Proposed FAA Rule Would Kickstart New Economy for IDing Drones | Hacker News Reader

Proposed FAA Rule Would Kickstart New Economy for IDing Drones

nextgov.com

33 pointswglb55 comments

> “As a pilot, my eye is always on safety first,” FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said in a statement Thursday announcing the rule. “Safety is a joint responsibility between government, pilots, the drone community, the general public and many others who make our nation so creative and innovative.”

How does this make it any more safe? People are still going to fly where they aren't supposed to and in ways that aren't safe, and this rule won't change a thing in those regards.

If you're currently using a drone to fly over downtown LA illegally and take shots, why in the world would you put identifying information on it?

I would also like to know what private companies are getting all this money to implement a new system? Could they have any ties to individuals within the FAA? The Commercial Drone Alliance has also been pushing hard, presumably since it is trying to keep its commercial partners the only operators that can fly.

To me, the fact they are saying this is for safety, is a very VERY thin argument.

It's pretty simple... registration systems like this don't actually make anyone safer, they just make people feel safer because they get to exert some minuscule amount of control.

> If you're currently using a drone to fly over downtown LA illegally and take shots, why in the world would you put identifying information on it?

Because the proposed regulations make it illegal to sell drones that don't identify themselves.

Build your own. It's easy. I've built 2 myself and have learned from/taught some of my friends.

I have registered myself with the FAA for their current program, but I know plenty of people that haven't.

Nor do I want to have to figure out what I need for a TinyWhoop or similar because every little bit of weight is important at that size.

You can build your own car and drive it around on the streets without a license plate (or license), but you won't get very far.

Yeah if you drive in a busy city. But if you build a car on your farmland and want to have fun, do whatever you want. And in most states, if its private property, that is perfectly legal.

Likewise, if I am flying a drone in middle-of-nowhere Michigan on my own property, why should the FAA care what I am doing?

The problem with the FAA rules is that it is a poorly thought out blanket statement. If you are flying around downtown LA, yes, you should have a license because you are putting people's lives at danger with a "vehicle".

They don't make sense to me on private property, and I think that they should be different depending on city limits.

If we get into some of the autonomous aspects that both cars and drones have, I think we run into some other gray areas where a blanket policy doesn't fit.

99% of the people flying drones in unsafe or harrassing ways have an off-the-shelf camera quad. The DIY operators are far more likely to understand the ramifications of what they're doing, maybe because you have to have just a bit of common sense to build one in the first place.

Credentials: raced 250 class quads (poorly), have chewed Phantom operators out for doing stupid shit

Building drones is stupid easy. It doesn't even need to be a quadcopter, you can make a glider that will stay aloft on thermals using nothing more than two servos, some foam core, some AA batteries and a receiver.

This seems dumb...

It's for safety the same way a license plate is for safety. If you're using an illegal drone without ID, that automatically makes you suspicious.

If you can't follow that simple rule, what other rules are you not following?

It allows enforcement to be target at those who are so obviously not following the rules, while at the same time encouraging everyone else to follow the rules since their drone will be easy to identify.

But this won't easily allow the general public to see that someone is unsafe; there are no visual indicators.

So, while with license plates pedestrians can call in and report a car without a license plate, a drone won't be identifiable one way or the other.

License plates don't stop drunk drivers, speeding, or other reckless behavior. It doesn't make you wear a seatbelt, either.

License plates aren't for safety. They're so we can more easily charge road tolls, parking fines, and increasingly: keep tabs on people's whereabouts.

Effectively, drone registration is much the same -- except it would be a better analogy to say the DMV wants everyone to get license plates on bicycles and scooters. (Small vehicle, readily built from parts off the internet, people who enjoy them are generally seen as a nuisance, and this legislation simply gives them an additional burden as a middle finger.)

This seems really contrived... Should be a visual registration number and ADS-B out for everything over a pound or so like every other aircraft in existence (per the ADS-B 2020 mandate[1])

[1]some restrictions apply

On page 100 they explain why they do not want to use ADS-B. Basically, ADS-B does not currently have a way to transmit the location of the control station and has trouble at low altitudes. Also they are worried about too many drones saturating the spectrum for manned aircraft ADS-B.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...?

Why are they worried about the location of the control station?

This seems a lot like regulation for the sake of regulation. The pilots won't really have access to this information in flight if it's not broadcast on ADS-B so why even bother? This is an ADS-B problem not a drone one and this is coming from a pilot rather than a drone operator.

If they're really worried about frequency saturation just broadcast at low powers so aircraft are notified through the point to point system when they approach a drone.

> Why are they worried about the location of the control station?

So that the cops can find the guy who's buzzing the airport runway with his drone.

Which will only effect people who follow the rules?

Most people buy commercially available drones rather than building their own, and it will be illegal to sell drones (over 250g) that don't adhere to the regulation.

Do these rules make it illegal for hobbyists to fly drones in areas without internet access?

I believe so. You will not even be able to take off until you have registered/checked-in/whatever with the tracking service (over the internet).

Note that this is for ALL unmanned aircraft not just drones.

There are two types of drones > 0.55lbs Standard Remote Identification and Limited Remote Identification.

Limited Remote Identification will be the cheaper type and can not take off without an internet connection.

Standard Remote Identification will have equipment to radio broadcast location data and can take off without internet connection.

See table on page 98

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...

Your other options are to fly < 0.55lbs or fly in specially designated areas, like model aircraft club airfields.

The wording of the proposed rule is purposely worded for broadcasting information to the internet "when available." This applies only to drones with "standard" remote ID capability (as defined by the rules). This is because the standard capability also has a radio broadcast feature that functions without the internet.

Drones with "limited" remote ID capability would not be authorized to take off without internet (because they have no radio broadcast), and if they lose connectivity in flight they are supposed to land.

Joshua Bardwell has a pretty good discussion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E1aEym-1cQ

Everything I've read and heard about this FAA rule is that it will more or less crush independent designers and pilots, leaving the skies to commercial companies.

I feel like this title is trying to spin a very, very bad thing.

100%. This is not a good thing and the article here is pretty much a bought piece.

Bad for whom? Aviation was much safer both for the passengers and the poor guy on the ground once it became professionalized.

And yet you can still fly under 1,200 feet Above Ground Level (where I am) without being controlled (Class G airspace). I (personally) feel like hobby and personal drones fall into this kind of "general use air space" usecase.

Some places. At some times. It's not a hard and fast rule and there are plenty of spaces where controlled airspace extends to the ground.

Which also describes legal locations to use drones. You, without an exception, can’t fly a drone in class e or above airspace.

That's the part this regulation is taking away, more or less. That airspace is being given to Amazon for commercial operations.

Crop dusters, paraplanes, paragliders, kite flyers, and amateur rocket enthusiasts are all going to be mighty disappointed if that airspace is “given away”.

It strongly appears that the FAA does not care what hobbyists think about it. The feedback has been near-universally negative and I doubt it will make any difference at all, any more than the commentary to the FCC changed Ajit Pai's stance.

Drones aren't carrying hundreds of passengers in machines that weigh hundreds of tons.

The risk here is far removed from the severity of the regulations and the associated cost to hobby flight. There is also an argument to be made that the government may have interests in maintaining surveillance asymmetry - prying citizenry can see much farther through the eyes of a drone, and this can act as a minor check on government power.

Just the other day some firefighters had to cancel a water drop because some moron was flying a drone over the fire. Because of that the fire spread more than it had to.

So yes, there is real danger even with small unmanned drones.

Exactly. It's rent-seeking by existing aviation companies that don't want to share with drone startups.

The FAA has spent the last two decades making sure the US is in last place when it comes to commercialized drones, and this is a continuation of those efforts.

Yes. This is an extremely contrived angle on a terrible regulation.

Zoos: will they create a thriving new economy for animal cages? We report, you decide!

Outline any hypothetical new regulation and of course there will be someone who specializes in helping you comply with it. Straight-up broken window fallacy.

Kid: flies an R/C airplane at a park.

FAA: “You’re under arrest for unlicensed drone operation!”

Is this sort of scenario we really want? More government control and monetary extraction from every single, benign human activity? Should kites and paper airplanes require licenses too?

Perhaps it's just me, but a set of visual identifiers (letters, numbers) with a certain regulated size seems a lot more viable (and easy to tell if someone is in violation). They've done it with aircraft for decades.

This is already a rule for that

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/13/2019-00...

Which doesn't provide for "identifiable at a distance", which is what the new rulings are intended to solve.

Aircraft is a serious industry with serious people. Drones are available in toy stores. With the exception of JANET, every airline in America properly identifies its aircraft both visually and with radio beacon ID. They're two different arenas.

It's harder for the an airspace violator to disable a radio ID beacon on his drone than to just run a Sharpie over a printed identifier.

You'll never stop the hardcore jerks. But you can dissuade the casual jerk from misbehaving. The same way locking your car won't stop a real car thief, but will keep rando handle jigglers from rummaging through your ride.

In class G airspace, you aren't required to have a radio beacon ID. Class G airspace corresponds to where most drones fly.

"hardcore jerk" is someone that isn't interested in the bottom line of some capitalist while seeking one's happiness.

Speaking for my 5in drone (Most racing/freestyle drones), there's not really anywhere to put such a label and have it be easily visible from... well anywhere unless you're physically holding the drone.

We're currently required by the FAA to have the license number visible on the drone, but due to the nature of non-winged drones, there's not really any useful large flat surface. If you managed to place a large enough label on the drone to be readable from ~20 feet away then you're going to be running into a lot of issues with aerodynamics and durability in a crash.

Tl;DR - Good luck reading any reasonable label on a 5in drone @30mph 50 feet in the air.

FWIW, most racing drones have an axis that they primarily fly in (you don't crab racing drones often), providing a plane in which an identifier could exist. If you make it out of a mesh, it wouldn't even impact flight performance or crash resistance much.

could even use light persistence from LEDs. Not necessarily on the fan blades, perhaps on the body as it moves forward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn4KRySf3LM

All else aside, that would be cool to see. “What’s your craft’s identifier?” “Let me spin up the blades here quick.”

Thanks, I think I'll continue to disable any outgoing communications, tape over the lights, and fly from concealed positions.

Just because a government agency that's bought and paid for by rich private pilots and airlines starts making new laws doesn't mean people are going to follow them. I've got just as much right to airspace as some asshole in a Cessna.

Do you also drive unlabeled cars on the streets because you feel that you have just as much right to the roads as that asshole in a Ford Fiesta who has a license plate?

The person flying a Cessna literally has their life on the line, the drone operator does not.

Also, the person flying a Cessna has to get significant training and has to follow the same rules as someone flying a 737, the drone operator does not.

This kind of attitude is precisely why the FAA is adding additional requirements for flying a drone.

Can we have a bounty program for capturing and turning in transponderless drones? :]

Make sure the bounty is less than the cost of the drone...

"Identifying" drones. This is not about a technology that rhymes with "Eye Ding Drones."

Edit: I misread - I can't be the only one, so I offered some help.

Am I the only one who thinks this kind of regulatory system seems a bit doomed to fail?

Why? It's like license plates on cars.

Cars are huge machines bound to roadways. Despite this people are constantly driving on suspended licenses, without licenses, without insurance, under the influence, speeding, etc. Regulating them mostly works because they're limited to specific spaces, are a huge time and money investment to construct, and so large they're fairly easy to monitor.

I don't see why the apparent "success" of license plates on cars means something even more convoluted will work for drones, which come in drastically different sizes, and are extremely simple to assemble and use.

We seem to recognize that licensing bicycles isn't really a feasible thing, and licensing tiny objects that move quickly in 3-D space, and which present even less challenge to assemble than a bicycle, doesn't seem all that likely to succeed with actors who want to do things outside the system. Or even cover people who just do stuff without thinking about it.

As technology gets advanced maybe there will be more of a carrot - maybe registration gets you access to autonomous navigational beacons and traffic control or something, and you'd prefer to have those things. But operating what amounts to a large cell phone attached to some electric motors unregistered seems like it'll always remain trivial for anyone who doesn't want to cooperate in a way that's not really the case for cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com