That Toy Is Now a Drone 268
fluxgate (2851685) writes "A notice from the FAA announced earlier this week just turned a bunch of kids' toys into drones. In the past, the FAA had made the distinction between model aircraft (allowed) and drones (prohibited without special permission) according to whether they were used for recreation (okay) or commercial purposes (verboten). Now they have further narrowed the definition of model aircraft: If you fly it through video goggles, it no longer qualifies. This move eliminates First Person View (FPV) radio control flying. I'm an editor at IEEE Spectrum with a special interest and blogged about this disturbing development as soon as I heard the news."
Not surprised, mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
As an RC airplane enthusiast, who likes to dabble in FPV and UAVs, I must say that I'm not surprised. However my feelings are a mix of outrage at the FAA as well as understanding. When a few irresponsible people use their toys in ways that are, well irresponsible, I'm not at all surprised to see the FAA come down hard on everyone. I think in many ways this is a tragedy of the commons. A few idiots have actually ruined it for everyone. When a toy has the power to kill people, or to hurt them, and people do stupid things with them, then it ceases to be a toy. We are now seeing stories in the news almost weekly of stupid people flying their toys in reckless and dangerous ways.
That said, I don't see how the FAA's rules are enforceable, nor do I see how the FAA can actually claim to have the authority to make rules in an an area that, as far as I can tell, congress has never granted them the power to do.
If FAA truly has the power to regulate a hobby, then they need to have a framework in place to allow this activity to continue safely. It's happening everywhere in the world. Banning it in the US will only put companies behind the curve who want to develop and use the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA should delegate or allow delegating to the AMA. IE if you are flying at AMA field , the rule doesn't apply. Or that you must have insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Medical Association? I should think not. If you did that, each drone would cost something north of 5 figures and could only be used by someone who went through a decades long training program while channeling hallucinations from some old dead Greek guy.
Not a very good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong AMA, Academy of Model Aeronautics http://www.modelaircraft.org/ [modelaircraft.org] . Its in the article.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, while it's the Academy of Model Aeronautics rather than the American Medical Association, this isn't far from the truth. The AMA isn't fond of FPV in the first place, it's just that they want to be the model aircraft police rather
Re: (Score:3)
If you want a dead Greek guy, I suppose the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) could channel Icarus.
Re:Not surprised, mixed feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
Ars Technica just published an article demonstrating the activities that irresponsible people (the author) do with this technology: link [arstechnica.com]
and when a drone crashes into a plane the FAA (Score:2)
and when a drone crashes into a plane the FAA will get all the power that they need and the pilot may be looking at some hard time and or a big lawsuit and if it's some commercial drone they better go all the way up the chain so they can't use the an network of subcontractors to get out of blame / have people who have no cash to pay out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I don't see how the FAA's rules are enforceable, nor do I see how the FAA can actually claim to have the authority to make rules in an an area that, as far as I can tell, congress has never granted them the power to do.
Enforceability is one thing but a few high profile cases will take the wind out of many peoples rotors. As to whether or not the FAA can regulate UAVs - it's pretty clear that they have broad powers of regulation when it comes to aircraft safety. UAVs that potentially serve as hazards to aircraft in flight or around a runway would easily fall under FAA jurisdiction. Kids flying something in their back yard - that's the big issue. If you look at the one 'hobby' that UAVs most closely resemble, model roc
Re:Not surprised, mixed feelings (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not surprised, mixed feelings (Score:5, Informative)
The FAA has appealed the decision, and so far seems hell-bent on regulating as much as it can before it gets slapped down in higher court. Which it surely will... Congress simply hasn't given them legal authority to regulate such things. They're acting like the EPA has been recently, seemingly trying to greedily grab up all the usurped authority they can before the November elections.
Re: (Score:2)
The political speech workaround won't work. Mostly because these rules by the FAA are content neutral. You can't burn down a government building and sucessfully claim a "free speech" exemption from arson laws just because you used lighter fluid to spell out your "I hate government" message on the building, lit it, and posted a picture of the start of the fire with your message clearly visible in flames.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your characterization of Citizen's United is not complete.
Being "content neutral" (or, perhaps more correctly, "viewpoint neutral" -- fire, crowded theater and all that is considering content, but not of political speech) is necessary, but not sufficient, for a restriction that limits speech to pass constitutional muster.
Roughly speaking (I'm not a constitutional expert or a lawyer), there also has to be, at whatever level of scrutiny the court decides applies, sufficient (and, in practice, generally quite
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is that few would argue that going hunting by connecting your gun to a couple of $9 servos, and operating it over a glitchy radio link where you have a tiny field of view through a bad camera, and it may randomly go off if you lose radio is a sane thing to do.
Re:Not surprised, mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
The FAA opposes that, but they're perfectly fine with operating it over a glitchy radio link where all you have is a Mk I eyeball located a thousand feet away.
Re: (Score:2)
It flies like a drone, it watches like a drone... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry for those losing out here, but I also don't see why they should be allowed to operate unmanned aerial vehicles with surveillance capabilities any more than anyone else.
Re:It flies like a drone, it watches like a drone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't see why they should be allowed to operate unmanned aerial vehicles with surveillance capabilities any more than anyone else.
The default should be yes, you're allowed to do it as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Going to a park or a field and flying a model airplane (or drone, however you want to call it) doesn't hurt anyone, so it should be allowed.
One of the main arguments against centralized government authority is that it's too big to take into account the concerns of everyone, so small constituencies get trampled. That is the case here, people who were not hurting anyone are now prevented from a healthy hobby, and have very little recourse.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- in fact, I suspect from your choice of phrase that we would very much agree on the basic principles of how laws should work -- I'm just saying the law should apply equally to everyone. If certain areas are acceptable for this kind of hobby, they should be acceptable for other similar "drone" flights. Equally, if for whatever reason certain areas are not acceptable in law for general "drone" flights or if the default in law is that these devices aren't considered a
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it appears that they merely weren't aware of all the ramifications of what they were doing. So it's a mistake that hurts people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that when people take their quad out to a park and fly it using FPV, they often go above 400 ft, fly over other people's property, fly over crowded areas, fly over highways, and fly in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc). This isn't a "few bad apples" eith
Re: (Score:2)
I don't feel too bad for enthusiasts as this limitation won't stop them.
It's the same as some semiautomatics or limited cartridge guns -- you can modify them.
If the definition of DRONE is flies by video -- then they aren't sold with video and someone buys a radio camera and attaches that. Suddenly it's a remote viewer.
I suspect more fear of drones from the Government as the capabilities of CITIZENS doing what they do 24/7 becomes apparent. Is the worry about someone ELSE spying besides corporations and gove
Peeping Toms in the Neighborhood (Score:5, Interesting)
Peeping Toms in the Neighborhood (Score:4, Informative)
No the AMA(Academy of Model Aeronautics) is also going against the rule. Another case of a slashdot reader who didn't actually read the article.
"The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill."
"AMA cannot support this rule." said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. "It is at best ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule."
Oh noes! (Score:2)
"Stop flying it more safely! You may only fly it the more dangerous old way!"
Re: (Score:2)
Not anything new (Score:5, Informative)
The FAA has always had this rule.
To be a flying a 'model' you have to fly by line of sight, i.e. with your eyes on the model, not via electronics. Its been this way for years.
Re: Not anything new (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do it yourself: http://www.google.com/ [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
FAA used to ask you to have a backup pilot on a trainer lead maintaining line of sight.
Now it's just banned.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is operating my drone outside of public airspace (no higher than 500 ft above obstacles) while on private property where the land owner has given me permission: the FAA has no jurisdiction
Whether I have line-of-sight, radio control, or out-of-sight completely computer autonomous: in private airspace the FAA has no say.
Line of Sight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just ban anything that flies (Score:2)
You know that is what they want, might as well just do it now and get over with.
Pandora's Box (or Jar if you will) Is Already Open (Score:3)
And there's no putting it back. I'm waiting for the first homemade (well, hobbyist or toy) drone attack. Won't be long. And I'm betting it'll be homegrown, no foreign terrorists required. FAA can regulate all it wants, but those drones are not going away.
Class G (Score:2)
So since I'm not a government agency, this still leaves me class G airspace on private property (assuming I have permission from the land owner).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Not all airspace is under FAA jurisdiction (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So... regular quadcopter equals FAA-regulated and illegal but Quadcopter with a gun equals second amendment?
Good luck to all lawyers out there.
Re:They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone ri (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place, but the quadcopter-with-a-gun is certainly a weapon, so why wouldn't it be protected by the second amendment?
side note: To all those who say, "because that sounds super dangerous" the response is to draft a constitutional amendment to allow the government to regulate more things. Simply "interpreting" away the teeth of the second amendment merely encourages contempt of the constitution and all the other things protected by other clauses and amendments are sure to be abridged in the same manner.
Further side note: Perhaps it's me, but I've noticed over the past few years that while both congress and the people are interested in "regulating drones," both parties seem to have very different ideas about what will be regulated. Congress seems to want to regulate the use of drones by private individuals, but the clamor from the public seems to be about the use of drones by the state for surveillance or armed action. The whole thing is shaping up not unlike the calls for "immigration reform" where each party's ideas about what the reform should be are other parties' ideas about what needs to be fixed.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place..."
Maybe not quadracopters, but they definitely have the authority to regulate airspace. And regulation of quadracopters is probably coming, in much the same way as every little device that transmits radio waves is regulated now.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it quadcopters or quadracopters? After all, we say quad-core CPUs instead of quadra-core CPUs, but maybe there's a grammar rule or something that I'm not aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
No love for the pentacopters?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not quadracopters, but they definitely have the authority to regulate airspace.
And governments generally reserve the right to regulate firearms in possession of civilians, but look at Ukraine to see how that turns out when push comes to shove.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, the Eastern Ukraine is fighting back against their government using the handheld anti-aircraft weaponry they just happened to have lying around, hidden from their government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't they be regulating everything that can fly as low as regular planes in their normal paths, so that anything below that height isn't theirs to regulate?
Re:They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone ri (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. The problem with federal government regulation is that they do not by default have jurisdiction unless it somehow it granted to them by the constitution. Hence the reason there is a recreational exemption to regulation- it doesn't influence interstate commerce or whatever other stretch of power they use in order to devise regulatory authority. The federal government is not like a traditional government that can just pass laws. It's original jurisdiction is outlined in the constitution and some court cases have expanded those to seem like it is all encompassing.
This is even true for things like tractor trailer operations too. There are recreational exceptions to even that which do not require keeping a log book, having a DOT or MCC number or anything of the sort. There is even an exemption for a CDL requirement if it is what they consider recreational/hobby.
If the exemption was not there, the regulation ability would not survive a court challenge by people clearly outside the scope of their regulatory jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
but the quadcopter-with-a-gun is certainly a weapon
When properly implemented, it's probably a much more dangerous weapon than any human shooter.
Re: (Score:2)
So who regulates cars without guns attached? Or are those unregulated?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, CGI isn't real? Are you telling me vocaloids are a world-wide conspiracy?
Re:They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone ri (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone r (Score:5, Informative)
In coding terms, the militia part is a comment, the right part is code. The militia part isn't part of the operative law of the constitution; never was. It clarifies intent, however.
But viewed in the context of the time, with a bunch of ordinary people with weaponry in their private possession (including military-grade stuff) just having used that to overthrow an oppressive government, it's quite clear the intent there was "a check on government overreach". Even through the 19th century, it was common for 1%ers to buy cannon, Gatling guns and other clearly military hardware, and bring it along to war, or donate it to the town for local defense. Due to some remarkably stupid procurement decisions by the US military, we would likely have been soundly defeated in the Spanish-American War had it not been for rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves (and Roosevelt basically inventing the modern "base of fire" infantry tactic with those Gatling guns.)
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be argued too that modern weapons are not the same as weapons of the time. At the time of writing, the most advanced guns around were muskets - there were no rifles, and fully-automatic weapons were unimagined. Today the most powerful weapons available are bombs capable of destroying a small country, and even some of our 'small' arms can turn a man into a highly efficient killing machine capable of potentially several deaths-per-second given a sufficiently rapidly replenished supply of targets.
Re: (Score:3)
There were rifles in the US War of Independence, and both sides had them. But they weren't the main infantry weapon because of the slow reloading time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you apply that same argument to the first amendment? At the time of the signing of the bill of rights, the most advanced methods of written communication was the hand-operated newspaper press. By your "no unforeseen technology" argument, the first amendment would not apply to telegraphs, radio, faxes, photographs(!), telephones, photocopiers, computers, the internet, wifi, etc.
This is obviously insane. The first amendment is designed to protect the message. The medium used to transmit that message is
Re: (Score:2)
Those who wrote the first amendment obviously couldn't have intended it apply to technologies they could not predict. Thus it makes sense to look at the reasoning behind the amendment, and decide if the same reasoning extends to cover these new technologies as well.
This doesn't work on the second amendment because there seems to be very little agreement about exactly what it's for these days. Some insist it's there to ensure a right to self-defense, some that it is there to ensure the citizens are ready to
Re: (Score:3)
Process matters. There's a legitimate process for changing the Constitution as the world around us changes. I'm all for outlawing nuclear weapons in private hands, but the way do limit the second amendment is not by justices just deciding one day it means something different!
But of course, no one cares these days. You can't go to court or fly without a clearly unconstitutional search by government employees, and the NSA collects our private correspondence wholesale. The Fifth Amendment gets whittled awa
Re: (Score:2)
No. Of course they couldn't. Just go back and look at some of the 'life in the year 2000' videos made in the 50s and 60s and see how wrong they were.
The founders knew this though. That's why they included the process of constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
You get one shot with the weapons of the era. Then you need to go through the slow process of manual reloading. You can't really go on a killing spree with one.
If you wanted to commit some mass-murder with 1700's weaponry, I imagine the best you could come up with would be a really big bomb - lots of gunpowder stacked up underneath a populated building. It'd also be a valuable weapon to overthrow a government - someone tried that in England once, and nearly pulled it off too. So, does the second amendment g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, It's very clear in the various letters it's there because they couldn't afford a standing army.
The right to bear arms on the federal level is relatively new. Until it the 1970's cities and states determined local laws. Orrin Hatch commissioned a report, ignored the reports finding, but still waved it around as proof. hell, 100 years ago and more many cities and towns didn't allow firearms;
Add to that congress can change the amendments should it like, this is really a PR issue created by the PR company t
Re: (Score:3)
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
God damn; well said.
Re: They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone r (Score:4, Interesting)
rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves
That's the way wars worked before WW2, one of my distant ancestors donated 22 Viking boats and 300 paid soldiers to William the conqueror's invasion force and sailed across the English channel with him, his reward? - Wales (the country, not the animal). In fact this is how modern democracy first appeared, rich merchants basically forced the crown to sign the Magna Carta by withdrawing financial supports for the crown's military adventures. Even during and after WW2, rich merchants still own the means of production for military hardware. The one sign of hope is that for most (but not all) rich merchants - war is bad for business in the modern world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence â" economic, political, even spiritual â" is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is YOU who needs to learn some history.
The Rights outlined in the US Constitution are the Rights every person is born with as they are the rights of "Nature and Nature's God" (as described by the founders).
Every person has a natural right to protect themselves. Every person has a right to voice their opinion. The US
Re: (Score:2)
Note also there is also minor limitations on keeping a standing army, namely having to refinance it regularly IIRC, I'm not American. Even by the time of the Revolution of 1688 it was well recognized that a standing army led to tyranny and limits were attempted.
Way back it was expected (with laws enforcing it I believe) that free men would keep and be proficient in arms, often long bow, so that the militia could quickly be organized.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, England had that system during the middle ages. Manditory bow training for all men.
But an army of the time wasn't like a modern army. There were a few professionals, but most of the men were conscripts. The idea wasn't to allow the militia to be quickly organised: It was to the King's representative could turn up at your village and declare he wanted thirty men to go fight the French (Again), and you'd better show some loyalty and do you were told.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe it was the Stuarts that started the modern army thing with full time professional soldiers who were also used on their own subjects. Of course the Stuarts were nuts and really believed that they were appointed by God and had a natural right to be tyrants. This led to two revolutions, one with the King losing his head and the second Parliament replacing the King and becoming supreme. It was also the time when the average person came to believe in natural rights and the second revolution gave the fi
Re: (Score:2)
" It's very clear and there is little room for interpretation here."
No, it isn't. You might have notice experts in constitutional law, and experts in the history of the constitution can not agree.
If you can't understand why that is, stop talking about it.
Re: They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone r (Score:4, Interesting)
That would only be true if one had never read the Militia Act.
Hint: it's not even in the fine print that pretty much every American citizen is a member of the Militia.
Re: (Score:2)
only if it has an actual weapon mounted on it.
Otherwise, pickup trucks/jeeps are also weapons under this idea, because military forces trivially bolt large machine guns or antiaircraft guns or even small missiles to truck beds all the time.
and if you go with "the vehicle itself is a weapon" argument, then again, pretty much every vehicle you see on the street also meets that definition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone ri (Score:5, Interesting)
Caltrops. This several thousand year old weapon, first used against humans and horses, remains effective today against vehicles with pneumatic tires. You can make them out of darn near any piece of thin metal. Just have every member go around town once a month to every hardware/big-box store in town and buy a box of nails or screws for cash. Pickup a gallon of milk or something else and you'll blend right in with the millions of other people picking up odds and ends for home.
With a few basic tools and a welder a few guys can build caltrops assembly line style. Then just go out on the road just before rush hour when its dark or during ran so it's harder for the car behind to notice the bouncing spike thing coming from under your car and drop them one at a time through a hole in the floor. (Make sure you make sure they don't bounce into your own tires.) Home-rigged caltrops like these usually don't cause blowouts, but will case a slow leak that will deflate a tire. How many car and truck tires do you need to take out before you case a cluster of a traffic jam? Sure sounds lame, but what happens when your group does this once every month and there are 4 other cells in the area doing the same? In certain areas of the country this could bring commerce to a standstill.
High tension wooden power pole in middle of nowhere + Chainsaw. Don't really need to explain this one further except that power pole wood is hard on chainsaw chains. Sure just one cell doing this would just be a nuisance, a couple dozen driving around the country doing this will quickly overwhelm the repair crews. Just cutting one will usually result in the neighboring poles holding the wires up for the time being, allowing an escape and not letting people know exactly when you did the deed.
Supposedly Iran has sleeper cells in the US tasked with doing exactly this should the US attack Iran. No idea if it's true or not, but attacking infrastructure wouldn't exactly be a hard thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They're infringing my Second-Amendment drone r (Score:2, Informative)
Ask the French who armed, trained, officered, equipped and funded your army and Navy if it was your right to bear arms that made a difference. Hint: without foreign intervention it never would have worked then. See Syria for how well it works now. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal weapons, even with fancy training, couldn't ever pose a large threat to the government.
Tell it the king we overthrew in in the late 1700s.
The late 1700's king did not have tanks and bazookas. Both sides had artillery for most of the American War of Independence - the Americans by capturing it such as by the Knox Expedition. The only significant weaponry where the British had the advantage in was in ships.
Re: (Score:2)
Only possible because his logistics were seriously overstretched, and even then it needed French support.
Dirty secret of the American revolution: Likely wouldn't have worked without French support.
Re: (Score:3)
As we've seen in the middle east, small weapons can pose a threat to a government. The trick is just preventing the government from bringing their really big weapons to bear. If you march your patriotic rebellion upon Washington, it would just be carpet-bombed into a bloody and burning pulp - but if you instead have your men infiltrate in civilian clothes, fight dirty, use sabotage where possible, snipe from a distance and disappear into the population again... well, then the only way to kill them all woul
Re: (Score:3)
The largest hazard with that set seems to be swallowing the parts, in that in addition to potentially choking on small parts, some would sicken or kill you if you managed to choke them down. For mature children though, looks like a cool toy to use under supervision (for educational guidance in addition to safety).
The real problem with that thing seems to be that it was quite expensive, and even more expensive to produce (the company lost money on every unit).
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest WTF is that the batteries were actually included! Other than that, I don't see the problem for older kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it not a kids toy?
Re:The Goggles! (Score:5, Insightful)
They do something! They make my hipster hobby illegal!
In principle, this is a good change. The regulations should be not be based on "hobby" vs "commercial". They should instead be based on size, weight, speed, altitude, method of control (line of sight, or not, etc.), capabilities (camera, machine gun, etc.), and where it is flown (public vs private land). If you are flying a drone less than 5kg, on your own property, and keeping it below 100 meters, it should be anything goes, with no permit required. After that, there should be reasonable restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
In principal you're right. Still privacy issues as you may be able to use the drone to view over the neighbours privacy fence and into their hot tub or private sun bathing area.
Re:The Goggles! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have they really got nuance laws in the States? And how would that work? Probably better to make sure peeking tom laws have teeth and people are aware of them.
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't seen a drone have you? They sound like a large angry swarm of bees from a horror movie. It would be the equivalent of a peeping tom setting up a photo studio in your hot tub or sun bathing area. It would be immediately obvious. Typically when I fly mine around neighbours from all over come out and find out what the noise is about. There's no discrete peeping with these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they have dual fences, one around the yard and another around their private hot tub area. Could be a hedge rather then a fence as well.
No Such Regulations (Score:3)
What regulations are you talking about?
TFA is referring to the interpretation and enforcement of HR 658 which specifically separates hobby and commercial (with no commercial provisions for the Continental United States!)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B... [gpo.gov]
Re:The Goggles! (Score:5, Informative)
You've just dangerously oversimplified a complicated problem.
100m? What happens if you live on a property right in the flight path next to the airport?
Weight? Weight means nothing. I accidentally ran into myself with my 6kg hexacopter doing a stupid stunt. I ended up with bruises and a few broken cheap plastic props. On the flip side one of my friends flies this tiny little ~2kg quadrocopter which he also flew into himself. He ended up in hospital thanks to very high speed carbon fibre blades slicing him up his arms and his face. He ended up with quite a few stitches as a result.
So what's a reasonable restriction? Any quad could potentially kill someone. If you're interested in safety you'd need to take into account weight class, propeller speed, propeller type. Now you're talking private property, so if I fly my quad some 100m above my house on my private land and I have an incident, where will the quad end up? Prop failure, RF failure, actually every failure I've seen has resulted in a little multirotor craft not falling straight down. Maybe you should only be able to fly on private property if you live in an acreage?
This is much more complicated than you think.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, they are giving their interpretation t
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that. The regulation is totally ass-backwards. Flying anything small without FPV is hard and inaccurate, and, presumably, also less safe. I've personally looked through an FPV system installed in a plane that was flown line-of-sight by an experienced pilot doing it the old fashioned way. And all I have to say is that it was some very shitty flying. Sure, if you look at it from a distance, it looks "great". Yet when you see the VSI and the artificial horizon, you can't be but all "the fuck is