The Persistent Aerial Reconnaissance and Communications vehicle system. (Courtesy of CyPhy Works)

WASHINGTON—Drones aren’t on their way – they’re already here. But they’re not technically legal, at least not where commercial and hobbyist use are concerned. So what exactly are people hoping to do with them, and how is the government planning to regulate it?

This past February, the Federal Aviation Administration released a set of proposed rules to govern the commercial use of small unmanned aircraft systems under 55 pounds, and then opened a 60-day commentary period. That has expired, but the FAA never set a date for a final version, and experts say the waiting game could last two years, possibly longer.

Meanwhile, unmanned aircraft system technology is advancing at a rapid pace, a fact not lost on Robert Pappas, whose team coordinates Unmanned Vehicle policy for the FAA. He said his office is trying to work with various government agencies and the private sector to ensure drones are used safely, both now and once a final set of rules are released.

The agency’s current priorities, Pappas said, are improving safety requirements and streamlining certifications and exemptions. Not at the top of the list: preventing the tiny unmanned vehicles from being used for illicit surveillance purposes – or even as part of a terrorist attack.

And that’s surprising, considering recent incidents. In the early hours of January 26, an employee of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency crashed an illegal drone onto the White House lawn, completely undetected by radar. What that drone could have done – or carried with it – is something best left to the imagination.

“We’ve seen a rise in UAS operations in the national air space over the last few years,” Pappas said, referencing an existing exemption process which helps the private sector “pursue some potential relief” from the current ban. Pappas grants exemptions to the existing “no commercial use rule” on a case-by-case basis, governed by Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

Speaking at a discussion on civil drone policy sponsored by the Center for Strategic & International Studies in late April, Pappas said that Section 333 demand remains consistently and “remarkably high.”

Pappas said his division has issued close to 250 exemptions in the last seven months alone, and is “now issuing dozens on a weekly basis,” many of them to commercial entities so that they can use UASs for aerial photography, survey and film production.

According to Pappas, the UAS Integration Office is working internationally to develop standards, approaches and frameworks for commercial guidance in light of recent technological advances. “We continue to see new and novel applications” for drone use, Pappas said, including survey and photo capabilities in the real estate and property management sectors. He said he has received exemption requests for aircraft with unusual power sources and rotors, as well as for nighttime operations, which the proposed framework excludes for safety reasons. Permission to operate outside line-of-sight constraints, which currently require that operators maintain visual contact with their drones at all times, is also a frequent request, he said.

In theory, the potential capabilities of drones are infinite, a point made by Brian Wynne, CEO of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, at the CSIS panel. “There are going to be as many devices as you can imagine missions going forward,” he said.

And the FAA’s response to date has been all about flexibility. In a press release timed with the release of the proposed rules, FAA administrator Michael Huerta said, “We have tried to be flexible in writing these rules. We want to maintain today’s outstanding level of aviation safety without placing an undue regulatory burden on an emerging industry.”

Drone advocate Patrick Egan, who helps manage an international organization dedicated to capturing news related to UASs, said that “flexible” doesn’t begin to describe the FAA’s proposed framework and approach. He offered a better word for it: “liberal,” as in accommodating.

Egan, a former consultant with the Space and Missile Defense Command Battle Lab where he worked on future warfare research projects said he was initially surprised by how generous the proposed rules were – even if they aren’t yet final. And from what he’s heard, the drone community feels the same way.

“As a community, we got a gift,” Egan said. “[These rules are] way, way more progressive than we could have really hoped for.” Egan said that in his opinion, the FAA may have even been more generous than they should have, in terms of not instituting formal licensing requirements and granting a weight limit as large as 55 pounds.

The Secret Service completely mistook a blip on their radar systems for an innocent toy last month until it landed on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol. Then they saw it for what it really was: a disgruntled U.S. postal worker from Florida in a one-man flying machine. He had 535 letters with him demanding campaign finance reform – one for each member of Congress.

By then Douglas Hughes, 61, had breached three major no-fly zones, crossing through some of the most protected airspace in the country. And though he had broken federal law, he was admittedly unapologetic, alternately seen as a hero, a crank or an activist.

Last week, things suddenly got far more serious; a federal grand jury indicted Hughes on six criminal counts. Two of them are felonies – flying without a pilot’s license and failure to register an aircraft – and the other four are misdemeanors related to violating national airspace and operating a vehicle falsely labeled as a postal carrier.

Hughes holds another label: alleged criminal.

According to Hughes, his self-proclaimed “Freedom Flight” from Gettysburg to Washington, D.C. on April 15 was part of a longtime protest against existing campaign finance laws. A man on a mission, Hughes said he wanted to raise awareness about corruption on Capitol Hill.

“He’s going to face jail time and he’s going to do it,” said Joe Lamonaca, a Delaware-based attorney specializing in domestic and international aviation law. Lamonaca is not part of Hughes’ legal team, although he has been following the case and believes conviction is likely if it goes to trial.

The fact that Hughes intentionally flew into P-56 airspace, the designation for prohibited airspace surrounding the Capitol and White House, is without question, Lamonaca said. And that airspace belongs to the Secret Service – not the Federal Aviation Administration: “That’s the holy grail of all prohibited airspace in the country.”

“And it’s actually not restricted,” he added. “It’s prohibited – which means no flight under any circumstances.”

A gyrocopter resembles a helicopter, except that its rotating blade is propelled by air flow, rather than an engine. It’s also much lighter, smaller and incapable of hovering the way a helicopter does.

Hughes’ stunt was planned years in advance and widely discussed, and was the subject of interviews with the Tampa Bay Times and at least two Secret Service Agents months before he ever took flight.

So Hughes can’t claim that he lost control of his gyrocopter, took a left instead of a right and wound up at the Capitol, Lamonaca said. Hughes even livestreamed his journey mid-air. What he did was premeditated and that will limit his defense strategy, Lamonaca added.

“He was trying to make a statement for himself,” Lamonaca said. “But I think the government is going to make one the other way.”

With 30 years of experience as a pilot, Lamonaca said he knows why the Secret Service may have mistaken Hughes’ gyrocopter for a toy. It doesn’t have a transponder, which means that Hughes wasn’t sending out a secondary radar signal the way planes do.

“I know what it would have looked like on that radar screen, low flightpath, slow speed,” he said. “He was so low, the signature was almost nonexistent.”

But that’s no excuse, Lamonaca said. The Secret Service should be checking out every signal, using visual spotting to make up the difference: “There are so many different ways [to fly a weapon] and that’s going to require manpower.” Hughes had letters onboard, as opposed to bombs or explosives, but the potential for danger was still there. And the Secret Service either missed it entirely or let it slide – when they let it land.

“Whether it’s drones [or] gyrocopters … they’ve got to start taking them seriously,” he added, in reference to the need for federal security officials to account for new technology. Because a future incident, he said, may up the stakes significantly.

David Gregory (left) moderates a discussion concerning the rise of ISIS with retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor at American University on Wednesday, April 8. Mansoor said that the takeover of ISIS is a direct result of the U.S. decision to invade, and then leave Iraq in the 2000s: “Al-Qaida was defeated during the surge in 2007-2008 – not destroyed.” (Mary Cirincione/MEDILL)

Whatever headway the U.S. gained in Iraq following the 2007 surge has for the most part come undone — paving the way for the rise of the self-described Islamic State.

That’s the assessment of retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who had a front-row seat for the surge in his capacity as executive officer to retired Army Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq from 2007 to 2008, the culmination of Mansoor’s 26-year Army career.

When the last U.S. troops left Iraq on Dec. 18, 2011, following several years of drawdowns, al-Qaida was defeated, but was not irrevocably destroyed.

“We had al-Qaida down on the 10-count, and we let it off the mat,” Mansoor said.

And, he added, from those not-quite-extinguished ashes rose the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

After his deployment as XO to Petraeus, Mansoor retired in 2008 and went on to publish two memoirs detailing his experiences during the surge. He’s now an associate professor at Ohio State University, where he teaches military history.

Speaking at a discussion Wednesday at American University in Washington, D.C., Mansoor assessed the Obama administration’s approach to Iraq and criticized several key areas.

Citing a general “unraveling of the security situation around the world,” Mansoor stressed the need to “know who your enemy is.”

ISIS is an entirely new kind of adversary, a “hybrid enemy,” he said. “And to combat a hybrid force, you need a hybrid force.”

That requires an unrestricted approach. President Obama’s proposal for a new authorization for the use of military force in Iraq in February is a good start, but doesn’t go as far as it should, Mansoor said.

“The authorization shouldn’t be constrained geographically because the president needs to be authorized to combat ISIS wherever it exists,” Mansoor said. “It shouldn’t have constraints on number and type of force … [and] should not rule out ground forces” because they are integral to any functional, comprehensive approach to defeating ISIS.

He suggested that any effort to retake the strategic city of Mosul, for example, would require troops on the ground. “If you rule out those uses of force, then achieving our goals becomes much more difficult.”

And drones are not enough to win this fight, he added. “Unfortunately, this administration has used drones — which are a tool for war — as a substitute for strategy.”

Mansoor said U.S. strategy today “is to support the Iraq government with air power and advisers that do not accompany troops into battle, but train them.”

He argued that is not enough, and that maintaining close, continuous involvement with the Iraqi government should be a priority.

“That’s what we’re not seeing from the Obama administration,” he said.

The lack of close collaboration has created missed opportunities, in Mansoor’s opinion, among which was the chance to support a moderate bloc within the Iraqi government — when there was one.

Moving forward, the U.S. approach needs to acknowledge the changing reality with Iran, Mansoor said.

“Iran sees the Islamic State as an opportunity,” something akin to a distraction because if Americans are preoccupied with the threat posed by ISIS, Iranian leaders think the U.S. will overlook its grievances with them.

“But we need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time,” and deal with both fronts simultaneously, he said.

That means weaning Iraq off Iran, Mansoor explained. “Right now, Iran has its tentacles deep into Iraq,” which he called bad news for the rest of the world.

Mansoor believes America’s best bet is an international coalition, and should include soliciting more support from Turkey in terms of shutting off the flow of fighters and oil into Iraq. “Turkey needs to be onboard,” he said, but they haven’t been fully cooperative.

Mansoor also suggested that Obama appreciate his influence over the American people to get their support for broadening the fight against ISIS.

“Right now, we have an administration that’s engaged diplomatically, but because they’re taking off the table much of the military [functionality], no one believes them,” he said.

Published in conjunction with