David Michael Miller
On Oct. 11, 2014, an unidentified flying object appeared over Camp Randall.
Between the third and fourth quarters of a Saturday football game against The Fighting Illini, a small white drone hovered over the stadium, the nasal whine of its four rotors lost in the revelry of “Jump Around.” Bearing no identification marks and carrying an underslung camera, the aircraft lingered for several minutes before departing, leaving no trace of its pilot or origin.
The drone’s presence defied a nationwide security measure prohibiting flight over major stadiums while sporting events are underway. The incident triggered an investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration and local law enforcement, but the drone’s pilot remains unknown some two years later. In front of a captive audience of thousands, a single operator was able to use a drone to intrude protected airspace and escape without resistance or consequence.
The Camp Randall flyover is one of many stories in an ongoing national discussion concerning the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. Lawmakers and regulatory bodies are racing to keep pace with evolving technology, encountering new approaches to aviation, safety and privacy law as they try to balance regulation with innovation. From a federal to local level, many questions remain unanswered regarding the management and regulation of drone operations.
While the FAA has historically been the exclusive regulator and enforcer of American airspace laws, this standard was established before the development of consumer drones. The Camp Randall incident demonstrated how drones challenge conventional airspace management, leaving law enforcement and private property owners unprepared for the consequences.
“Everybody is waiting for somebody else to see how they handle it, because this is kind of uncharted territory for a lot of folks,” says Marc Lovicott, director of communications for the UW-Madison Police Department. “There’s a lot of gray area involved in what the FAA says, what different municipalities say, and what some state laws say.”
The first push to regulate drone technology came with the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which in part sought to establish rules for the safe operation of drones. The FAA finalized these rules in August 2016, releasing a system of regulations known as Part 107, which outlines operational guidelines for small unmanned aircraft. The new rules limit maximum altitude to 400 feet, prohibit flight over people, restrict flights to daylight hours and require advanced authorization for flight near airports.
These regulations apply to commercial pilots, who must pass an FAA license exam in order to use drones for business purposes. Hobby pilots, who need no license to fly, operate under less restrictive rules called Part 101. Drones on the market can cost as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as tens of thousands. They’ve been used by photographers, engineers, farmers, law enforcement and delivery services.
Phil Levin is a local videographer who regularly uses drones for his business by incorporating aerial footage in video projects. The new rules can be frustrating for Levin.
“Navigating the legal hurdles given the severity of the penalties for not doing so has been a lot of work,” says Levin. While he does understand the importance of regulation, Levin adds, “there are a lot of ways to operate drones safely and carefully that are still outside the letter of the law right now.“
Pilots who seek to fly beyond the stipulations of Part 107 must apply for permission from the FAA, which grants waivers on a case-by-case basis. But the turnaround time for waivers can be difficult for business.
“The waiver process limits the type of projects I can offer to clients because folks are usually not planning videos more than three months in advance, which is how long it might take to hear back from the FAA,” Levin says.
Violating flight rules outlined in Part 107 can incur penalties ranging from the revocation of a remote pilot’s commercial license to thousands of dollars in fines. In January 2017, the FAA reached a settlement agreement with aerial photography company SkyPan International, which paid a $200,000 penalty for 65 unauthorized drone operations in Chicago and New York.
Chris Johnson, director of flight simulation research at UW-Madison, says not all the concerns about drone use were addressed by the new federal rules.
“You have the Federal Aviation Administration regulations, and those were developed around safety only, because the FAA’s congressional charge is based on safety, not privacy,” Johnson says. “That has sparked an influx of local and state ordinances mainly surrounding privacy issues, and then private landowners have a say.”
There are also some concerns around the use of drones in terrorism and criminal activity. But Joel DeSpain, the public information officer for the Madison police department, says that beyond the Camp Randall flyover, the city has had no issues with drones to date.
“We have not experienced any illegal drone uses at this time,” DeSpain says in an email. “However, certainly privacy concerns — and possibly safety concerns — could arise depending on circumstances.”
Though UW currently restricts drone flight over campus to sanctioned official use, an advisory committee is working on a policy that seeks to expand opportunities for students, faculty and staff to use drones over campus for both recreational and academic purposes.
Ben Griffiths, senior university legal counsel from the Office of Legal Affairs, says the new policy is nearing completion and going through final review and revision.
“I think we all wish that the university could move a little bit more quickly, because I know that there’s a lot of demand for and interest in the different applications of drone technology,” Griffiths says.
This article has been amended to clarify that hobby drone pilots are required to follow a different set of FAA rules and that flight is not completely banned over roads.
