U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

nbcnews.com

171 pointsdavidbarker151 comments

One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders.

The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV.

It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.

That is a fucking sane and logical idea, no wonder no one has mentioned it.

There is nothing about aviation GPS's that make them high accuracy. In fact they're mostly inferior to consumer GPS equipment.

What drives up the cost is certification of the equipment.

Certification and also a lot more technology behind figuring out when the position data is inaccurate. Aviation GPS units will run forward looking simulations (for example when flying a GPS landing approach) and figure out that satellites are about to be in a suboptimal position and warn the pilot accordingly.

That's still a simple thing to do with software. The cost of the device shouldn't go up because of that.

That makes no sense, unless your software guys work for free. The cost of software development has to be paid for out of the price of the devices. Aviation is a very limited market, so you don't have a lot of sales to amortize those costs.

The sales volume of consumer GPS units, however, is extremely large; if there is any pure software improvement to be made, even if the benefit for those devices is quite low, I'd expect it to be commonplace. Does anyone have a citation for aviation GPS using more sophisticated algorithms than consumer GPS?

Aviation stuff isn't necessarily an improvement for consumer units, though. For example, an aviation unit used for precision approaches or collision avoidance needs to detect when accuracy decreases below minimums, alert the pilot, and disable the functionality. For a consumer unit you just keep pumping out inaccurate, best-effort numbers.

Most GPS devices I've used provide a precision estimate already.

How accurate is that precision estimate, though? Is it built with enough care that you can put lives on the line?

Appeal to fear isn't an argument. Either the precision is right or it isn't. Precision requirements aren't unique to aviation and aviation doesn't even have the strictest requirements. The required precision of surveying equipment is much higher than what aviation needs.

I would have much more faith in an open source project with lots of people independently verifying the precision of calculations for known devices than closed source stuff from aviation companies that hide behind fear rather than real justifications for the price.

It's not an appeal to fear. It's an appeal to testing and verification.

The cost of these devices are much greater than the cost to implement the feature we are talking about though (alerting on bad precision). You can argue that the cost should be high because of intelligence about runway approaches, but just knowing that the precision is bad is not an excuse.

From a practical perspective that may be true.

Consumer GPS (eg. Phone/Tablet) is typically augmented GPS, whereas certified aviation GPS uses WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) to improve accuracy.

The key difference is that aviation GPS will warn the pilot if there is degraded performance below requirements, whereas consumer GPS doesn't.

Here is one ICAO paper on ADS-B accuracy: http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/2011_ADS_B_SITF10/IP10_AUS...

Aviation GPS typically have a greater update rate, and support WAAS (wide area augmentation system) and RAIM (receiver autonomous integrity monitoring).

Interesting idea although there are a lot of technical issues that would make what you describe more challenging. A simpler approach is positive enforcement. Force manufacturers to hard code drones to not fly near airports or other restricted areas and not fly above 200 ft.

Model aircraft have existed for a long time and there's been a good relationship with the FAA and few incidents. The challenge is that technology has advanced to the point that these modern "drones" are almost too easy to fly. Any idiot can watch some YouTube videos and then they think they're a pilot. Given that, to the extent possible the aviation regulations should be enforced at the device level to make these things as idiot proof in terms of busting airspace regs as they are idiot proof to fly.

I thought the DJI Phantom quadcopters do have firmware lockout for certain restricted areas. Most RC flying clubs are committed to being good neighbors and not conflicting with other aircraft.

Part of the issue is that Helicopters do fly quite low, well away from airports, and the DJI Phantom can be flown high enough to be a concern.

Another part of these new regulations is identifying the RPV so that appropriate enforcement or education can occur.

Some people have suggested that DJI Phantom and other RPVs are shipped in "idiot" mode with tight restrictions. Once an operator can show responsible operation, then switch to a less restrictive mode.

> Force manufacturers to hard code drones to not fly near airports or other restricted areas and not fly above 200 ft.

A drone is one of the few things that can be smuggled by themselves. Both US-Mexico and US-Canada borders are wide.

>A drone is one of the few things that can smuggle itself. Both US-Mexico and US-Canada borders are wide.

Fixed that for you.

And if they add new airports or classified areas ?

It also doesn't solve the problem of drones being active near emergency situations.

"Real" airplanes have the same issue. That's why all the charts and databases are updated frequently and pilots are responsible for ensuring the latest data is available and loaded into the onboard computers. On a typical small general aviation airplane that typically involves uodating the electronic flight bag app on your iPad and popping a new memory card into the on board navigation computer.

Other short term updates (like firefighting flight restrictions) are reviewed by the pilots on official FAA endorsed websites or by calling a flight service center (like customer support for pilots) before each flight. One of the most basic elements of the required preflight planning for any flight of a "real" airplane is to do all the above to make sure you have the latest data and know about any temporary restrictions.

There's no reason why drone pilots couldn't or shouldn't be required to perform a simplified version of the above before flight (if you want to do anything other than flying the thing under the treeline in your own backyard).

A "drone region lockout" bypass (using spoofed GPS signals) was showcased by a team at Def Con this year. They showed video of their drone taking off inside restricted airspace in Beijing. In other words, if someone wants to deliberately break the rules, they're going to find a way. I guess it would still prevent accidental airspace violation.

My main concern is that the definition of "restricted airspace" is likely to increase if this becomes a standard. E.g. the National Park Service would probably lobby to have all of their airspace included, even though it's a nuisance to some people in national parks instead of a safety concern.

Just how accurate is this 2000$ GPS supposed to be? Because my 40$ Ublox M8N GNSS modules on several copters produce a solid lock with constant HDOP<1.5 under normal conditions, averaging around ~1.5m horizontal position deviation, and altitude is locked in via barometer down to several cm. To get more position accuracy, you really need DGPS, which AFAIK planes don't normally use either... and do those couple meters really matter?

Its about certified accuracy. The UBlox or similar module could drift under certain conditions.

From a practical point of view, knowing where the RPV is within a 100 meters would be more than enough.

The $2000+ GPS is certified to provide position under Instrument Flight Rules for an RNAV (Required NAVigation performance) approach and landing. Not required for a RPV flown under 400ft visually.

>that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device.

Sounds like a market that is ripe for disruption. $2,000 cannot be remotely close to the cost of production. This price is the result of having a small, wealthy customer base that is required by law to purchase it. If someone introduces one with pricing that reflects both the cost of production and a dramatically expanded customer base, that company will make a ton of money.

Just like medical devices or military hardware don't cost X to manufacture the cost is in the degree of certification required. Your MVP might look like it does all the same stuff but it is about proving things like mean time between failure, climatic conditions it can operate in etc.

In this case, any up-front costs, such as certification and R&D, can be amortized over each unit sold in the dramatically expanded market. If the market suddenly goes from a few thousand units per year to a few hundred thousand, the contribution that each unit sold must make to recoup up-front costs gets very close to zero.

The cost isn't only about "production" per se; the increased cost also comes from meeting regulatory, reliability and testing requirements.

I'm wondering how this will be implemented.

If used recreationally, they're R/C flying models, no matter how much the DJI marketing dept likes the term. So will the the hobby that has been fine for decades be hit too?

Will you have to register a Cheerson CX-Stars that weighs 8g?

What about the congressional Special Rule for Model Aircraft? "Technically it's not the FAA so we can regulate everything!" or what?

They're also not that hard to build yourself and the components are shared with other things (e.g. motors are shared with R/C cars and the first popular flight controller was an Arduino with the sensors from a Wii Motion Plus or Nunchuk) so you can't ban the part sales.

You can't ban parts but couldn't you enforce a a rule that restricts airspace above a certain height to only registered devices?

This is already true.

Model aircraft have to be flown within visual line of sight (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 336), which restricts the height.

Commercial use is already FAA territory and you have to be registered (Section 333 Exemption).

/Edit: Section 336, not 366.

I'm delving deep here, but it seems that section primarily states what the FAA will not regulate or "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding". To my reading, it does not state that operation outside those guidelines necessarily does put a craft under the FAA jurisdiction. I admit I could be reading it completely wrong.

But then if you look at this page[1] on the FAAs web site, it says only that operators are "strongly encouraged" to follow certain restrictions like line-of-sight operation. It doesn't say they have to.

Mind you, I follow all those rules myself when flying rc planes, and prefer that other in the hobby also do. I think they're good rules. I'm just playing with interpretation.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

The section 336 says that the FAA will not "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding" if certain criteria are matched. For example that the aicraft is a model aircraft. and c) (2) says that a model aicraft is "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft".

So if you exceed visual line of sight it becomes a normal aircraft, just like every other plane. And they all have to be registered.

That would hold if we assume all things which fly (aside from animals, obviously) are under the jurisdiction of the FAA by default. And then then only certain itemized exceptions (like model aircraft as they define them) are not.

However, I'm not certain that's the case.

> However, I'm not certain that's the case.

I am.

> That would hold if we assume all things which fly (aside from animals, obviously) are under the jurisdiction of the FAA by default.

There's plenty of statute and precedent making it blindingly clear that this is the case.

I suspect we'll see an explosion in popularity of "drones" that are just small enough to to avoid these regulations.

The registration will probably only apply to drones of a certain gross weight. I'm guessing it'll be somewhere around 20 lb, given that's how much the frozen turkeys weigh that they use for birdstrike testing.

Probably a lot less. While an airliner will probably survive a 20lb object in the engines I don't think they would be very keen on having that happen.

A 20lbs object of metal packed with a highly energetic battery that turns into a powerful explosive when destructively smashed to bits. These things a far more dangerous than a typical bird or debris strike.

Austria's drone law basically is making differences by weight and purpose of flight. I expect it to be similar. Heavy drones and sith purpose of filming require a flight picense light which means you are aware of regulations and will follow them.

I love the progress drones have given our society. From surveying property to beautiful aerial views in a video to cool view of your kids soccer game to just plain fun. Drones are amazing.

You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once.

However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringing on the use of drones. I'd like to see the registration used mostly to enforce the rules and track a drone back to its owner.

Ideally, drones should also broadcast its ID, so it's easy for other pilots to know they're in the area and also allow LEO to ticket/fine for offences. Without a broadcasting ID, most of these rules will be hard to enforce.

But then again, what if people start harvesting people's identities from the drones through the identifier? I think it's a neat idea, but it straddles the 4th Amendment line and could potentially expose your identity to people who don't like drones.

...really? Because both aircraft and road vehicles today have identifiers painted or printed on them. What about driving around with a license plate or flying with a tail number? What's the difference?

It would make sense to expose an identifier, rather than the person's identity. I may have misunderstood the comment.

Would it be correct to think that you would be shocked to learn that the FAA has a publicly-accessible aircraft registration database?

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx

Aircraft and cars kill people daily. Constantly. Cars more. Aircraft sometimes more tragically.

Well if you're flying a real plane or copter, you have its registration number widely visible. No difference there.

You don't have a right to privacy in public spaces. You can be a weirdo and wear a baclava and only travel by foot or use cash to use public transit, but that behavior in itself de-anonymizes you.

Yum, baclava! Or perhaps you're thinking of a "balaclava"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_(clothing)

Haha autocorrect strikes again! Walking around with baclava would make you popular if you shared though!

> You can be a weirdo and wear a [balaclava]

That's actually illegal in Virginia: http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-42...

What is registration supposed to do? Broadly, those who will register are responsible enough to not be a problem, those idiots you want to control won't register, and it all just ends up mostly harassing the wrong people. Have and enforce laws against bad behavior, yes, but stop this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.

Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.

Only if you drive them on public roads.

So maybe not a public road -> airspace below a certain height?

Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?).

I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.

>Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school.

This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.

It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.

In what universe is learning to drive a "few" hours? At minimum most courses I know of have 10-20 hours of lecture type instruction.

When it comes to an entire course, that's few. If you took the whole school day it would be 2-3 days. It's barely anything.

not just horseless...

>>I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers

We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...

The position the founding fathers held on freedom of movement is known based on their writings. I don't think it's too speculative to debate about which way they'd lean on the matter. That said it should be an exercise in futility since we do live in very different worlds but it isn't because the constitution's only flexibility is interpretation by federal judges.

Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve.

Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.

> Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve.

In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.

Automobiles are far more deadly than any 18th century firearm.

The Founding Fathers approved of personal ownership of battleships, hence the "letters of marque" clause in the constitution.

Isn't a letter of marque basically a primitive license?

I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.

License to initiate warfare under authority of Congress, yes. License to own and operate harmlessly one defensively, no.

The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.

I don't think it's absurd to imagine that something so completely beyond what they could have even imagined might have hit them on a deep, irrational, emotional level.

> nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.

I do. It feels so liberating not to have to do those things in countries with corrupt + ineffective policing.

Then you probably wouldn't mind if someone hit you while rushing through the city at 100MPH.

And yet that doesn't really happen. The death rate in Vietnam per inhabitant is only 2x higher than the U.S. which is pretty much all explained by the fact that they drive motorcycles instead of cars.

"Only" 2x ? That's 250.000 people more. One human life is too much.

> That's 250.000 people more.

It's 10,000 people more (in a country of 90M people) not 250,000. And, like I said, it's not due to the lax traffic laws/enforcement, it's due to the average Vietnamese riding a motorcycle instead of a car while wearing a useless brain bucket -style helmet.

> One human life is too much.

We all die anyways, might as well enjoy ourselves instead of spending all our time and money on insurance and waiting for "stop signs" and "red lights".

A similar concept applies to license place on road vehicles.

Sometimes some dude drives around without plates or takes an off road vehicle on the road. The police ticket the operator and tow the vehicle in some cases.

Seriously: why?

Pretty easy.

The privilege granted by registration can be linked to other things. So when Mr. Dumbass decides to buy more beer instead of paying for insurance, and subsequently rear ends your car, you are screwed as a motorist. The requirement for registration and insurance tied to a drivers license makes the driving environment work for the vast majority of people.

The same thing applies to drones. When some jackass decides to peep into my daughter's window every day, why should that person be able to act with anonymously and with impunity?

We should have a telescope and x-ocular registry! Also camera registry! That way he can't spy on your daughter "remotely" and with "impunity."

I was questioning the arrest and seizure over a mere paperwork error. Bad behavior, sure, but not for mere want of documentation.

dont forget that registration will usually come with tax.

And now we hope that their definition of "drone" doesn't include traditional RC aircraft, ten-dollar indoor micro-quadcopters, paper airplanes, RC cars, model rockets, or children's balloons.

Edit: oh, and that it does include commercial airliners under autopilot, military aircraft under autopilot, NASA-scale rocket launches, and military guided missiles and cruise missiles.

Somehow I have a feeling commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and rocket launches are already registered with the US government. Just a feeling.

Oh, certainly. I just also want them registered and generally recognised as being "drones". I get really annoyed at people who scream about "future killer drones changing warfare" and "how can they possibly be safe" while they're sitting on an airliner that's been under computer guidance since it finished taxiing and when the US military has been using guided missiles since the 50s.

An aircraft flying under autopilot with a human pilot present who is monitoring the situation and can respond to ATC instructions and take manual control if necessary is not remotely similar to a UAV from a practical perspective, despite the superficial similarity of both being flown by a computer.

I haven't seen a lot of "drones" that weren't being teleoperated at the level of aerodynamic controls. The ones that aren't ([1] is a good example) fly low enough that they wouldn't be visible to ATC in the first place [2]. And the humans may not be quite as in-control as you think; I can't find it, but there was a link off Reddit last week that said that pilots in commercial airliners are so infrequently in control of the airplane that they're starting to forget how to fly their planes.

[1]: https://www.airdog.com/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon

You are correct and I don't think sitting in the pilot's seat but not having your hands on the controls qualifies as "unmanned."

Again, UAVs are not computer-flown. They're remotely piloted. They are not completely autonomous (yet.)

> Again, UAVs are not computer-flown. They're remotely piloted. They are not completely autonomous (yet.)

This is incorrect. Most popular consumer-level autopilot systems used by companies like DJI and 3D Robotics have complete autonomous functionality (except sense and avoid capability) which allows the user to input a flight path and then watch the drone take off, fly through the checkpoints and then land, completely autonomously.

As opposed to military killer-drones. Which goes back to upthread concerns. Military drones are remote-operated, not autonomous.

I don't think we agree on what "autonomous" means. Preprogramming a flight path to follow doesn't meet the definition of autonomous nor does autopilot following waypoints.

Autonomous, at least to me, means the drone takes off, searches out a sight ("drone, fine me a bridge and take pictures of it") and then makes the decision to fly to it and perform some kind of action whether it be photographic/videographic/some kind of monitoring (commercial drones) or a kinetic action (military drones).

Basically, when drones get AI then I'd personally consider them to be autonomous. YMMV

And I get annoyed by people who simply don't "get it".

Nobody cares about the definition of a drone. It is irrelevant whether it is manned/unmanned, large/small, heavy/light etc. They care that they are used safely and don't put innocent people at risk.

Aircraft pilots and government officials go through rigorous training to ensure that anything they do is safe. A 15 year old kid buying one off the internet does not. Hence the need for regulations.

If I attach a gun to it, then can I avoid registering it?

I'm just curious, have we had an instance where a quadcopter has caused the crash of a commercial aircraft? I've seen birds filleted by tiny copters, and I can't help but feel this is more fear than anything. But I honestly don't know.

No we have not.

All the big consumer drone makers are in China. I love how all sorts of unregulated surprisingly powerful tech comes out of China. The last mischief they engaged in was way too powerful lasers. They just don't have the fear of science in that country like we have in America.

It's all good until you fall down an elevator shaft.

It's all invented here.

No it's not.

That's been less true in recent times. Nowadays the factories have moved up in the design chain towards remixing their own designs. There's also more than one hardware startup accelerator that flys founders to shenzen since it's so much more efficient to work locally.

And regarding this meta commentary of thinking that China as merely the assemblers of american inventors, remember that this was thought of Japan and korea in the 70s and 80s, which now produce some good quality cars and TVs, respectively. I wonder if engineers at GM or Zenith (last great american TV brand) scoffed and thought the same in 1980.

Nothing more exciting then a unregulated wild west. Especially for a place like China with 2x the driver mortality rate of the US, staggering deaths caused by pollution and industrial accidents and swathes of land irreparably polluted.

And of course the Chinese love it. That's why they are desperate for Western products like baby milk formula, vitamins and services in the health and old age sectors.

But of course the US is totally scared of science. What with being the hub of almost all successful startups.

This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Not because it doesn't possibly have some noble intent behind it, but - if for no other reason - because it's going to be bloody impossible to enforce. When any hobbyist can easily build a drone/UAV without much in the way of special skills or equipment, how in the hell do they ever expect they'll get everybody to register them?

I'm guessing that they're not worried about the hobbyists, who are generally more responsible; but the random people getting assembled drones as Xmas gifts.

Maybe there'll be a DIY exception like firearms have?

I'm curious, what kind of firearm is classified as DIY and registration is not required?

Anything short of full-auto or under 0.50 bore (more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons). Even then, certain categories (SBRs, AOWs) can be legally owned after paperwork and filing for a tax stamp ($5 for AOWs transfers, $200 for SBRs and supressors).

This is why you see AR15 "80% Complete Lowers" being sold. You buy what is basically a chunk of metal, finish the machining (can be done with a special jig and a drill press), and you can have a functional AR15 that nobody but you has any knowledge of.

The "upper receiver" and barrel, trigger parts kit, bolt assembly, and other bits are just pieces parts and pipe, as far as UPS and anyone else is concerned. When I built my AR15 (out of a locally purchased fully complete lower), I bought the upper receiver assembly online and UPS delivered it to my front door.

Plus, not all states require registration of "normal" firearms. In Texas, the only "registration" is the ATF Form 4473 that is filled out at time of purchase, and those are held by the seller, not the government.

http://www.vice.com/video/diy-guns-591

They can simply fine people who do not have the documents with them. Like a police officer would come up to a drone pilot and ask for documents.

You can build a bicycle much more easily than a drone and many counties and some countries require people to register their bicycles.

Do the police usually have the capability to track down who is operating a drone though?

If you're doing something annoying or illegal they could always follow it and see where it lands. More likely they would ask when they drive by and see someone preparing to launch one.

There are lots of hunting, firearms, and vehicular regulations that get enforced by cops (and other peace officers) who see things while on patrol.

replace drone with car. still stupid?

It's generally harder to build a car than a drone, so the analogy really doesn't hold. But yes, car registration is still stupid.

Also cars are multi-ton objects moving at incredible speed operated by a texting driver which routinely fly into each other causing death and dismemberment daily. Daily.

replace drone with radio-transmitters above certain power operating in certain frequencies.

HAM operators are proud of the strict licencing requirements and the test they need.

They probably should require all birds to be geolocated as well... since they present about the same level of danger to real aircrafts..

Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know.

Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous.

Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.

but tiny toy battery-operated "drones" typically fly at much lower altitude then any jet engine would be flying at... while some birds fly at much higher altitudes then toy quadcopters...

My little racing drone is certainly carbon fiber but it weighs a couple hundred grams.

DJI phantoms, last model I saw is built of plastic.

There hasn't been a recorded plane v drone crash that I've seen documented (the last one that hit the news ended up being birds).

Regardless the rules say under 400', not within 5 miles of an airport and some other locations.

I'm not opposed to a drone 'license plate', I'm all for fining or jailing people that are flying these things near the white house. I'm seeing a lot of hysteria right now triggered by some jackasses who can't be responsible with their toys.

Wikipedia has that bird strikes "cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million within the United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial aircraft worldwide."

So far drone strikes (excluding deliberate military stuff) have caused damages of $0 I think.

I'd love to see exactly what legislation they believe gives them the authority to enforce this kind of regime by regulatory fiat.

And I'd also love to see how they plan on getting around the very clearly required notice-and-comment period for new regulations, to say nothing of sweeping new regulatory frameworks (no way this happens legally by Christmas, which in this context probably means "day after thanksgiving").

This quote: "Under the plan, the government would work with the drone industry to set up a structure for registering the drones" makes me hope that they're planning on an ineffective and widely ignored warranty-card type system.

Sure, new-tech drones should respond to a targeted ping w/ serial number or similar. Simple challenge/response crypto could avoid cloning/spoofing. Enforcement of registration: no response = police will follow the drone to its owner and ticket (else impound). Physical serial number for legacy drones.

They just need to make these drones kit only and harder to fly. I've been flying RC with my dad since the early 90s. You would spend a month building these gas powered planes or helis. Only way to learn to fly was through other people or crashing a lot. It def kept irresponsible people out of the hobby. Plus you have to have skill to fly a 6 channel collective pitch heli. These things are not toys.

I won't be surprised if failing to be in compliance while flying a UAV/RPA results in being arrested.

Just use your drone as a gun holster and then politicians will be too terrified to make any laws about it.

In case anyone is reading from NBC, would you mind using the term "UAV" or "RPA" over "drone"? When we throw around the word "drone" here on reddit and hacker news I feel like it's okay because many of us know the key differences between what we're flying and the hellfire raining completely terrifying semi-automated flying death machines deployed in war-zones around the world.

However, many people who read your articles might not be so well informed. Many people have an incorrect and confused understanding of them and to them the word "drone" carries that jumbled mess of an associations. It would be helpful to everyone involved to use more precise modern language. You may argue - as the ACLU has - that the word "drone" is the most direct way to talk about unmanned aerial vehicles to the broad public. It may be easy to use and direct, but it's far from accurate. As Edward Murrow famously said "We cannot make good news out of bad practice."

I'm with you, but at some point the battle is lost, and you're throwing good effort after bad.

People can be pretty stubborn about that, look at the title of this website. :-)

The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart.

>The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart.

Part of the reason for that is the hacker community made up a word that no self respecting person would use to describe themselves. The modern 'computer hacking' culture came out of the phreaker community and IMO is the proper description for this activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking

Rereading this hours later, I realize that the way I wrote it makes it sound like I'm talking about the word hacker. I'm actually talking about the word cracker, which was essentially a made up term that I'm fairly sure no 'hacker' ever used to describe themselves. The actual 'cracking' community broke DRM schemes and was affiliated with but basically orthogonal to the hacker/phreaker community.

I agree that it's a waste of effort, and that the battle is lost even if you had a solid argument, but you don't. "Drone" has been used to refer to unmanned aircraft since at least as far back as World War 2.

This article is a good summary:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873241104045786258...

What about these:

Historical argument: Model R/C aircraft have been around for longer (including a video downlink and limited autonomous flight like return-to-home) than the term drone has been applied to them, even if it existed before as you said. Since the capabilities of these R/C aircraft didn't change, it is logical that their name doesn't change either.

Usefulness of the definition: Aircraft which are the size of a van and shooting rockets at brown people in the middle east are also called drone. Since capabilities, dangers and use case differ so radically from a 600g aicraft crashing into trees because it's fun, it is logical that they have a different name.

Political argument: Because drone is associated with the aforementioned military aircraft, it makes it easier to call for more regulation of hobbyists by playing on the public's fears.

> Usefulness of the definition: Aircraft which are the size of a van and shooting rockets at brown people in the middle east are also called drone. Since capabilities, dangers and use case

And yet, in that very argument you used the word "aircraft" to refer to military UAVs. That word "aircraft" is also used to describe vehicles of vastly different designs, sizes, and capabilities, but I don't think there's much confusion caused by this term.

It's okay to have words that describe large groups of things, along with words which describe more specific subsets of groups of things.

> However, many people who read your articles might not be so well informed. Many people have an incorrect and confused understanding of them and to them the word "drone" carries that jumbled mess of an associations.

Do you actually know anyone who has made this mistake? I've heard scores of people online claim this, but I've never met anyone who has actually met someone with this confusion. Who reads this article and thinks that the US government is preparing to announce that large privately-owned unmanned airplanes armed with missiles are going to require registration? I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone who isn't mentally ill would make this mistake.

In my experience, everyone in the US is quite capable of determining the meaning of "drone" from context. I've flown drones in parks and had dozens of people ask me about them. They may call them "drones," but there's no confusion. Not only that, but there's no fear or apprehension. People think they're cool, which they are.

Somewhat humorously, I think most of the FUD about public perception of consumer drones actually comes from the RC model aircraft community (of which I am a part, I suppose). I do not think it is based in reality.

Yes, I make UAVs as my day job and I run into this confusion regularly. People are very confused about the meaning of the term drone. For some people 'drone' definitively means military drone. For others, 'drone' definitively means a quad-rotor. In the news it's a catch-all term that could mean anything.

When I describe that I make 1,200 pound unmanned helicopters, the first question is always, "Is that like a drone?". In their minds it is neither a quad-rotor, nor carrying missiles, so they're not sure what to call it.

I expect most people will think this registration applies directly to what you describe as using in parks. I have no idea whether it's supposed to apply the likes of the Parrot drones, including or not the Bebop or Spider.

We don't know what this is supposed to cover, especially with the news stories of people using your "drones in parks" types to observe neighboring teenagers sunbathing or to report on mass anti government protests.

Heck yeah there's confusion.

In these circles, a "drone" is usually the little ones you might attach a Go Pro to or control with your iPhone, not a UAV similar to what the military uses. I'd go so far as when someone says "drone" to the general public, they think of the guy at the park before the military version.

If NBC wanted to clarify, they could add a line like "drone - anything with a wingspan over X feet - would have to be registered" and completely dispel any confusion.

>Do you actually know anyone who has made this mistake?

If it helps, I initially did. That was my initial reaction after reading the headline, that it had something to do with military UAV's. After a second of thought and on clicking the article, I found out it was about private UAV's.

Whenever the word "drone" is brought up, the first image that pops into my head is that "Drone Warrior" cover for the Atlantic. I should note that I am not too familiar with UAV's--other than a small handsized drone a colleague bought me as a present, I have little experience with them. This might be a "hunter's association with the word gun vs. a non-hunters'" sort of thing.

> I think most of the FUD about public perception of consumer drones actually comes from the RC model aircraft community

Can you clarify this? What is the RCMA community contrubuting to FUD?

I disagree that drone is wrong here. It's not clear to me that UAV or RPA is any clearer - certainly I expect a lot fewer people are familiar with RPA as a term, and I'm not convinced that UAV has any fewer connotations. I think the term 'civilian drone' might give the right impression.

For what it's worth, the people actually using these, namely the US Air Force doesn't call them drones in any official capacity - but alternatively UAS, RPV, RPA and very rarely UAV. In fact when I was a briefer, just as they were becoming ubiquitous, there was quite a bit of debate about calling them RPAs vs UAVs, which was the most used term at the time.

The DoD nor USG has never officially associated "Drone" with any specific flying operations.

There seems to be an obvious need for a classification system that is clear enough for the general public to understand. I have no personal interest in aircraft, but I understand that model airplanes aren't the same as military drones. It would be useful if there were some clear regulatory standards.

Unfortunately the media inadvertently establishes terminology in a permanent and unavoidable way. The word drone is easy to say, widely recognized, and best of all has 20% more drama than the other terms. Drama is the lifeblood of the news business.

More likely they're saying "The term 'drone' is becoming too ordinary, how can we spice it up a bit? The drone menace? drone threat?"

I'm really not kidding.

The manufacturers are widely using the term "drone". Examples:

http://www.parrot.com/usa/

http://axisdrones.com

http://www.dji.com

http://www.bladehelis.com/Drones/

http://store.3drobotics.com/t/drones

I don't think you have much chance of getting the press to use a different term if the manufacturers aren't on board.

I just found a tiny little drone on my backyard.

Poor little thing crashed and now it's mine! :)

Drones are army planes that can fly for hours and probably weight hundreds if not thousands of pounds... Quadcopters are toys that can fly for minutes and weight only a few pounds...

"Drone" covers all UAVs/RPVs whether small enough to fit on your palm or large enough to need a full size air strip to launch.

All UAVs are drones and all drones are UAVs. Not all drones are quadcopters but all quadcopters are drones. Even in the strictest definition, what we commonly call "R/C Planes/Helicopters" actually qualify as "drones."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

>...but all quadcopters are drones.

Well, not all of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Bothezat

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v0ADuoE1cY/VHsBwdH-YGI/AAAAAAAAAh...

Well played, sir.

ok, so just use an helicopter and load it with some random human and you'll be fine... no restrictions (as long as you don't crash). I'll use this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hughes-269A-Helicopter-/201447206828...

You might be interested to learn that the FAA has strict regulations on the registration and operation of helicopters, and the licensing of their pilots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com