US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement
transportation.gov
transportation.gov
Congress (and Obama) asked the FAA to write rules integrating UAS into the national airspace by September 2015, back in February 2012. [2] By all accounts, the section 333 exception policy does not meet that request... and now they expect to develop a full-blown registration process ready before the end of December? Please, don't make me laugh. They couldn't even answer at the press conference what the benefit of registration will be, arguing that it would be used to track down owners of drones flaunting the rules, but seemingly having forgotten that they already can't identify airborne drones properly.
I think Motherboard says it best. "It's clear that the agency, which oversees the Federal Aviation Administration, wants to crack down on the unsafe use of drones, and it's looking like it's going to try to bypass as much of the traditional rulemaking process as is possible... The short answer is, the FAA will probably cut corners and perhaps 'reinterpret' existing manned aircraft regulations" [3]
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/statements-of-s...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/faa-regulation-of-dr...
[3] http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/8-questions-raised-by...
"Drone ranch" here we come.
I am a private pilot, so I appreciate how nuanced the airspace can be. Also I think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free. Drone operators should be required to take at least a brief ground school covering airspace (take it online!) and pass a quiz (also online!)
A sensible system seems like it would be three tiered:
Very small stuff would remain unregulated - obviously there is no concern with things like the CX-10, right? I can't imagine a "drone" of anything near that size causing any size of full-scale aircraft problems.
Mid-tier stuff would be a world like Amateur Radio - modernized to be online or something as you've suggested. You are free to participate in the big boy's airspace within the rules, but some education and proof-of-knowledge about those rules is required.
... and of course large things should not be any different than a full-sized aircraft, with the same regulations.
I'd propose instead a requirement for ADS-B for the mid and large classes below... Micro ~100g transponders exist, fully integrate with the existing aviation infrastructure, etc. [1] ... and most importantly would enable identification of the UAV, which is apparently the most pressing concern at the moment.
Do the pilots here see any problems with this?
[1] http://www.sagetechcorp.com/unmanned-solutions/unmanned-solu...
Also, thanks for the link to the low power transponder. Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use.
They might be better looking into FLARM, which is specifically designed for low-weight applications
ADS-B is competent in its own space, but is really just a clever hack on top of all sorts of Big Aeroplane Regulations and it carries a lot of financial and weight penalties as a result.
I'm not sure about all the associated regulations, but my point was there's not any technological holdouts preventing the integration of medium to large UAVs into the existing infrastructure.
I guess its for the 'flew dangerously and then got away with it' case, where some followup/law enforcement would be required to nab the perps, and not so much for the 'lets find out who is flying this thing right now and where they are located' ..
Granted there is some grey area in the 300-500 size copters, where they are large enough to possibly cause some minor damage to an aircraft, but small enough that the weight of an additional TX would pose an issue.
The registration being proposed by the DOT/FAA isn't going to help with these either; they are quite simply too small for any "tail numbers" to be visible at any distance that matters.
There are 250 class quadcopters that are built for First Person View racing. Races are won and lost because of the difference in a few grams of extra weight.
Any extra weight you add to a device reduces the flight time of the battery.
I generally agree with you, but I want to vent out about that amateur radio bit. Going on-line is something that makes it meaningless. Doing radio over real radio waves is playing with the limits physics throws at you. Doing it over the Internet is just throwing logs under your own feet because Skype isn't cool enough. It's like going outside vs. playing a video game in which your character goes outside.
By online I meant the testing process could be done online.
Why not free? Surely their use should be regulated on the basis of scope and competency rather than cost.
Use of drones in personal airspace ( a few metres above one's land ) within the boundaries of one's property should not be the concern of the Government. This would be the equivalent of driving an unlicensed car on one's property.
However if one wished to operate more freely in Class G airspace then I can understand operator and drone registration being necessary. But this should not be based on cost as the gate, but demonstrated competency.
RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so more people are interested. If anything, it's safer today than it was 10 years ago. They are more reliable, more controllable, and fewer people are flying gasoline powered craft.
This won't make things any safer. Far from it. It will just stifle innovation by drying up the revenue streams of companies like DJI and 3DR. So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned toy fucking magnets, but 250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off limits. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything. Someone, somewhere, maybe almost had a "close call" a few months ago with a plane and an RC helicopter. Better get the DOT, FAA, and Congress on this stat. It's literally the next 9/11 just waiting to happen.
So we'll come up with a registration list, licensing parameters, mandatory insurance, and we'll start "banning" anything that doesn't meet FAA specifications from being imported or manufactured.
Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die.
Its not true that RC has been problem-less - there have been malicious uses of the technology, and fatalities, since the day it was possible to rig up a plane and fly it around. Flight systems, of any variety, are easy to weaponize.
Regulation is a good thing because it requires a more responsible response from civil society. The number of times I've seen day-one flyers out at the local park with their new toy, swooping and hawing over peoples heads recklessly, crashing far too close to civilian life for comfort .. as an RC pilot with 30+ years of experience, I welcome a little enforcement on this subject, frankly. Todays new flyers are quite reckless. Not everyone, obvious, but enough evidence of recklessness exists that I think its a perfectly reasonable requirement that people be registered in order to fly.
>So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits.
That's not a bad thing, imho, because - especially in the RC world - the DIY crowd have always driven progress in the technology. Flight hobbyists have always been a significant contributor to the science - I would say that flight nerds manifest some of the very same traits that the hacker world admire, inasmuch as the desire to experiment and use technology in interesting ways is promoted with every successful landing.
That's true in many fields and particularly quadcopters are, as far as I can tell, just like 3D printers - the entire industry exists because some hobbyists started making DIY models accessible to general public, and someone saw a new market in that.
That's how I understood the comment.
Rather, follow the drone until it lands. If the owner is stupid enough to bring it back to him, you can go quite a bit further.
We also tolerate, more or less, licencing to carry loaded guns outside our dwellings, which this sort of drone licencing could resemble (same generally goes for cars and other motor vehicles). The increasing spread of "constitutional carry", no license required, with Maine just being added a day or two ago, is based on a lack of problems with licensed concealed carry. Which is the opposite of the drone situation, with problems steadily increasing.
And while I recognize the humor you're applying here, your short description of the situation with gun control doesn't really capture the reality. We've been fighting this since right after the Civil War, restrictions on freedmen a large part of the reason for the subsequently judicially nullified 14th Amendment. Ignoring a lot of anti-immigrant state level legislation, FDR then tried to license all handguns with a $3,500 in 2015 dollars transfer "tax", and since, oh, the '50s-'60s, the fundamental argument has been over whether we'd be allowed to possess any guns, with Obama and Hillary! just now calling for mass confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto long guns. I'm not aware of confiscations being on the table with drones, although that could quickly change if/when one brings down an airliner.
And from the view of the FAA, it makes only so much difference if a jet engine injects a big drone vs. a big drone carrying a dense gun.
But I am continuely amused by perceptions of our political power, which comes from at least two things: there are a zillion of us and we vote, and we have been motivated by a lot of government atrocities starting in the early '70s, plus, as noted above, a clear existential threat. The drone situation today currently lacks every single element of our history, but I can imagine murderous enforcement of these coming regulations changing some of that.
Further legislation is "off limits"; you're ignoring the "20,000" gun laws already on the books and the severe restrictions we gun owners are already living under. Something tells me you won't like getting a fraction of these applied to you.
Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything
Why bother with that precursor to confiscation when Obama after Oregon and Hillary! during the debate called for mass confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto long guns?
(More generally, registration has gotten about as far as it's going to go short of sparking the 2nd Civil War, and the plaintiff's bar has what's covered by legitimate testing under control, as Remington is experiencing with their shoddy Model 700 rifle safeties.)
Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die.
Most gun fatalities are suicides; I'm not aware of suicide by drone existing, let alone being a major issue.
Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and secure intersections so emergency vehicles can respond faster. Some even deliver life-saving equipment or medicines. People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night. Etcetera.
Now imagine someone wanting to restrict these drones so that a few people can use cloth-winged planes that run on leaded gasoline. It would be a joke, right?
Except, it's not. It's the world we live in.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test
Edit: I'm talking about general aviation, not civil aviation. Airliners and drones operate at very different altitudes. Except near airports, there's ≈0 risk of a collision.
Many find my example too skewed in favor of drones, but I think I've been rather conservative. Due to restrictions, there are many applications that haven't been explored. In all likelihood, the "killer app" for drones has yet to be invented.
Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills countless beneficial uses.
I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by. Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?
I'm not going to comment on the 'invasion of privacy' part, as it's a strawman; there are no cameras that are easily available on these devices that can 'hover outside someones apartment' and spy on them any more reliably than a cell phone on a stick.
However, and this is a very important distinction; these are the small majority of all RC flights by all amateur pilots.
I agree that there should be stiff fines for those that break the regulations. I do not agree, however, that everyone should be subject to some crazy ill-advised extra regulations.
Have you heard of these recent groundbreaking inventions called the "backpack" and the "headlamp"? I gather they last a lot longer before needing a recharge, can carry a lot more weight, and that they work much better when there are obstacles such as trees around.
Backpacks also bounce around, and their inertia messes with your running form. If you use a chest strap to secure the pack better, you'll have a harder time breathing. And there's the problem of sweat. By the end of the workout, your backpack is going to be sweaty and gross. Unless it's waterproof, things inside will be as well.
Now I always wore a backpack with a chest strap like you said, and I never had a harder time breathing than normally. It wasn't a giant pain. And I didn't have problems with getting the things inside the backpack sweaty. For reference, this is a 13 liter standard cheap daytrip backpack. If you want to get fancy, Salomon do a vest-like backpack that has a good rep in ultrarunner crowd, with literally no bounce whatsoever.
My experience with headlamps is more limited, but have you tried the type with the battery pack not on your head? The key to reducing bounce is reducing sprung weight.
I hope that we're able to get to a sane regulatory environment here that gives me well-defined, positive rules for flying progressively more powerful and sophisticated UAVs, including in controlled airspace. Those won't be toys, and it's debatable now whether many drones in the hands of consumers are already. The FAA is already stretched way too thin with existing manned aviation and there's no way the local FSDO is going to bother going after a kid with a small electric drone, registered or otherwise, unless they do something really stupid.
Give me a break.
Here's my take on the situation.
Large companies building 'ready to fly' multicopters need to have some sort of communication with the FAA and other agencies.
I do not own a DJI quad myself, but I'm very familiar with them, so I'm going to use them in my example.
DJI has frequently updated firmware for their devices. It would be very trivial for them to add in a 'default' setting on the device that prevents the device from breaking any of the already defined rules.
If the pilot so chooses, and most importantly, is authorized via a Section 333 exemption (or otherwise) can override those settings on the device.
As for all multicopters, I have no qualms about using a Dremel to etch in a registration number on my device. I do, however, have issues with those suggesting that I must add extra hardware and extra transmitters to my device.
Etching the registration code on the device will also allow someone to return my quad if it's lost.
Fantastic. Simply fantastic.