Transport drones probably have ADS-B systems that make them visible to pilots. It’s a system that actively warns pilots of impending collisions.
There are civilian/military aircraft with high resolution cameras that can loiter over large areas. This puts them above the altitude of rescue aircraft or transport drones.
It shouldn’t be that hard to coordinate aircraft and drones if they register with whatever agency is tasked with overseeing the process.
Private drones are another matter. You can’t assume a ban would be communicated to people without power or phone coverage.
Pretty sure the drone in the video is the DJI FlyCart 30:
Looks about the right size and the cargo rack below looks to be the right shape.
143 pounds with batteries and 209 lbs with max cargo. As Magiver suggested, it supports ADS-B. Also some serious other specs: parachute, phased-array radar, binocular cameras, etc. Damn.
ETA: Only $25k with batteries! Actually less than I expected.
Musk elaborated a bit on the problem. Believe him or not, but it’s such a specific problem–which he credits Buttigieg for fixing–that it seems pretty likely. The issue is that the TFR (temporary flight restriction) specified that you have to know who you’re meeting with in order to land. But they were delivering to people who had no internet or even cell connection, which meant they couldn’t possibly know who specifically they were delivering to. Classic Catch-22. The way it was set up, the only people they could deliver Starlinks to were the people that didn’t need it! But it was fixed quickly.
The New York Times has an article (gift link) that staffing issues at FEMA are a problem with the Milton response.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is running out of staff to deal with the potential devastation of Hurricane Milton as it barrels toward Tampa with wind speeds that have reached 175 miles per hour.
Gee, do you think that one political party making constant complaints about a so-called “deep-state” is helping or hurting civil service recruiting efforts? Who would want to join the government to do a tough job for, let’s face it, not a lot of money, with this lack of respect for what they do?
You mean the House of Representatives, who control the purse strings, just have to vote in some emergency funding. The House that controlled by Republicans, who do not seem eager to help their fellow citizens.
No, but I could totally see some sociopath who just happened to have acquired a license and aircraft seeing an “opportunity” and trying to take advantage of it.
Yes, those guys- the party that is in power in most of the hardests hit states. But will they? I doubt it. Too dysfunctional. But they do have the power to do so.
Sure, but is that actually a rational fear or reason to prevent private people from helping out?
I would guess it’s more of a controlled airspace thing- they don’t really want to have to do ATC for rescue aircraft and doofus citizens with helicopters who just show up, aren’t registered, and don’t know how to communicate with the rest of the emergency responder aircraft.
Keep in mind in a region-wide disaster the normal ATC facilities, like airport towers, might also be out of commission. There are procedures for pilots to operate in areas entirely without ATC coverage but the margin of safety is different and the amount of traffic that a given area can handle will be sharply reduced over what can be handled with full ATC capabilities.
Having people check in/register with the agency(s) organizing a response means there is an opportunity to make sure the private individuals are up to speed on procedures, assign radio frequencies to organize communications, set priorities, and otherwise impose some order on a chaotic situation. That will increase safety for everyone.
Not if the procedures are so strict and convoluted that they’re effectively impossible comply with. That will increase safety for official flights but people depending on private aid will lose out.
That isn’t quite what’s happening here, but Starlink delivery flights had been blocked due to a rule that said the recipient must be known in advance. That was fortunately relaxed.
Aviation authorities are generally pretty conservative in terms of approach to safety; they’ll go for “safest possible” and roll it back to an acceptable level of safety afterwards as a general approach to pretty much anything.
I don’t know if a similar situation to the starlink snag ever came up in emergency responses before, but as soon as it was flagged, the restriction was amended to allow the exception or remove the limitation.
They also do attempt to implement lessons learned (once reminded of them, sometimes…). So a future airspace restriction may immediately have the permissions starlink needed.
Some of it is planning, some of it is a technology evolution that the existing procedures hadn’t considered, and a lot of it is “maximize safety first while we get our bearings”. It was frustrating, but the opposite - trying to clamp down on a free-for-all - is a much worse scenario.
There is a provision in the rules for making exceptions for emergencies and/or situation where a life is at stake. They take two forms.
The first allows a pilot to independently make a decision to depart from the normal rules and procedures… but said pilot will be asked to explain themselves afterward (I actually speak from experience on that one). If the authorities do not agree with the pilot then there could be consequences, potentially severe.
The second is to apply to have a waiver. While I do not have personal experience with this I have known people who have successfully applied for them. Actually, you don’t need to have an emergency to apply for an exception, but in the case of an emergency they are much more likely to get a decision promptly. A key part of any such waiver is explaining why what you’re proposing is a reasonable risk to take and what relevant safety provisions you will be taking to safeguard those on the ground and/or others in the air around you.
Yes, because the FAA and other relevant agencies do have the ability to modify/waive rules in emergency situations… but it’s generally better to ask first due to all the other things that are likely to be going on in a disaster zone.
When the media says “there’s a no-fly zone” what they are almost always referring to is a TFR, a Temporary Flight Restriction. That’s not actually a “no fly zone”, it’s a restricted zone. You have to give a reason why you’re there as opposed to the rest of the US airspace where you’re allowed to go just because it’s there, or you’re passing through, or circling over your home’s roof or whatever.
It worked out in this case. I vaguely worry that there are other situations that aren’t being resolved because the people involved don’t have as much pull as Musk.
Yeah, let’s hope. It’s not clear that particular rule was very valuable in the first place. I guess it’s probably there to cut down on the number of flights where aircraft are just milling around, unproductively looking for rescue targets. But if that’s the case there are probably more specific fixes.
My point is that we don’t know if there are any cases like that, because they have no visibility. As I said, it’s only a “vague” worry. But it’s obviously possible.
From reading post 20 in this thread, Elon Musk attracted the attention of the Secretary of Transportation by posting to Twitter/X so someone else in a similar situation might try that or perhaps they could contact their member of Congress, who will also have access to the Secretary of Transportation.
Sure, there are many possibilities. But having 200M followers automatically gets you some visibility that might be hard to acquire otherwise. Especially with all the conspiracy-laden noise making similar-sounding claims about fabricated scenarios.
Not Likely. Towers are designed to withstand nature and have generators. Beyond that the military is easily capable of setting up command and control centers and would be called up from Governors if needed in the form of National Guard units. I suspect plans are already in play because I see guard units doing a lot of training flights in my area (cargo).
Nevermind that there’s less public interest in letting Joe Anyone with His Drone to operate in restricted airspace simply because he believes he can be helpful, as compared to an established operator like Starlink which has a Flight Operations department, direct contacts with the FAA and has a larger capacity to assist.
Mr. Anyone can contact the FAA, TSA, his congress critter, local emergency services, etc. The contact information is public and available to anyone. That’s the point. If he’s actually useful, he’ll be put to use.
Sure, starlink had more visibility, but I have a strong suspicion the Flight Ops for the company were already in talks with and getting the ball rolling with the FAA.
Call me cynical, but Musk has a strong incentive to use Twitter - his company - to make Starlink - his company - look like they are being mistreated by the government - Democrats - while he looks like a hero and brown-noses Trump all day.
*FEMA, the FAA and North Carolina emergency response agencies have rebutted claims that the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Federal Aviation Administration were blocking flights with hurricane emergency supplies. *
*FEMA, the FAA and North Carolina emergency response agencies have rebutted claims that the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Federal Aviation Administration were blocking flights with hurricane emergency supplies. *
*The FAA can issue temporary restrictions to ensure airspace safety during emergency response. *
*Elon Musk’s Oct. 4 X posts sparked these persistent false claims. *
Neither the Federal Emergency Management Agency nor the Federal Aviation Administration are preventing flights from delivering supplies, including Starlink satellite internet receivers, to Hurricane Helene survivors.
But if you’ve been on social media in recent days, you might have heard otherwise.