World magazine staff as we descend into Berlin in a couple of weeks. Expect lots of photos, video recordings and write-ups of the event. Remember to follow me on Twitter for real-time news and photos.

September 25, 2014
The No. 1 Question I Was Asked 20 Years Ago Is Still No. 1
On the tail of the Esri International User Conference (UC) and the first-ever live event webinar we’ve ever conducted, I’d like to revisit a subject I’ve pounded hard for the past couple of years. It’s a subject that still, after my 25 years in the geospatial industry, is still the most common problem that geospatial users ask me about.

First, however, the live event webinar at the Esri UC. What a blast it was to broadcast live from San Diego with people walking by and the buzz of 14,000+ conference attendees in the air! I’ll definitely be looking for more opportunities to broadcast live from events like this. The webinar was great. It touched primarily on high-precision GNSS on mobile devices. If you weren’t able to attend and would like to listen to it, register here and you’ll be sent a web link. Then, just last week I conducted a follow-up webinar that dug further into the details of how to use RTK (real-time 1-2 cm accuracy) on almost any mobile device. If you missed it and would like to listen to it, register here and you’ll be sent a web link.

So, what is the #1 question I was asked 20 years ago and is still the #1 question I’m asked about today?

“Why doesn’t my GPS data line up?”

Part of the reason that the question has been a consistent perennial favorite is that low- to medium-cost GPS (now more commonly referred to as GNSS) receivers have become more accurate, so our expectations for better accuracy have increased. It used to be that 2-5 meters (after post-process differential correction) was about what you could expect from a $10,000 GPS receiver. Today, you can buy a real-time, submeter receiver for under $2,000 and an RTK receiver capable of 1-2 cm accuracy for two to three times that.

So, “why doesn’t my GPS data line up?”

I wrote two articles that attempted to summarize the problem. The two-part series was entitled “Nightmare on GIS Street.”

Nightmare on GIS Street: Accuracy, Datums, and Geospatial Data

Part2 Nightmare on GIS Street: Accuracy, Datums, and Geospatial Data

Horizontal datums, and changing horizontal datums, are the root of the problem. Lack of user knowledge and GIS software vendors’ improper implementation of horizontal datum transformations exacerbate the problem.

There are a few common horizontal datums used, at least in the U.S.. Outside of the U.S., there a myriad of datums with associated transformation algorithms. A few common ones are:

ITRF08 – International Terrestrial Reference Frame of 2008. ITRF08 is world-wide datum with no epoch (time stamp) associated with it.

WGS-84 (G1674) – World Geodetic System of 1984. WGS-84 has changed substantially over the years. G1674 is the latest revision (actually, I think G1762 is out but I’ll leave that for now). At epoch 2005.0 (January 1, 2005), WGS-84 (G1674) and ITRF08 are within a centimeter of each other.

NAD83/2011 – North American Datum of 1983. As with WGS-84 and ITRF, NAD83 has undergone significant changes over time. The current version is NAD83/2011 with an epoch date of 2010.0 (January 1, 2010).

Now, it would be great if all of our geospatial data was referenced to the same datum. In that case, all of our geospatial data would line up perfectly. But, it’s not that easy. In fact, not only is data published in all three of the above datums (and more), but also a lot of legacy geospatial data is published in earlier versions of the datums above, which can significantly differ from the current revision of the same datum.

For example, if you received geospatial data that is reported to be referenced to NAD83? What does that mean? Is it the original version of NAD83 or is it the latest revision of NAD83 (2011) or somewhere in between?

Let’s take a practical and very common example.

Assume you’ve got a high-precision handheld GNSS receiver. Unless you’re connected to a RTK network or post-processing, you’re likely using WAAS as a source of GPS corrections, which is a very common setup.

Let’s say that your GIS database is referenced to NAD83/2011, another very common setup.

WAAS is referenced to ITRF08 current year epoch.

ITRF08 differs from NAD83/2011 from 2 to 4.5 feet in the U.S. depending on the geographic region you work in. So, if you don’t adjust your incoming data to match NAD83/2011, the data you add to your GIS database will be offset by 2 to 4.5 feet. Following is a graphic from Michael Dennis of the National Geodetic Survey that illustrates the difference between NAD83/2011 and WGS-84/G1672.

Source: National Geodetic Survey

What’s really important to note about the slide above is the epoch date. I write about the time variable of datums in Part2 Nightmare on GIS Street: Accuracy, Datums, and Geospatial Data. The bottom line is that the ground we walk on moves. It’s only very slightly, unless there’s an event like an earthquake, but it’s constantly moving, and generally in the same direction and rate. In the midwestern U.S., for example, the ground may only be moving a few millimeters per year. In some places in California, the ground moves 4 cm per year. If you’re using RTK to achieve 1-2 cm precision, 4 cm is a big number and can’t be ignored. If you located a point five years ago with RTK to the 1-2 cm level and revisited it today, the difference would be 20 cm, well over a half foot.

What methods are available to adjust for the difference between the two datums?

There are at least three ways I can think of. Of course, the easiest one is if the data-collection software you use is smart enough to deal with this. Unfortunately, this is not likely. Surprisingly, even mainstream GIS data collection software sold today doesn’t address this problem.
1. Some data collection software (ArcPad, SurvCE, FieldCE) have the functionality to define the GPS datum and apply a datum transformation in real time (in the field) so it’s transformed to NAD83/2011 before it’s stored in the GIS database. Note, however, that even fewer are able to deal with crustal movement. For example, take a coordinate time-stamped 2008 and “move” it to 2014.
2. Apply the datum transformation after the data is collected.
3. If your GIS software doesn’t have the correct datum transformation functionality built in, use a tool such as HTDP (Horizontal Time Dependent Positioning) to determine a precise offset distance and direction in and apply the offset to all of the data collected in that geographic region. Since WAAS precision is 50 cm at best, this type of offset correction is perfectly suitable.
As I mentioned in no. 1 above, several software packages can transform between datums, but very few can take into account the time component of datum transformations. In other words, they don’t take into account the fact that the ground we stand on is moving.

Some people are beginning to take note that addressing the time component of datum transformations is just a matter of time, which it is. For example, Geomobile Innovations just introduced a plug-in for ArcPad that adds extensive datum transformation functionality to ArcPad, including accounting for the ground movement. It turns ArcPad into a true high-precision data-collection tool.

More good news is that the big dog is starting to wake up. At the Esri UC last month, I heard from a reliable source that Esri has made dealing with this issue an active project, and is working on the logic and user interface to implement a time-dependent datum transformation model (commonly known as a 14-parameter transformation). As someone who used to design GIS data-collection logic and user interfaces, I can appreciate the challenge of implementing this model. What happens when a road/pipeline/transmission line crosses from one tectonic plate to another when the two plates are not moving the same direction and velocity? How does one make accounting for that easy to use yet technically correct?

Thanks, and see you next month.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
August 21, 2014
Report from the 2014 Esri International User Conference
Live from Esri in San Diego: The Hottest Mapping Trends

If you’d like to experience an industry first, I think, I’ll be participating in a live webinar being held during the Esri conference at the San Diego Convention Center on Thursday, July 17, at 10:00 a.m. U.S. Pacific time. I’ll have some planned guests, and perhaps drop-in guests, discussing the complexities of integrating mobile devices with disparate operating systems (Android, iOS, Windows, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone) into your GIS workflow. If you’re at the conference and would like to see us in action, stop by the podcast booth near Room 27 of the convention center. If you’d like to tune in live via the Internet, please sign up by clicking here.

This week is the mecca of GIS, at least in the U.S.; the Esri International User Conference (UC) in San Diego, California, and I’m swimming in GIS up to my ears.

There’s always a myriad of Esri-centric meetings and events during the weekend prior to the UC, and this year was no exception. During the weekend prior, I attended the AEC Summit, formerly named the Survey Summit. The AEC Summit bills itself as the “Forum for High-Accuracy” GIS.

The dominant technology discussed at the AEC Summit was UAS (aka UAVs, Drones). There was lots of discussion about the forthcoming Federal Aviation Administration rules (due September 30, 2015) and “potential” UAS applications. However, one presentation gave the audience a practical look at the value of a UAS. Burns & McDonnell, in association with the University of Connecticut, reported their company worked nine months to gain approval (Certificate of Authorization) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct a transmission line inspection using a rotary-wing aircraft.

Steven Santovasi, GISP at Burns & McDonnell, gave a summary presentation of their experience with UAS technology. He started with this slide that frames the UAS device market, divided into three device segments: fixed-wing, rotary craft, and a hybrid version with the hover features of a rotary UAS but the speed and stability performance of a fixed-wing UAS.

Types of UAS used for Mapping

Santovasi reported that using the rotary UAS allowed his company to perform an inspection that he thought couldn’t be performed by a manned aircraft. He said that the UAS was able to get within five feet of the structure and take detailed, high-resolution photos. In fact, he said his team was able to identify a failing bolt that may have caused a significant power outage. He reported that a representative of the transmission line owner said that the discovery of the failing bolt “paid for the project.” The transmission line is strung on a 250-foot-tall tower.

Following is a photo of the bolt (and accompanying structure) taken by the rotary craft UAS. There’s actually a much higher-resolution an close-up photo of the bolt I’ll try to obtain and update in this article.

Failing Bolt Identified by High-Resolution Photo Captured from a UAS at Close Range

There was some discussion in the audience that the FAA may not make the September 30, 2015, deadline, or that it will issue a partial set of rules. Last month, a Washington Post article reported the same. If that happens, it’s going to be really interesting. It seems like with each day that goes by, the heat gets turned up a little more for the FAA to act. More frequently, perhaps fueled by the FAA vs. Pirker case where the FAA was slapped by a NTSB judge for not having enforceable rules to punish “violators,” there are media reports that individuals and companies are using UASs for commercial purposes regardless of the FAA’s position. For example,

However, the FAA is not giving up in its attempt to assert its rules despite the ruling by the NTSB judge. On June 23, the FAA issued a press release offering “guidance to Model Aircraft Operators” in an attempt to squelch commercial UAS operators from believing they can fly under modeler rules.

User Conference Plenary

Every year, I look forward to Esri President Jack Dangermond’s keynote at the plenary. I love that Esri is still a privately held corporation, having only to answer to themselves. They don’t have to worry about Wall Street quarterly reports as publicly-traded companies do, so they can choose to change strategy or take on projects that may not appeal to public shareholders. Given that, you really never know what Mr. Dangermond might decide to do, or say, so it’s always interesting to listen to his thoughts on Monday morning.

Of course, there were tons of ideas shared, some new products introduced, and some impressive fourth-graders speaking to a crowd the size that 99.5% of us will never have the opportunity to address. But, after listening to the plenary, watching Twitter, reading blogs and news releases, etc., I can boil it down to one word where this technology is headed…real-time (or is that two words hyphenated? :-) ). I want current information, and I want information as events occur. That is the definition of real-time. I was struck by the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s presentation, which won Esri’s President’s Award. The city has deployed a GIS that allows it to “see” events as they happen, whether it be a traffic accident, fire or other public emergency. Of course, you can easily extrapolate that to include public works nuisances like potholes, traffic signal outages, and street closures, then further extrapolate to society where you have something like Waze, a mobile phone app that allows millions of drivers to share real-time information about traffic conditions.

City of Rancho Cucamonga Executive Dashboard for Monitoring Municipal Gov’t Activity

In geographic regions where there is solid wireless connectivity, there’s no reason we can’t or shouldn’t have access to real-time information on a broad scale, in a very accessible manner. And of course, geographic location is a super-important part of that real-time information. Accurate, real-time information allows us to make accurate, real-time decisions.

The real-time theme bubbles and oozes from GIS, and GIS is begging to be a real-time technology. This is largely driven by mobile devices and sensors. It’s not like the real-time “transaction,” as Mr. Dangermond has coined in past Esri UC conferences, is a new concept. That concept hasn’t changed. What has changed is the proliferation of mobile devices and sensors that enable us to carry the power of GIS in our pockets. They are the technology enablers of real-time GIS, and the trend is crystal clear. It is what people want, and they will get it because GIS, mobile devices and sensor technologies are converging, and to a price point that is very affordable. This year, Mr. Dangermond mentioned the Internet of Things during the general plenary. This is exactly what I’m referring to. Devices and sensors will each have an IP address, or some method of making themselves known on a network. Some people call this Big Data. Regardless, we’re seeing this transformation beginning.

I saw a great example of the transition from labor-intensive transactions to real-time transactions at a Esri UC presentation this week. It’s a utility company that was using a data check-in/check-out workflow to collect high-precision GPS data for its infrastructure (e.g., valves, meters, etc.). The company was spending a significant amount of time dealing with the data check-in/check-out procedure and data post-processing. Some downsides of the data check-in/check-out workflow listed were:
- many opportunities for human or technical error
- clunky and arduous QA/QC process
- slow and expensive workflow that is difficult to scale
- software maintenance cost and overhead
In the past six months, the company transitioned to a real-time data collection process that posts high-precision GPS transactions in real-time within SDE in ArcMap. Some of the benefits listed were:
- GPS points update in real-time within SDE
- laterals and fittings draw and populate automatically
- support for a wider variety of software data collection tools like ArcGIS Mobile, ArcPad (either SDE or ArcGIS Online) or Collector
- simple design for tablet use (either online or offline)
- software cost reduction (unlimited seats of ArcGIS Mobile w/Server, Collector free through ArcGIS Online)
Perhaps the words that best describe the company’s transition to a real-time GIS transaction workflow were contained in the summary page of the presentation.

Time: Our Most Precious Resource

‘ Nuf said.

Plenary Opening Keynote by Mr. Dangermond

If you want to take a look Mr. Dangermond’s opening keynote, including the presentation by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following is a 22-minute video that’s worth a look.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Following me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
July 16, 2014
Presenting Now — the Whole Earth!

Earth observing satellites are generating big data sets — Really Big!

I’m stepping in just for this month as a self-invited guest columnist, giving a brief look at the trailblazing work of the International Centre for Earth Simulation.

Look for both Eric Gakstatter and me at the ESRI User Conference in July, where Eric will also host a webinar on the hottest trends in mapping. We hope to accommodate a live audience at the webinar. If you’re not attending ESRI, attend the webinar anyway! For a top-level look at conference doings, register free.

In easily the most mind-blowing presentation of the Geospatial World Forum held recently in Geneva, Bob Bishop of the International Centre for Earth Simulation spun a vision of Big Data Earth Science, using the world’s largest computing resources (talk of exoflops and exobytes and “the human mind cannot comprehend these large volumes of data” supplied by many orbiting imagery satellites and other sensor inputs) to model the Whole Earth: surface, subsurface, ocean, atmosphere, and social economics.

The Centre’s mission is “Helping guide the successful transformation of human society in an era of rapid climate change and frequent natural disasters.”

In its prospectus, Bishop writes “The key to solving problems in weather, climate and environmental science is high-performance computing. Nature can only be accurately described and computed from equations that take account of complex, non-linear interactions between multiple natural systems, i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans, mountains, forests, dust, pollution, cloud cover, snow cover, ice, polar regions, etc. Such equations of motion are so interconnected and intertwined that they can only be managed when all aspects are held in big memory and computed simultaneously. Only then can we begin to address the systemic risks associated with natural disasters and planetary change.”

The ICES Foundation supports Open Science, which incorporates a combination of open data files, open source code, and open access publications. Much of the data supplied by the following organizations, upon whose resources ICES draws, is either directly produced by or referenced to GPS/GNSS data: Global Observing Systems Information Center and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisration; the European Space Agency and Centre for Space Records; the U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the European Union’s Joint Research Center; the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research; the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; the European Commission’s Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE); and many more.

Slides from Bishop’s Geneva presentation are available here. These, however, of necessity lack some of the video and Flash Player simulations that he showed at the conference, revealing truly a dynamic planet in all aspects.

Bishop warned of both sequential and synchronous collapse of natural systems, leading to cascading crises. His language and message bear some resemblance to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but Bishop, whose previous 40-year professional career had him responsible for building and operating the international aspects of Silicon Graphics Inc., Apollo Computer Inc., and Digital Equipment Corporation, has assembled some actual practical tools to apply to the many problems.

The immediate goal is modeling, simulation, visualization, and ultimately understanding of the whole, leading to new forms of civic engagement and insights as to risk, safety, food, water, and energy.

May 29, 2014
Mobile Device Operating System Wars: Ver. 2.0

It’s been two years since I wrote a column entitled Mobile Device Operating system wars: Android vs. iOS vs. Windows Mobile. After traveling and attending countless conferences and listening to a large number of mobile device users in the geospatial user community, I think it’s time to touch on this subject again, and what a crazy and confusing landscape it is. First of all, let’s frame the discussion in terms of the geospatial users, because that’s the soup we swim in.

At the end of the day, we are driven by the geospatial software we use, so this limits the type of mobile device we can select from. For example, Esri’s ArcPad runs on Windows Mobile and Windows desktop. If that’s the software you want to use, then you can’t use an Android device, an iPad, or a Windows Phone device. In another example, AutoCAD 360 for mobile, which I used a few weeks ago in the field, runs only on Android and iOS devices, not on Windows Mobile devices.

Chart Source: The Wall Street Journal, Gartner

While it appears Android is the dominant mobile operating system of the future, it depends on who you talk to. Right or wrong, some (maybe a lot of) enterprise organizations are scared of Android. They are scared because of one word: security, or more specifically, the perception of the lack of security. Android is open source, and it scares the heck out of enterprise IT (information technology) departments. It scares some to the point that they are shutting down projects that are proposing to deploy Android devices in the field. Is the fear justified? It’s probably more hyped up than it deserves, but IT folks are pretty conservative these days.

Where does that leave the enterprise organizations? iOS or Windows?

Some organizations are going with iOS, but the number of enterprise geospatial apps for iOS is very limited, and most of those that exist aren’t very powerful. They can’t even deal with datum transformations. That means the hardcore iOS enterprise users are left developing their own software, which some are doing. The other limitation of iOS is the hardware device selection. Since Apple doesn’t license iOS to anyone, you have the iPad and the iPhone and that’s about it. Not much selection.

That leaves us where we started…Microsoft Windows.

Dell Venue Tablet

My gut tells me that Windows is making a comeback among geospatial users, even though Windows operating system market share is minuscule compared to Android and iOS on mobile devices. Part of the reason is a plethora of high-quality, Windows-based tablets and pads. Recently, I’ve had the chance to handle some Windows-based tablets such as Dell Venue tablet and Panasonic ToughPad. They are nice tablets for field use. Thank Apple for driving manufacturers to produce good quality tablets at a reasonable price. The other part of the reason, and the major driver, is security. IT departments simply trust the security features that Microsoft provides more than iOS and Android. In the age of security breaches such as the recent Heartbleed bug, the emphasis on computer security is at an all-time high.

Panasonic ToughPad

Security may be the catalyst that pushes Windows back into the forefront of operating systems for the enterprise geospatial user. That’s good news for geospatial software developers. Pressure has been mounting for geospatial software manufacturers to introduce Android- and iOS-compatible versions of their software. Now, with the security issue at the forefront and the availability of high-quality Windows-based tablets at reasonable prices, developers may have some breathing space.

But wait: Which version of Windows?

Windows Mobile? Windows Phone? Windows Embedded Handheld? Windows Desktop? Windows RT?

They aren’t all the same, and they all don’t run the same software. For example, software built for Windows Mobile won’t run on Windows Phone or Windows Desktop.

Microsoft’s mobile operating system strategy has been confusing at best. In past years, it’s been clear that mobile devices run Windows Mobile. It’s not so clear any longer. Microsoft discontinued mainstream support for Windows Mobile 6.1 and 6.5 in January 2013. It’s not as bad as it sounds because in the three years I’ve owned a Win Mobile 6.5 Pro device, an update was never issued. But what it does say is that Microsoft is done with it. No new devices will be designed with Windows Mobile 6.5. However, that’s not to say that Windows Mobile devices are going away. Microsoft just renamed it to Windows Embedded Handheld 6.5, which Microsoft says it will provide extended support for until January 2020. So, all is well, just a different name.

Microsoft’s mobile strategy has turned off manufacturers, and it shows. Given that Microsoft has stopped supporting new devices running Windows Mobile since January 2013, how many devices have you seen introduced since then that support Windows Embedded Handheld? The answer is, not that many, and the ones that do support it are handhelds selling at a premium price, upwards of $1,500 or more. That’s tough to justify when you can buy a tablet or pad for equal or less. And…..the tablets and pads are running full Windows, not the mobile, handheld or phone version so they’re able to run a greater number of off-the-shelf software programs.

Given the above, I feel the tide is turning, at least for the geospatial user community. Windows is going to make a comeback and be the go-to operating system for mobile devices, at least for tablet and pad devices. Don’t misunderstand me though: Android and iOS will still dominate the market share numbers by far, but that’s the consumer user community, not the enterprise geospatial user community. Windows Mobile devices will still have a niche place in the geospatial user community, but I have to wonder if software makers will continue to support that environment if the sales aren’t significant enough.

Sidebar: For those of you who feel I’ve errantly left out the discussion about ruggedized devices vs. non-ruggedized or semi-rugged consumer devices, I’ll say this. Whenever I’ve encountered an enterprise that has deployed consumer mobile devices in an industrial environment (such as iPad), it invariably answers the question about device reliability with “We’ve had very few problems.” The reality seems to be that enterprise users are taking special care of these devices in the field. Program managers are saying, “Even if each person breaks one per year, it’s still half the price of industrial devices.” The reality is that small percentages are failing.

However, one can’t ignore the outdoor usability issue. The displays on some consumer devices don’t handle sunlight very well, and if the display isn’t sunlight readable, the device is severely limited in the field. The same can be said for wide temperature ranges. Both extreme heat and extreme cold can torture a mobile device that isn’t built to withstand that environment. Test before you deploy. Heat it up in your oven, cool it down in your freezer, and see how it behaves.

There’s certainly a niche market for ruggedized mobile devices, but the significant price difference between those devices and consumer devices are making enterprise organizations think twice about where to spend their money. Lastly, many consumer devices are trending towards semi-rugged as manufacturers are discovering this is one way to differentiate them from the ultra-price-competitive mobile device market.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

April 22, 2014
Judge Knocks Down FAA on Drones, the GIS Search for Flight MH370
A judge for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) attempt to punish Ralph Pirker for laundry list of infractions claimed by the FAA when he flew a Ritewing Zephyr drone around the University of Virginia Charlottesville campus to generate promotional aerial photography and video of parts of the campus. You can read the list of infractions in an article I wrote in November 2013.

NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled that “there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS.”

Futhermore, Judge Geraghty ruled the following:
1. Neither Part 1, Section 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of “aircraft” are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition
2. Model aircraft operation by the Respondent was subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the Safety Guidelines stated in AC 91-57”.
3. As Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel, they are not a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91 FAR enforcement authority on model aircraft operations.
4. Policy Notice 07-01 does not establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91, Section 91.13(a) enforcement on Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as the Notice is either (a) as it states, a Policy Notice/Statement and hence non-binding, or (b) an invalid attempt of legislative rulemaking, which fails for non-compliance with the requirement of 5 U.S.C. Section 553, Rulemaking.
5. Specifically, that at the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or classifying model aircraft as an UAS.
Where does the FAA go from here?

First of all, the order specifically states that the “NTSB Administrative Law Judge’s dispositional order is not a final Board decision in this matter. This order is appealable to the full five-member Board and is not of precedential value (see 49 C.F.R. § 821.43).”

As expected, within a day of the ruling, the FAA filed an appeal:

“The FAA is appealing the decision of the NTSB Administrative Law Judge to the full National Transportation Safety Board, which has the effect of staying the decision until the Board rules. The agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.”

Notice the language above states that the decision is on hold until the full board rules. The problem for the FAA is that wannabe commercial UAS operators were already chomping at the bit like a pack of race horses waiting for the starting gate to open. Now that the gate has been cracked open a bit, horses are busting through it at full speed. If the FAA had an enforcement problem before, it’s just been compounded tenfold.

Stayed tuned as this tremendous geospatial technology drama continues to unfold before our eyes…

The Search for Flight MH370

If you’re one of the few people in the world who haven’t heard about missing Malaysian Flight MH370, it disappeared on March 8 with 239 souls on board, thirty minutes into a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, and has not been found. It’s resulted in a massive international search.

Because the search area is so massive, satellite imagery is being used to assist in the search effort. Satellite operator DigitalGlobe, Inc., launched a crowdsourcing campaign that will allow anyone to help look for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 by combing through satellite images for clues of its whereabouts.

DigitalGlobe MH370 crowdsourcing website
http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/mh370_indian_ocean

Anyone can begin searching the satellite images for the Boeing 777 aircraft, tagging anything that looks suspicious. Each pixel on a computer screen represents half a meter on the ocean’s surface.

The Longmont, Colorado, company said two of its commercial satellites have already collected images comprising roughly 1,988 square miles at the confluence of the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea, where the Beijing-bound aircraft mysteriously went missing on Saturday. The company is continuing to update the images to reflect new information about the search area provided by the Malaysian government. Click here to visit the website and learn more about joining the effort to find MH370.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric
March 24, 2014
FAA Says Commercial Drone Operations Are Illegal… Public Says So What?

March 6, 2014 update: On March 6, 2014 Federal Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled against the FAA in its case against Rapheal Pirker, opening up commercial use of drones in the U.S.

March 3, 2014 update: On February 26, 2014, the FAA published “Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft” in an effort to clarify its position on commercial use of drones in the U.S.

Forgive me for circling back on the the topic of drone use for commercial mapping in the U.S., but I’m drawn to it like a bee to honey. Perhaps it’s because I used to fly airplanes, or because drone technology encompasses a lot of the technology I’m involved with: GNSS, inertial navigation, GIS, imagery. Be that as it may, the most intriguing aspect of this issue in the U.S. is that seemingly law-abiding citizens are knowingly (or unknowningly) disregarding the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) firm stance that no commercial drone operations are allowed.

According to the FAA, it doesn’t matter if the drone flies under 400 feet. It doesn’t matter if an operator only flies the drone above his/her own property. It doesn’t matter if the drone operator doesn’t charge for the service. If its business-related (such as mapping your fields), it’s illegal, according to the FAA.

But, who cares?

Late last year, Fox News published a story about a farmer in Idaho who uses a drone he built to monitor activities on his farm. According to the report, he’s not waiting around for the FAA “to work out rules for drones.” Countless U.S. start-up companies are promoting their mapping drones by either selling drones (MarcusUAV, Honeycomb, VoltAerial Robotics, Precision Drone, etc.) or selling services to process data collected by drones (such as DroneMapper).

Last week, online magazine Politico published an article appropriately titled “FAA Risks Losing the Drone War.” The article summarizes that as much as the FAA wants to tell you it’s illegal to fly drones commercially, people are doing it anyway. They aren’t sneaking around trying to hide it! High-profile people have openly used drones without regard to the FAA’s opinion. Martin Scorsese reportedly hired a drone service company to shoot one of the scenes in the 2013 movie “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

Last year, NBC News published an article entitled “Damn the regulations! Drones plying US skies without waiting for FAA rules.” In the article, they quote an anonymous operator.

“Honestly?” said one commercial operator, who requested anonymity to protect his business. “My hope is that I’m far afield enough and small enough potatoes to the FAA that I can fly under the radar on this one.”

I think that’s the most honest statement I’ve read so far, and that’s probably the attitude of nearly every operator who is flying drones commercially in the U.S., even as they attempt to justify how they are legally (or illegally) dancing around the FAA rules.

The FAA has to take the majority of the blame for letting this happen. Perhaps it’s intentional? A “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? There seem to have been very few enforcement actions taken by the FAA. In November 2013, I requested a list of enforcement actions from the FAA regarding UAVs. Despite giving me delivery dates, nothing has arrived and I’m told I won’t likely see anything from the agency. In an article published by BusinessWeek last week entitled “The FAA Finds Commercial Drone Flights Hard to Police,” BusinessWeek reports that the FAA informed the magazine that it took action “17 times in 13 months ending July.” Furthermore, the article quotes a former FAA employee involved with drones as saying “The reality is, there is no way to patrol it.”

March 3, 2014 Update: On February 26, 2014, the FAA published “Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft”.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GPSGIS_Eric

February 28, 2014