New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19
reuters.com
reuters.com
I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". It's probably easier to say as follows: when you're playing in the sandbox, you play nice with other kids. Here, when you're playing in the air, you have to play nice with other things in the air. The fact your toy is tiny and easy to use doesn't change the fact that you're still playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.
It's not like drones are risk free - quad copters are like hockey pucks floating in the air and can easily drift or fall.
But that said, considering how many of them are in private hands and what most owners actually do with them, the registration requirements are completely onerous.
You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park, you don't register to hit a baseball at the park, and it's accordingly totally not clear why you need to register to fly a small aircraft at the park when it's pretty much going to stay lower than maybe two and half telephone poles.
Additionally, there are many stories regarding how current drone operators either ignore common sense regarding where to fly, or make mistakes that put planes in danger, or whatever. You can simply google "airline drone near miss" to see examples. Just because people theoretically could act in an intelligent manner doesn't mean we can rely on them to actually do so.
Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss".
But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.
Many of the hits describe the specific near misses, thus answering your question.
But the question about how many actual problems we are talking about is missing the point. Drones are at an inflection point. People have been flying them for decades as a hobby (they were called "radio control airplanes" back then) without issue, but they're set to become far more popular, far more available, and far easier to use really rapidly. The question is not so much how many problems there are today, but what it'll look like in five or ten years, and how we can get ahead of any potential problems now.
I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant.
The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!
close but no harm done
Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot of my airplane to be distracted by your asshat-ery no matter how much distance you think you have from the airplane.
Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?
Actually, you do if you'll exceed a certain height or if your rocket engine is larger than H (or perhaps I) class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classificat...
Drones, not so much.
Or, rather, it's a great rationale if you have an agenda that needs more political support than it would otherwise be able to garner. It's not hard to imagine why governments would be utterly terrified of a civilian population with widespread drone ownership and ongoing development.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-ai... http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arr...
etc.. these are not hard to find. Now actual compendiums are being done, but I couldn't find the raw data. The FAA says it has gathered "more than 650" reports: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445
As a pilot, I do not see this as being surprising. People are doing dumb things with drones, just like pilots did dumb things with airplanes in the '20s and '30s, leading to the precursor of the FAA and the creation of the airspace system.
But the real reason for registration is so that when there is an accident involving a drone and someone on the ground, such as a person shooting down a drone, the owner of the drone can be identified.
Finally, if a drone gets involved in my airplane's propeller, it will probably be diced into chunks so small you'll never find all the pieces. However the propeller and engine will need to be rebuilt, at a cost of $20,000+, so you can bet that I'll be on the ground looking for those bits so I can stick that insurance claim.
If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules and I hope they get fined.
Also, this is why most aircraft have insurance...
Thing is, model aircraft hobbyists have been -for the most part- safely and responsibly flying RC aircraft for nearly a hundred years. These fliers haven't had any FAA registration requirement, and have not been required to put identifying information in their aircraft.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around -and doing great good- since 1936. It has encouraged the development and nurturing of a culture within the model aircraft pilots' community that highly values safe, sane, and reasonable operation of model aircraft. One of the big ways that they do this is by chartering local model aviation clubs.
Every store I'm aware of that specializes in model aircraft will -when you purchase an RC aircraft from them- steer you towards your local model aircraft club. This lets you know that there are folks who can train you (and let you get hours or months of fun from your new toy, rather than seconds), and lets those folks train you so that you learn how to not a hazard to yourself and others.
It's a damn shame that so many retailers that sold "drones" failed to point their customers to their local model aviation club.
So, anyway. People have been -entirely legally- flying aircraft that are substantially heavier, substantially faster, and -potentially- substantially more dangerous than "drones" for many, many decades. Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now is that the majority of folks then [0] were encouraged to learn how to operate their toys safely, and took the time to do so.
[0] And when I say "then", I don't mean to imply that this effort is not still ongoing. The AMA is still around, and doing its damnedest to reach the drone-flying yahoos who are endangering themselves and others with their reckless behavior.
While I tend to side with the less regulations side of things, I can also see how there is a gap in the regulations here.
> ...[the issue is] that the price point for model aircraft has dropped so substantially that they can't keep up with it anymore...
I'm not entirely sure that that's true. If I'm remembering my prices correctly, you've been able to get started in the hobby for a few hundred dollars for a long while.
My theory: Helicopters are substantially cooler than fixed-wing aircraft, and can be flown in really small spaces. However, they are hard as fuck to fly [0], mechanically complex, comparatively expensive, fragile, and prone to breakage. Now, quadcopters with computer-controlled motors are substantially cheaper and more durable than RC helicopters, and can -crucially- be flown by anyone who has at least half a brain and one hand... just press the "up" lever and away you go! The time investment barrier to entry has dramatically been lowered, making the hobby approachable by every yahoo who lacks the patience to ask "Am I using my toy in a safe and sane manner?". [1]
It's very clear that the AMA hasn't been able to get major retailers to do what the downtown airplane store reliably does. It -IMO- isn't a matter of keeping up with demand, but rather influencing big players (who previously would never have stocked RC aircraft) to help steer newcomers into the preexisting training program.
> ...the increasing amount of people who are misusing them and Amazon, Google, etc. that want to create drone flight paths has forced the governments hand.
This seems like an ideal situation: Commercial operators are regulated by the FAA, and are required to register their craft, file flight plans and whatever. Commercial operators should always be subject to some degree of regulation and oversight. Hobbyist operators who are a member of a model aircraft club (or were a member in good standing for $A_WHILE in the past) are obligated to follow FAA, AMA, and club guidelines and are liable for violations of FAA general regulations regarding interactions between model and full-scale aircraft, but are not required to register themselves or their craft with the FAA. Hobbyist operators who aren't and have never been associated with a club? If the danger that the FAA is reacting to is real and not overblown media-driven hysteria, require them to register with the FAA and ID their craft until they can either pass a training course to demonstrate that they're responsible, or they join a local model airplane club and get trained.
Like I said, it's pretty clear that the training provided by model airplane clubs has enabled folks to safely and responsibly regularly fly substantially more dangerous aircraft than most any quadcopter. The training provided by these clubs works.
It's a shame that the FAA seems to feel that it suddenly needs to make folks who are part of a very successful, long-standing nationwide flight training program submit to pilot registration and aircraft identification.
[0] I mean goddamn _fucking_ hard.
[1] Don't get me wrong, here... making the hobby more accessible and lowering barriers to entry is good. Model aviation is fun, largely wholesome, and can be a gateway drug to things like woodworking and aerospace engineering. ;) However, it is -IMO- dreadfully important to leave the "learn how to operate your toy in a way that doesn't endanger yourself and others" barrier intact.
Most of these "drone sightings" being reported are near airports since that's when aircraft are flying low. There have also been cases of idiots taking drones up several thousands feet and encountering aircraft further from airports.
The very first line of what I said is: "If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc)."
Your insurance quip is rather ridiculous, unless they've come out with a whole new class of life insurance.
It was a response to the above about the cost of repairs, nobody said anything about someone dying (except you).
Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction.
Also, if an airplane pilot is flying below 1000' AGL, not only do they have a large, highly visible tail number that will identify them... they're also putting their own life at risk.
On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to. There was an incident in the news just a few weeks ago: http://kron4.com/2015/12/06/california-highway-patrol-helico...
They don't have a set "in stone" one like fixed wing aircraft, but if you go buzz a few homes for no reason the FAA will still throw a fine your way. Additionally whirlybirds don't want to operate too low as it substantially reduces their emergency landing sites even with auto-rotation.
> On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to.
Which is fine, if they're below 1000 feet, and aircraft aren't allowed to fly below 1000 feet then there is no issue.
The only issue with drones is when they exceed 1000 feet, or are in controlled airspace (airports, events, emergency situations, etc).
I'll add that there are many airports inside class G airspace (the formal definition for what people call "uncontrolled airspace").
For approaches to any airport, there is an exemption to the FAR 91.119 minimum altitudes "except when necessary for takeoff or landing".
So by no means does being outside controlled airspace (in class G airspace) and under 1000' keep you separated from aircraft who are following the FARs.
But thanks for the example of clueless drone advocates, who just want what they want because they want it.
At first I thought the various posts calling some drone operators morons were being harsh. Now I don't.
Where on earth did you read that? Yes, the rule is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2,000 feet when over a congested area, but when not flying over a city, minimum altitude is 500 feet.
Why did you ask me and then quote the exact regs back verbatim? Why ask a rhetorical question with the implication that I am wrong if your very next sentence is going to confirm that I am indeed correct?
As you yourself said, 1000 feet is the minimum allowed in most normal situations. You can go fly over the desert at 500 feet if you wish, but drones won't be an issue out there.
Can we get an elaboration on this? I understand pilots being very skittish about things moving anywhere too close (as in "if I can perceive it, it's too close"), but is there a brighter line between "objectively problematic" vs "hysterically paranoid"? I assume the Parrot Bebop drone I want is over 250g, and don't see the reasoning for registration when I'm not stupid enough to operate it anywhere close (however construed) to a potential manned aircraft flight path.
Adding additional things to spot in the air, especially slow moving objects like drones, demands focus and divert attention away from flying. Other airplanes in the air are fine to spot because they move quickly, and in unrestricted airspace, generally communicate on a universal radio channel. Drones have none of these capabilities and are essentially high flying birds to avoid.
In non-urban spaces, airspace above 500ft is always a potential manned aircraft flight path.
How sure are you that you know all the relevant things?
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?...
I find the community attitude here to be completely insane. Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway."
The incidence does need to be looked at. I think we blame drones for all sorts of things that are not drones these days.
This being HN, more likely it's "all regulation is morally evil".
The only place where pilots should be close enough to the ground to hit a quadcopter are near airports, where quadcopters are already banned.
This is a non-issue. Pilots are complaining about nothing. They did the same thing with lasers a few years back. Civilian diode lasers have such a high divergence that they pose no risk to a pilot more than a few thousand feet off the ground, but pilots kept fear mongering and claiming that we needed to ban lasers everywhere. Again, the only vulnerable locations were airports.
There is a subconscious line of reasoning a lot of people in The States (and I assume similar nations) get that goes something like: "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."
That actually seems like a reasonable thought, despite the logical fallacy that "if I can't see any problem, there must not be a problem".
Unfortunately, another line of reasoning may soon be common, "X seems safe, but I better double check with the government to ensure I wont face several hundred thousand dollars in fines and years in prison if I do this."
I have flown kites higher than I ever would a model drone, and they are heavier and take up more space because of the string. Of course, I was a child at the time; kites are primarily a cheap children's toy. Even so, better watch out for those several hundred thousand dollar fines. Even if its safe and reasonable, better just double check.
Learn the rules of operating safely, don't be dumb, you'll be fine. If all you do is play with drones recreationally you're not going to run afoul of the rules.
The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high (which isn't easy for a lot of off the shelf drones to start with), or flying in areas where they obviously shouldn't be to start with (rescue situations, controlled airspace, etc.)
The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high
The people flying the drones aren't getting themselves into trouble. They're getting others into trouble. They themselves are perfectly safe. They're dumping a huge externality onto anyone who flies in an airplane.
We live in an open society. If we need to choose between these two activities, we can have a referendum or plebiscite. The general public can decide. Some people will vote in favour of a small, entitled minority who want to play with a dangerous toy without responsibility. Others will vote in favour of the continuation of general air transportation, which we have had for about 100 years. We'll see how that goes.
1) The "regulations pilots observe" by default give them absolute priority over _all_ airspace without limitation, even though the vast majority of "general air transportation" does not require that. Why is the airspace at 500 feet above my local park "reserved" for "general air transportation"? Sure, maybe once a decade or so a police or news helicopter ventures into that space, but only because they're coming from the assumption that nobody else has any right to be there. I question that assumption.
2) "The general public can decide" has a similar problem. "The general public" couldn't care less whether _my_ choice of potentially dangerous hobby is deemed illegal or not. How many of "the general public" voted in favour of, say, knitters being allowed to carry "potentially dangerous knitting needles" on commercial flights? Are grandmothers a "small entitled minority"? Claiming that public votes for things small groups of people want to be allowed to continue doing are the "right and democratic way" to decide regulations is shortsighted and demonstrates ignorance of the way people are.
I don't claim there are _zero_ risks associated with "drones", but I'd like the discussion and regulation to be a lot more driven by the actual risks and their relative likelyhood and seriousness compared to many other perfectly acceptable things.
There are lots of things that people are regularly injured or killed by: http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Let's just keep "drones" in perspective, and not kneejerk react to "new things".
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
The FAA is doing exactly what that law directs and compels them to do. Don't like the law? There's a process to change the laws.
I'm a pilot, and I'm not happy about the proposal to register all drones, but I certainly understand the FAA response to the large increase in drone popularity and increased conflicts between drones and aircraft.
I assumed that was the context of the discussion of this thread.
Model airplanes have been a threat to airplanes since they became popular in 1915. Yes, 100 years ago. So why regulate them beyond the existing regulations now? A better question is "What changed?"
Anyone who owns a quad copter of the type they show on various stories about this, knows they are a pain in the ass to fly in high wind environments. Even with 9DOF IMU assisted station keeping a stiff wind will blow them around.
So why now? Why haven't people complained about 1:10 scale jets they fly around at RC plane meetups? Those things are fast and can fly straight through a gust of wind.
This program isn't about "danger to aircraft", this program is entirely about identifying the owner of a R/C model and being able to jail/fine people who don't agree to link their model to their identity. That ownership link is essential in prosecuting the right person when their model photographs something that someone else doesn't want photographed, whether it is a celebrity sunbathing topless in their back yard or police officers beating down protestors. Its about identifying the owner of one of these devices when they are used in the commission of a crime, whether it is unlicensed surveillance or simple burglary. Its about identifying the owner of the R/C model that just crashed into your sports car and scratched the paint.
None if the prosecutions can be cost effective if the perpetrator can argue that it is plausibly not their R/C model. And having hundreds of identical models sold? Sure anyone could have been flying that particular unit as it buzzed your beach house.
This program is about tying people's identities to the R/C models they operate so that they can be prosecuted when they do something that someone else doesn't like with them. It is couched in terms of "safety of aircraft" because that is a narrative that the general public can get their head around, however the risk to aircraft is already "priced into" the existing regulations.
Now however you can put a camera on a quad-copter (or buy one with one) on an image stabilized mount, and take HD movies of areas you couldn't get too before. That has really irked / woken up some people. All without any training and only a bit of practice. That is what changed that people have asked the FAA to "fix."
God yes. This is so true. Learning to fly an R/C heli is such a huge time investment. Repairing your R/C heli when you jam parts of it into the ground wasn't cheap, either.
Those regulations have been around for a long time and have been effective at keeping planes safe. When people violate them, they do selective enforcement to remind folks the regulations are there. A good example of regulation that succeeds in its goal.
Adding the forced identification thing is the red herring here.
I have been flying all manner of R/C planes and helicopters for about thirty years. I have planes that will do 120 MPH with the motor off, weigh in the order of 8 lbs and have a wingspan of 2.4 meters. I have helicopters with 10,000 W power (peak) systems that come in at over 10 lbs. I used to have model turbine jets that could rip across the sky at nearly 200 MPH.
What's the difference?
The difference is that for as long as I can remember no model airplane hobbyist would even think about the idea of flying one of their aircraft anywhere near full scale aircraft, airports, around fire-fighting aircraft, over crowds, around buildings or at altitudes that could represent danger to full scale aircraft.
That is the difference. And it is huge.
The other is the American Modelers Association (modelaircraft.org). I have been a member for over 30 years. Which, among other things, also means I carry a one million dollar insurance policy covering any damage I may cause while flying my aircraft. My teenage son is an AMA member, he too is covered by a one million dollar policy.
In order for this insurance policy to provide coverage the modeler has to abide by AMA rules, which, among other things, requires you to fly at AMA sanctioned club locations. Clubs, just like the one where I fly, are located such that model aircraft activity will not pose danger to people an property. Clubs have rules beyond those of the AMA. We have safety officers, etc.
Oh, yes, the AMA requires you to label your aircraft with your AMA member number, your name and contact information. In other words, you are accountable for what you do.
You also needed training and skill to fly. At most clubs you can't just buy a plane and go flying, you have to be certified by the club instructor or established members or trained and then certified.
In other words, flying R/C aircraft has always had a degree of professionalism, care, consideration, responsibility and enough procedures and rules to not put anyone in danger.
What has changed, then, is that any moron can now buy a flying device that can be flown with almost no skill. As you indicated, it is hard to fly some of these models in windy or gusty situations. And that's not necessarily because of the model. I fly gliders in 50 MPH winds all the time. I fly my R/C helicopters in gusty Santa Ana conditions all the time. There's a dedication to training and skill building that comes with the hobby. Joe Quadcopter couldn't give a shit. He just wants to fly it over the beach and take pictures. He has zero interest in becoming a good pilot.
The manufacturers could not give a crap about how they are used, therefore, they do not educate their customers at all. And, of course, either out of ignorance or lack of caring, Mr. Joe Moron thinks nothing of taking his brand new DJI quadcopter up to 1,000 feet right above a park full of kids, neighborhood homes or the local news helicopter because, well, it's cool, it has a "return home" feature and it is perfectly safe, physics be damned.
So, yeah, if you ask me, those morons need to be identified and they need to be made responsible for their actions. Here's what's going to suck: These morons are the very people who will absolutely, positively NOT register and absolutely, positively NOT have any ID or registration number on the machines they fly. People like me, who have enjoyed the hobby for decades without placing anyone or anything at risk are the ones who end-up paying the price for the morons.
What I find really ironic is that this is EXACTLY, to the letter, the same scenario we have with guns. Law abiding citizens never hurt a sole. Criminals and crazies do. And everyone ends-up paying for it with the exception of those who truly need to be kept away from them.
I am not necessarily bothered by the registration. I am already 100% identified in every single one of my aircraft. If I crash one anywhere, whoever picks it up will have my AMA membership number, name and phone number. So, registering with the FAA is not a big deal. What pisses me of is that, just like guns, this is going to do exactly ZERO to stop the crazies, morons and criminals. Zero.
Impressive. Humpty Dumpty should've called these guys.
> "The goal is not to be punitive but to get people into compliance," FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said.
These two sentences don't seem to mesh for me. Even if they don't plan to actually prosecute any violators (yet), just the threat of that is ridiculous. I guess it's just another tool in the arsenal of prosecutors if they decide they don't like you.
Edit: The second quote was removed from the article.
Before law: "I'll just fly my drone around this airport, it's not like I'll get caught or anything."
After law: "Crap, now if anything happens this is gonna get traced right back to me and my life is gonna be ruined, maybe I shouldn't fly around this airport like a moron."
People willing to break one aspect of the law are generally willing to break other parts as well.
If I'm at an airport where it's not legal to fly, it doesn't matter if I have a registration or not, I'm already breaking the law.
How many hours of training do you think it'll take for them to look for and read a sticker?
> access to an up-to-date database of registration numbers.
Cops probably have smartphones, right? http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Serial_Inquiry.aspx
If you're an absolute massive jerk, on the other hand ... yeah, you're not going to be on anyone's good side, and you can end up pulling some really massive fines.
Just for comparison purposes, a McDonald's Big Mac weighs 215-240 grams without wrapper, so with a wrapper if you turned a Big Mac into a drone, it would likely require registration.
The real question is, what is their endgame here? Just send out notifications? It isn't like drones have transponders yet(?).
I like the FAA but this seems misguided and unworkable. Plus $5 is significant when some drones this impacts only costs $30.
Hopefully the FAA has birds 250+ grams register too, just for consistency. In particular as birds kill an order of magnitude more pilots than drones have (have drones ever taken down a plane?).
I sat next to a naval pilot on a plane once and he wasn't scared of drones at all. The jet engine would tear it right up.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/07/an-air-f...
Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem."
It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Whereas a couple of Canadian Geese could clog up an engine causing it to stop.
While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. It is more smaller single engine aircraft and helicopters that are at risk from drones flying into them (in particular during take-off/landing).
Larger drones definitely need some kind of moderation. But as I said above 250g is too small, a pigeon weighs over 350g by comparison. How are you going to regulate them?!
PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.
Also, pedantic nitpick, the species is "Canada Goose." A "Canadian goose" is a goose of any species that happened to be born in Canada. A Canada goose could also be a Canadian goose, but if my experience growing up in Ohio is any indication, many of them lay their eggs (and are thus many are born) outside of Canada.
So a Canadian goose could also be a goose born to a parent that was hatched in Canada, or naturalized there.
A Canada goose born from one American Canada goose parent and one Canadian Canada goose parent would have dual citizenship, regardless of its hatching location, but it would have to be hatched in Canada in order for its own offspring to be Canadian Canada geese, if its mate is not jus soli or naturalized Canadian.
You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of similar weight.
>PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.
Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson - one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese in New York:
>To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating 1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of air.[118]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-te...
I wonder what that is as a percentage of the total Canadian Goose population, and the population of large birds generally?
We've recently here had hysterical calls to "cull the sharks!!!" after a few shark attacks. It stinks to me of politically and more likely profit motivations - local politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something" (never mind the pointlessness or futility of their chosen "something"), and politicians friends who can be rewarded with fat government contracts to buy themselves new boats and guns and go playing with them on the public purse, while making a completely insignificant change to the total shark population or the risk of swimming in the ocean.
If you suck in enough water, it can cause you major problems.
I'm not an expert here, so I'm not sure how bad these really are in practice. Judging from the videos, a chicken looks like anything from not-a-problem (video 1) to something that's not going to crash the plane, but still would appear to be of concern, and perhaps a "okay, time to land then." (video 2).
See also the hilariously named Wikipedia aritle, "Chicken gun"[3].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfXX7qppbc
I've also heard it called a "rooster booster" :)
Have no illusions about the damage that can be done by small things falling from a great height, or travelling at a high speed in general. The 250g weight is entirely reasonable -- I would actually claim that it is quite generous.
If it involves airplanes, you can rest assured that the FAA will regulate it, so no surprise there.
In order to get a 250g rock up high enough to reach it's terminal velocity before hitting the earth again, you'd need some kind of launcher (e.g. catapult, trebuchet, Slingshot, etc) which are regulated. For example, New York made Slingshot a Class-4 misdemeanor.
So is a bullet. Guess we should require all bullets to be registered.
Do we now require registration and quarter million dollar fines for all bicycles and skateboards that weigh more than 250g?
The Task Force spent considerable time discussing and deliberating about what the appropriate weight threshold should be. While general agreement was ultimately reached on the 250 gram weight, there were Task Force members who believed it was too conservative, as the weight could negatively impact the credibility of the sUAS registration program and thus lessen compliance levels because it would require registration of somes UAS generally considered to be in the “toy” category. Others took the opposite view that there should be no registration exemption for UAS of any size.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/RTFARCFinalReport...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sZ-N8YiTs4
And a new interest in dye cut stickers...
I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everything above the surface of the earth". The reason they won't implement rules about flying indoors is not because they are nice guys, but because they cannot have a legislative opinion written that supports this as an area they can control.
Anyone who owns birds or places bird feeders or bird baths must register.
Why the hysteria about drones? Does anybody _really_ think xmas drones are going to outnumber birds? What's the real marginal increase in risk for aviation here?
Or is this just a case of "Someone seems to be having fun doing something I don't care for, so I'll invent risk scenarios to justify stopping them from doing it... Because reasons..."?
Just because they _can_ write a FAR about drones, should they? Does it matter any more or less than the risk of birdstrike? What _is_ the risk? If there were a real quantifiable and indisputable number there, surely we'd all know about it and be able to look it up and evaluate it in comparison to other risks we accept?
Is allowing my neighbour to fly a drone in the local park more or less dangerous than riding a bicycle? Or climbing a ladder? Or riding a horse?
The FAA had the jurisdiction.
One of my favorites is 91.119a "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
It's one I do not think drones or their operator should be exempt from.
Drones are basically birds when it comes down to this.
Either that or I may just stop flying it and wait until I eventually (someday, dammit!) get around to building that little 250 racer I keep price-shopping parts for.
Why does this surprise you?
If the assumption is that the FAA is altruistic organization that seeks nothing but the public benefit, I suppose I can see how this is surprising. But if we take a more realistic assumption of what the FAA is--a governmental bureaucracy full of self-interested individuals who pursue their own interests (greater authority, promotions, increased budgets, increased compensation, etc.)--it's not very surprising that they reach beyond "reasonable" restrictions and seek additional ways to benefit themselves.
Also, governmental regulators have strong incentives to be incredibly risk averse. This is best exemplified by the FDA. If they approve a drug that turns out to have an unknown side effect that harms people, this result is easy to observe and likely carries significant consequences for the FDA employees involved. However, if their delay in approving a drug causes 100,000 unnecessary deaths, this result is difficult to observe and likely carries no consequences. This creates perverse incentives that push regulators towards being excessively cautious.
A half-pound is not very big.
Edited to note that the FAA FAQ has a PDF about most items in the toy category; they say that most devices under $100 are under the weight limit. https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/media/UAS_Weights_... However, all drones with cameras that it lists do require registration.
"The Task Force ultimately agreed to use a mass-based
approach to determine an appropriate category of sUAS to
recommend for exclusion from the registration requirement.
This was based upon the probability of a catastrophic event
occurring (i.e., death or serious injury) due to a
collision between an sUAS and a person on the ground.
Because of the lack of data on UAS-aircraft collisions,
engine ingestion, propeller, and rotor impacts by UAS, the
probability of a catastrophic event occurring due to those
events was not part of the consideration. This approach
best satisfied the Task Force’s concerns about safety and
provided a minimum weight threshold for registration that
is easy to understand and apply and would therefore
encourage compliance. The formula considered was
identified to the group as a standard aviation risk
assessment formula used in consideration of manned aircraft
safety."Here's the link to the actual FAA page: https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/
It appears that registration opens on 21 Dec, 2015. Further, if registration is done before January 20, 2016 the $5 registration fee will be refunded.
And even ignoring that, this topic has been on the national news quite a bit recently.
I've got 4 or 5 rc gliders in my garage and half a dozen or more kits or collections of parts to build more, as well as 5 quad copters that'd all fall under these rules.
At the height of my slope combat phase, I was probably averaging building 2 or 3 new slope soaring gliders every weekend. And I had friends who were _way_ more prolific than I was.
I wonder just how scalable their new "drone registry" is? It's easy enough to keep track of 747s and A380s, but whatever system they use for that was unlikely to be designed/specced for "webscale" type growth (and given their "$5 is the same price as we charge airliners!" comment, I wouldn't bet against this being exactly the same system/database)
Let's see how that website holds up at lunchtime on Dec 25th!
The issue with "drones" (which are really just a type of model aircraft) is a wave of irresponsible operators.
The regulators aren't looking to regulate the space because they were bored and looking for something to do. They are looking to regulate the space because there are too many idiots out there causing problems at the moment. If people are going to get upset at someone they should be upset at the people breaking all sorts of existing regulations and causing the FAA to step in to try and get things under control.
I'd argue this has been actually a fantastic example of the government working in moderation. They involved drone manufacturers, commercial operators, and hobbyist groups directly in the discussion process, you can see it throughout their documentation. The community was well-invested in this entire process.
They've avoided any sort of crazy burden that would kill the drone industry, but they've offered a clear step to say that they're watching, and put in a basic framework that, while imperfect, gives them a starting point in an investigation.
Perhaps it's more of an issue now because in the days of RC planes operated line-of-sight, you inherently had a tougher time flying high & far than today with live video feed and long range controls.
That being said, my wife has flown a quadcopter with zero experience (but careful supervision of the owner). My impression is that a high quality multirotor will be easier to fly than a fixed-wing.
> Q. Who is required to register on the new online UAS registration website?
> A. Only individual recreational or hobby users who meet U.S. citizenship requirements are able to register their unmanned aircraft using this new streamlined web-based process. This new, faster and easier system will be available for other UAS owners soon.
Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily glide back to earth after a motor fails.
Yes, the whole way to the scene of the crash.
I'm with you that these two things should be classified and treated very differently, but let's not pretend that if the power dies on a model airplane there's no danger.
Having no power in a model airplane is definitely an issue.
My main point being, however, it's arguably far easier to manuver an airplane after motor failure than a drone/quadcopter.
Gas models use a separate battery pack for running the receiver and servos. Electric models usually use the same pack (via "battery eliminator circuit"), but there's a low-voltage cutoff that cuts the motor power off while there's still enough power to run the electronics. There's typically a "soft-cutoff" feature that allows you to restart the motors if you need power to land - you get maybe a 10 second burst of low power or 5 seconds at medium power before the cutoff trips again. It can help to stretch out an approach if you're downwind and not going to make the field.
Either way there is no technical problem with making a power-off landing. Such "deadstick" landings are very standard in the RC world, and most fields will want to see trainee pilots make several of them on a "buddy box" system under the control of an instructor before they will approve you to fly alone. They're no big deal as long as you're being responsible with where you're flying.
Radio range is essentially "as far as you have a line-of-sight". Typical radios will have a range of 1.5-3 miles but you'll lose visual on the aircraft at a fraction of that distance. Some micro-sized parkflyer aircraft have less sensitive receivers, but since they're smaller you'll lose visual at shorter ranges too. Some radios have longer range, particularly amateur radio operators who can operate with greater transmitter power. These are popular with the FPV crowd, but to operate on these bands you must have your callsign and address on the plane.
The long range can actually be a bit of a problem because the signals really will go quite far, and can result in intermittent loss of control if someone else is operating on that frequency. AMA-licensed fields have a pinboard (if you don't have the clothespin with your frequency on it, you can't turn your radio on), and the fields are spaced out far enough to avoid this (typically a minimum of 5 miles). You're supposed to check before you just go fly somewhere, but some people don't. 2.4 GHz spread-spectrum radios are getting very popular nowadays because they're largely immune to these radio hits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_eliminator_circuit#Rad...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation#Descent_and_landi...
Quadrocopters are, of course, another story. No control surfaces means you're coming down hard.
Multirotor - 3+ rotors working to balance the craft, typically use fixed pitch props.
Helicopter - 1-2 main rotors, and optionally one sideways one on the back to counter the torque of main rotors. Typically use a swashplate to change the pitch of the rotors.
Airplane: 1-2 main rotors, pointing forwards, with wings and control surfaces on those wings.
http://flitetest.com - if you're interested in learning more.
Oh well...
The anger you are feeling is the screws being tightened a little tighter. Everything nowadays is regulated, controlled and monitored, we in the west are not free, especially in "the land of the free"
And some beuracrat(s) at FAA just guaranteed themselves job security for long time
And if you are so angry at regulation then go and live in China. I would highly recommend Beijing this time of year.
Just remember to breath in deep and taste the freedom.
...I guess it's an improvement from the similarly-logical "go live in Somalia" meme.
(from the table about halfway thru http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm )
Drones are no doubt an emerging area of possible concern, but this heavy handed regulation is pure and simple control via hysteria.
Yes, if your 'toy' is over the minimum weight, then it has to be registered.
However, there are a great number of inexpensive toy drones that are less than $100 and fall below the weight requirement. See the Cheerson CX-10: http://www.amazon.com/Bestpriceam-Cheerson-Cx-10-Quadcopter-...
If you want to avoid having to deal with the registration, then purchase a toy that doesn't have the ability to hurt someone.
My Christmas morning just went from "here's a fun little gift, lets try it out" to "first we have to figure out the government bureaucracy and register this thing or face $300,000 in fines and 3 years in jail, merry Christmas everyone!" Honestly, I'll probably just return them and get something else.
It's a limited space, there have been multiple, highly public incidents; registering via a website and agreeing that you know the basics of how to fly your toy safely is pretty lax compared to what I was expecting to come out of it.
Recently I was going out with some friends to the Boston Harbor Islands. I wanted to take a small Parrot AR drone out there, to fly around 25 feet in the air, to capture some group photos and check out some neat angles of military ruins. Yet, I find things like this (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=1...) on the FAA site that indicates I can't fly anything Class B airspace.
There's stuff about applying for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, which seems needlessly heavy. I find things that say things like, "Community-based guidelines require recreational operators to give notice for flights within 5 statute miles of an airport."
I attempt to contact Logan's tower, and get bounced around between literally 10 different people... all equally confused. It feels really odd to call an airport about this, and I have a sinking feeling that this is a good way to get on some watch list, so I'm quite careful with my words.
Eventually, I get in touch with the Assistant Director Airport Operations Airside who responds that 'Massport does not have jurisdiction of that area and cannot give approval for the use of the drone. That approval must come from the FAA local ATC since the area you are looking to operate the drone in falls within their Airspace.'. I spoke with him on the phone as well, and he was super nice and indicated that he was hoping they'd figure all of this out soon as well, because he owns a drone too.
Sites like this (http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-within-5-m...) make it sound super easy and casual to get permission... but I found the opposite.
Class B airspace covers basically every major city in the US. Additionally, I couldn't fly because all national parks have had a ban since mid-2014... so even if the FAA allowed it, the Boston Harbor Islands (which are technically a national park, through a joint venture with Massachusetts) I couldn't have legally flown.
I am 100% about safety for these things. I think there should be height limitations, but also reasonable allowances. I wouldn't mind if the GPS lock on the drone kept it below 50 feet (treetop level) in places like this.
Anyway, I had to spend a few hours realizing not only that I couldn't fly on the islands, but legally I couldn't fly almost anywhere around here... including my own back yard which is 4.5 miles from Logan.
I think 2.5 miles is plenty, but there could be legitimate reasons that full-size aircraft would be flying near 400 feet near an airport.
I live about 5.5 miles of a small (but busy) airport, and even at that distance airplanes are sometimes flying lower than I'd like for comfort.
If I turned off the 400' altitude restrictions on my quadcopter, I could easily be in their approach path. And not all quadcopters have that feature.
Aside from extending the runway center lines on a map to predict approach and departure paths, you may have seen the heli route on skyvector https://skyvector.com/?ll=42.2662102318687,-70.9130790877564... regarding the harbor islands.
The over-regulation here is insane.
It seems pretty reasonable to register the ones that can fly reliably over a few hundred feet, out of easy eyesight of the operator, maybe faster than 10-20mph or so, that sort of thing. But I'm a little disturbed by the apparent lack of a lower limit. It may sound absurd to be fined for not registering a paper airplane, but exactly what part of this says explicitly that it's not required? I'd hope we know better than to trust Government agents not to over-reach in ways that go against all common sense.
Second, here [1] is a summary of the guidelines from the AMA.
Third, the full FAA rule can be viewed here [2] (PDF warning).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10733635
[1] http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/14/ama-and-t...