The FAA Has Missed Its Congressionally Mandated Deadline To Regulate Drones 184
derekmead writes: When Congress passed the FAA Modernization Act in 2012, it gave the agency until September 30, 2015 to fully regulate commercial drones for use in the United States. Well, it's October 1, and we're left with a patchwork of regulatory band-aids, quasi-legal "guidelines," and a small drone rule that still hasn't gone into effect yet. This news shouldn't surprise anyone. The agency has missed most every milestone—both internal and lawmaker mandated—that has been set for it. The last two years have been fraught with lawsuits, confusion on enforcement within its own local offices (some FAA agents have told pilots they can't post videos on YouTube, for example), and various conflicting guidelines as to who can fly a drone where, and for what purposes.
Congressionally mandated penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
..and some entity actually willing and able to enforce the penalty...
Re:Congressionally mandated penalty (Score:5, Funny)
Tie some of their funding to the completion of their legal mandates, and they will become fearsome regulation-writing warriors. You just have to understand Bureaushido - the Way of the Bureaucrat.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if they will remember that in December when they threaten to shut down the gov't again because they can't agree on a debt ceiling resolution.
--
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to wait until planes start crashing then get thier funding back ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See 49 U.S. Code 40103. The airspace is outside of the jurisdiction of any state; the states are considered to only control what goes on at the ground. By act of congress, the US federal government has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of the United States.
Can they explain where the FAA gets any Constitutional authority to regulate drones?
Drones are flying, so they are encroaching upon airspace which is used by aircraft crossing the country and multiple states to carry cargo, passengers, and c
Re: (Score:2)
You failed to explain where Congress gets the authority to create that law in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
So what makes aircraft especially privileged? The airspace belongs to the people and so users of it must share equitably with each other. Manned aircraft have no special moral claim to priority in that sharing.
For safety reasons, it makes sense to segregate air traffic and there is a compelling interest in keeping manned aircraft flying but that doesn't mean drones shouldn't be operating with as few impediments as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
The state lines issue regarding the interstate commerce clause was decided over 70 years ago. Based on the ruling, your not participating in an interstate market is in fact participation in the interstate market.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's more like "mumble, mumble, national air space, mumble, mumble.".
I just checked the Constitution, and I don't see "national air space" mentioned anywhere.
The Founders would look at you like a madman if you went back in time, showed them a drone, and asked whether the Federal government had the right to regulate them under the Constitution they just signed.
Re: (Score:3)
The Founders would look at you like a madman if you went back in time, showed them a drone...
More likely, they would have you burned as a witch.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were in Salem maybe, but most of the US never had any issue with witches.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that has yet to be done, so...
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever replace that 400hz computer you claim to run so much faster with hosts files?
Perhaps if you spent a couple hundred on a new computer, you could stop being worried about the difference in memory usage of Adblock vs you Hosts file.
Oh, and did you ever get out of your mother's basement?
Re: (Score:2)
No, The Founders would burn you for witchcraft if you went back in time, showed them a drone...
Re: (Score:2)
When the Constitution was signed, the legal principle was that you owned everything above and below your land ad caelum et ad inferos. I think it's pretty clear that they would have disapproved of the federal government intruding into state and individual property rights the way the FAA is doing.
Furthermore, the airspace described by "the tallest flagpole or the yardarm of the tallest ship in the harbor" is pretty much what we are talking about when talking about drones.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that with the invention of aircraft, we needed to revise the way we handle real estate.
Either you make it uniform and hand regulatory authority over to a federal agency, or you have a hodge-podge of state and local laws which make modern aviation either outright impossible or extremely burdensome.
Neither air travel nor deep mining were available technologies at the time the Constitution was written; to claim that the Constitution has some clear guidance on the matter is disingenuous at bes
Re: (Score:2)
So? I said nothing that contradicted what you said.
Yes, and wi
Re: (Score:3)
I think you might be confusing patents with copyright. Patents aren't eternal in the same way that the copyright on Steamboat Willy is eternal.
Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score:2, Insightful)
The majority of drone operators are not pilots. They're not trained in see-and-avoid procedures. Many are very ignorant of FAA rules. That is why many drones are flown for commercial purposes, above 400 feet (the limit for recreational use), and close to airports. They're not trained on what to do if a mechanical part fails on a drone and it has to be landed in an emergency. There are good reasons why there are prohibitions on flying drones close to people and structures, yet these are frequently neglected.
Re:Why should the FAA allow drones without COAs? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already classes of manned aircraft that do not require the operator to have a pilot's license to operate. There are rules and the operators are required to follow those rules, but without a licensing requirement I expect that enforcement could be challenging sometimes.
If it's any consolation I agree that RC aircraft need reasonable restrictions. Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over. Operators need to not fly in heavily populated areas. Classes of RC aircraft need to be created so that there are sane rules governing relatively safe child toys as compared to larger amateur rigs and even bigger and more powerful professional rigs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that we're going to need a definition here... What exactly is a COA?
Already defined. [faa.gov] And here. [knowbeforeyoufly.org]
There are already classes of manned aircraft that do not require the operator to have a pilot's license to operate.
There are. So?
There are rules and the operators are required to follow those rules, but without a licensing requirement I expect that enforcement could be challenging sometimes.
You must be kidding. You don't think the FAA would take any action against an ultralight pilot who violated the rules just because no formal license is involved?
Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over.
That would not be first on my list of rules that need to be created. As you point out, there are other pilots already operating, and none of them need permission to fly over property they don't own. That's part of the national airspace concept -- to prevent a patchwork of local regulations and limitations
Re: (Score:2)
If it's any consolation I agree that RC aircraft need reasonable restrictions. Operators need to not fly over property that they have not sought and received explicit permission to fly over.
When are we going to apply the same standards to other aircraft? Why only drones? Nobody should be able to fly an airplane over my property without my written permission!
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense! Let's create that rule.
Oh. It already exists as 14 CFR 91.119c [cornell.edu]: "[in sparsely populated areas] the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
Some other kinds of aircraft other than airplanes can fly lower and closer in certain situations (maybe even drones?), but here's the dirty little secret: the FAA figures out if they want to punish you, and then they figure out how to do it, and then they succeed. It's a privilege, not a right, so
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. It already exists as 14 CFR 91.119c: "[in sparsely populated areas] the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."
Right, but we can't have drones flying over 500' because that's where the aircraft are flying. We don't let aircraft fly at less than 500' because of the danger of crashing into something, not because of privacy considerations. Let the drones have the area between 250' and 500'. If there are privacy considerations, they apply to planes, only even moreso because planes are bigger and you can mount more advanced optics on them.
There's no such thing as a loophole when it comes to the FARs. If you think you've found one,
No, I just think I've found the folly in trying to apply the same logic to drones a
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but we can't have drones flying over 500' because that's where the aircraft are flying. We don't let aircraft fly at less than 500' because of the danger of crashing into something, not because of privacy considerations. Let the drones have the area between 250' and 500'. If there are privacy considerations, they apply to planes, only even moreso because planes are bigger and you can mount more advanced optics on them.
As I mentioned a few postings above, there are aircraft (helicopters) that work below 500'. And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off (for instance, from your backyard). Merely setting an altitude limit for drones won't prevent all collisions. I think we need a more complete solution (and as an engineer I tend to think of technology based ones like including drones in the ADS-B system).
Re: (Score:2)
> And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen? Most people already know not to fly near airfields. I highly doubt anyone noticing that you're trying to take off or land in your backyard (is that a thing? Is that just for ultralights or something?) is going to hang around in a position that gets in your way.
Merely setting ANYTHING won't prevent all collisions, drone or not. There needs to be a compromise, without over-reaching regulation or trac
Re: (Score:2)
And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen?
At least twice each flight for every flight of every aircraft.
I highly doubt anyone noticing that you're trying to take off or land in your backyard (is that a thing? Is that just for ultralights or something?)
No. It is for "aircraft".
is going to hang around in a position that gets in your way.
The fact remains, an aircraft that lands or takes off out of your neighbor's property is very unlikely to have reached 500' AGL by the time it crosses the property line, and therefore there are times when even manned, powered aircraft can fly below 500' over someone's property without their permission LEGALLY.
What we actually need is less blind fear.
You got that right.
Re: (Score:2)
And even airplanes are allowed to operate below 500' when landing or taking off
But when does that happen?
At least twice each flight for every flight of every aircraft.
Well yes, but I meant in context of his question, which said something about a backyard (I should have been more clear). I realize they do so at airports, but no reasonable quad pilot is operating there, making it a pointless argument.
The fact remains, an aircraft that lands or takes off out of your neighbor's property is very unlikely to have reached 500' AGL by the time it crosses the property line, and therefore there are times when even manned, powered aircraft can fly below 500' over someone's property without their permission LEGALLY.
Of course. I'm not the one arguing [slashdot.org] that property lines (or "my rights") are being violated by the existence of quads or aircraft. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody should be able to fly an airplane over my property without my written permission!
Why the hell not?
Because my notions of privacy and safety are more important than legitimate uses of the airspace! Just like everyone seems to think about drones. Welcome to the wide world of sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
You've quoted the minimum safe altitudes regulation without any of the exceptions. Airplanes can fly lower than 500/1000 if they are taking off or landing. For instance, if you have a field in your backyard and you want to land your airplane there and then take off again, you can legally fly below those altitudes. I'm a helicopter pilot and we work jobs below 500/1000 all the time. There are requirements on us when working below those altitudes - we basically need to insure that we don't present a hazard t
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem for us with the drones is that they are small enough to be difficult to see
How much force does a tail rotor generate (Genuine question)? I would suspect not much, but wouldn't it be enough to push away any quadcopter that isn't intentionally trying to run into it? But regardless, on that same token, the main rotor would most certainly bat one down (and I have seen multiple examples of video evidence to support such a claim).
Why do you think the dent in your helicopter was unlikely to be a b
Re: (Score:2)
Tail rotor pulls air in one side and pushes it out the other, so if the drone is on the wrong side it would actually get sucked into the tail rotor. Tail rotors are actually very delicate and losing even one blade can easily cause the aircraft to be uncontrollable (if, for instance, the gearbox comes off) which would almost certainly result in a fatal accident.
Main rotors are indeed much more substantial, however a main rotor strike on anything but the smallest of ultra-mini drone would most likely require
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mention the windshield because I truly don't think a quadcopter would remain airborne long enough to hit it (my assertion that the main rotor would move it), unless the pilot is intentionally trying to run through it. If that's the case, no amount of regulation is going to help.
The video of the guy flying 3000 feet (1000m) was A) A hexacopter (more stable; the point being that your regular quad still likely can't get this high), B) Not in the US, C) took very reasonable steps [youtube.com] to confirm safety befo
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mention the windshield because I truly don't think a quadcopter would remain airborne long enough to hit it (my assertion that the main rotor would move it), unless the pilot is intentionally trying to run through it. If that's the case, no amount of regulation is going to help.
No, it doesn't work that way. The downwash of the rotor at speed is not going to move something like a drone out of the way. It won't move a small bird out of the way, nor even a child's balloon. You're probably thinking of a hovering helicopter, not a helicopter that is in flight. In the case of a helicopter in flight if the object is at the altitude of the windshield, it's pretty much going to go through the windshield and take out the crew. Any bird larger than maybe a sparrow will go through the windshi
Re: (Score:2)
All your comment said to me was that any usage of airspace that isn't a full-sized helicopter or airplane should be over-regulated. In your eyes, all of the cool experiments kids have been doing sending cameras into the stratosphere should be banned.
It's not that I'm failing to understand you, in theory. I fully agree that careless people can ruin your day. My argument is just that this is not limited to drone operators, and shoving regulation down their throats is stupid. Let's come back to this conversati
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we apply the same rules to private airplanes?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I can imagine your next argument too. "I mean the six-foot hexapod copters carrying three cameras and FPV downlinks." Your problem there is using the nebulous and incorrect term DRONE to lump everything together. If you have a problem with six-foot profe
Re: (Score:2)
A certificate of airworthiness for a six-inch quadcopter?
A Certificate of Authorization for an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. Is your six-inch quad going to be used for commercial purposes?
Yeah, I can imagine your next argument too. "I mean the six-foot hexapod copters carrying three cameras and FPV downlinks."
Well, yeah, I think that size of drone is going to be used for commercial purposes more often than the six-inch quad. Don't you think so, too?
If you really want to discuss COA and licenses, then be specific about what class of air vehicles you are talking about.
I think it is sufficient to talk about the commercial vs. non-commercial use, and that will have a practical effect of differentiating tiny toys from work-capable equipment.
But a 12-inch, two pound toy with a pin-hole camera making videos for Facebook and YouTube worries me about as much as a badly thrown Frisbee.
By the time you get to that size, you do have
Re: (Score:2)
A Certificate of Authorization for an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. Is your six-inch quad going to be used for commercial purposes?
For Many people, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES, by the FAA's definition of commercial which includes the publication of video or photography on Youtube, and the advancement of any public or political benefit (Such as use by a non-profit for search and rescue work --- considered commercial use), or if there happens to later be any revenue from photography
Re: (Score:2)
A Certificate of Authorization for an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. Is your six-inch quad going to be used for commercial purposes?
What is it that causes people to froth at the mouth when something is uses for commercial purposes? Using something for commercial purposes doesn't make it dangerous. There should be one standard which is applied to all activity, commercial or not, and that standard should be based not on the type of activity but on the potential for harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean, but I think you might have overlooked something: It's kind of like sex. For free it's one thing, to use it as part of your business model is clearly something else entirely.
Why? If I send I a small plastic quad-copter up to 25 feet to check my gutters for debris after a storm, and there's a guy next door doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way for exactly the same three minutes using exactly the same equipment with exactly the same skill and exactly the same safety considerations ... but he's charging $20 to do it so he doesn't have to charge $50 to put up a ladder in five places around the house ... how is that Clearly Something Else Entirely?
And why is my ow
Re: (Score:2)
how is that Clearly Something Else Entirely?
I'll answer your question because it doesn't have the inane hyperbole of the previous guy.
It's different for the same reason that the guy who charges you $50 for a short flight from your local county airport to the nearest big city so you can catch an airline flight has to have a commercial pilot license while your friend who does it as a favor to you doesn't. And why the guy who is flying that commercial airline aircraft has an even higher level of certification and ongoing standards.
That reason is that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it you're assuming that recreational noobs flying once or twice a month are safer than people who use the technology every day? Specifically.
I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not.
Then why aren't you calling for the same (or, really, much more) stringent regulations on the millions of casual noobs, instead of the comparative handful of people who happen to regularly use the technology as part of the bucket of professional tools? The vast majority of reckless behavior involving these devices is at the hands of idiotic beginners who - unlike professionals - don't think there are any consequences for operating like jackasses.
Re: (Score:3)
should require the drone operator be a licensed pilot
I hope you don't mean the same type of pilot's license required for manned non-ultralight aircraft. I think there should, however be a separate license for drone pilots. There needs to be a set of rules and procedures, with a license test that requires you to demonstrate you know them via a written test, similar concept to a HAM technical class license . It doesn't have to be a huge barrier to entry, just make sure you know the rules. If you fly a drone without a license or you break the rules then you
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem is that it would require you to assert things that are not actual law just to get the license, making fines all but a certainty. Revenue then becomes the incentive rather than fair play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to leave drone as a strictly autonomous thing as the name implies (to my mind, at least).
You can do that, if you like. But it's worth noting that "drone" as used elsewhere implies a significant lack of autonomy, such as a male social insect whose sole purpose is to breed with prospective queens or someone with a slavish devotion to a bureaucracy or ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand what you want. Unlicensed use of drones above 400 ft and close to airports is already prohibited. What benefit is there to imposing additional restrictions?
Furthermore, we may need to rethink priorities. Threats from drones to large commercial airliners and airports are small and fairly easy to deal with. So, the conflict mainly arises between drones and small private aircraft, and between those two, I think it's clear that drones are far more valuable to society than small private planes. So, instead of imposing draconian restrictions on drones, maybe we should strongly restrict the use of small private planes.
It's not just private planes. Or even planes. What about crop dusters? What about helicopters? Are we going to ground all of them because drones present an almost unavoidable hazard? (they're really too small to see until the collision is not preventable). There is lots of commercial work that takes place in commercial aircraft at very low altitude. As a helicopter pilot, our main hazards at low altitudes are wires and birds. The birds tend to get out of our way, and I would suggest that we need automation
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you're not important than anyone else that you should have the power to forcibly control quads or anything else.
I'm not saying that quads are more important than you, either; just there's an element of safety and respect needed from both sides, equally.
You seem to have this notion that the people flying quads aren't real people. I'd venture to say that 90+% of all devices that would have the capability of being near you at any point also have cameras and can see that you're near. You should trust
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a question of the people in the aircraft being more important than the drone operator. It's that their lives are at risk and his is not. I don't know where you got this idea that I don't think the people flying quads are real people. What I am saying is that you don't seem to see the difference in that you're asking aircrews and their passengers to accept additional risk to their lives and you aren't accepting the same risk. Yes, I think we need to integrate drones into the airspace. No, I don't th
Re: (Score:2)
"Integrating" already presumes that current users and uses are accommodated largely unchanged. What we need to do instead is rethink the use of airspace from the ground up, taking no existing rights or privileges for granted.
You leave out the most importa
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be starting from the assumption that all existing general aviation privileges remain untouched and drones somehow need to be fit into that existing scheme. But if we are going to have central decision making for a rational use of airspace, then the past privileges of general aviation need to be on the table. A rational policy for airspace use may well mean that drones don't have to accommodate all current forms of general aviation, but that general aviation instead become much more restrictive s
Re: (Score:2)
You make some good points, and I don't really disagree (except that the pilots will scream bloody murder) but I'd like to make a few comments:
1) I don't think General Aviation will be untouched, and in fact if what I hope happens (drones incorporated into the ADS-B system) there will probably be an expense to all of General Aviation to modify our ADS-B equipment. Additionally, we're already affected in that part of preflight planning for a mission now includes identifying NOTAM'd drone operation areas and m
Are these going to be regulated also? (Score:2)
I can see them getting even smaller in the future.
Because it requires money/effort and coordination (Score:2)
FAA should just ask Google / Amazon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both these companies could quickly come up with policies that would satisfy most regulatory laws. Google could probably have something the FAA could use as a blueprint out within a few weeks;
Let me make sure I understand this: you are all in favor of corporate lobbyists with dogs in the fight writing laws that apply to them? I just want to make sure you understand that's what you're saying here.
I think we need two different "classes" (at minimum) for this, commercial vs. civil.
FAA has already created three categories: recreational, commercial, and public agency use.
The conspiracy theorist in me says the FAA is dragging their feet because right now that feel they have total power over this,
The FAA isn't "dragging their feet", they're being prudent in not creating laws that may have seriously bad side effects or not result in the effects that are desired. They just don't know yet how unmanned and m
Re: (Score:2)
I think we need two different "classes" (at minimum) for this, commercial vs. civil.
That makes sense in full-scale aviation because the bar to having a big plane is money. But you can have a big quad without spending a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite relative. "big quads" are generally multiple thousands of dollars, out of reach for the vast majority of folks. Consumer-level DJI quads are ~$1K, but at 4 lbs, I'd hardly call them 'big'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planes got limited overflight rights, under the assumption that 500-1000ft above the tallest structure is something that wouldn't impact property owners. Low flying drones certainly do impact property owners, so the same reasoning doesn't apply.
Well, fortunately, it isn't, since we live in a democracy.
Focusing on the wrong area. (Score:2)
Bicycles need regulating more than drones. More than 800 people were killed in 1 year, more than twice the number that have died in mass shootings since the year 2000
Re: (Score:2)
Even if bicycles haven't directly *killed* one person (although you're forgetting riders; I don't find it that difficult to believe a handful of folks died from injuries sustained by accidentally jousting with trees, for instance), you can't tell me that there haven't been injuries from bikes hitting others. I've personally seen several over the past year. Much more than quadcopters have.
You'll talk about how there are more bicycles than quads, and you'd be right. But that's also the point. Accidents will A
How to regulate drones (Score:2)
There should be a simple set of rules governing drones, RC aircraft or anything else that files and is controlled from the ground with no pilot inside. These would be a set of rules that stipulate what you can do without a license. If you want to do anything outside these rules you would need permission from the FAA.
The rules I propose are:
1.No flying within x distance of any airport, landing strip, runway, airbase or aerodrome (there is probably already an FAA definition that covers anywhere piloted air ve
Re: (Score:2)
"4. No commercial flying" -- Uh, why do people consider this some magical transformation in the physical attributes of a quadcopter? Providing aerial footage for someone who does not have the means to do it themselves, and getting paid for the privilege, is not any more harmful than providing aerial footage for you and your friends. Thanks for conceding that putting videos on YouTube is not 'commercial'; the FAA has been disagreeing with that.
Also, "7. No flying if you can't see your drone" is a little shor
Re: (Score:2)
The upper limits of your airspace over your property are not well defined, and they don't extend up to 400'. If you as a property owner, can show actual harm or a genuine threat of actual harm, you've probably got control over that airspace. (The highest the Supreme Court has ever ruled was controlled by the property owner is 83', as I remember, high enough not to frighten the chickens too much.)
What do you have against commercial drone use? I'm happy with the idea of regulating this more heavily, bu
Re: (Score:2)
I never said "lets ban commercial drone use", I said "lets allow people to do a,b and c without a license but if they want to do anything else, they need a permit or license from the FAA"
Exactly how hard that permit would be to get would depend on the intended use. A film studio wanting to use drones as part of a film shoot would need a different permit to a retailer wanting to use drones to deliver packages.
As for flights over property, ok so introduce a rule limiting flights under these "general drone rul
They haven't figured out how to bork them (Score:2)
IMHO, it's pretty simple. The FAA hasn't figured out how to completely bork the use of the technology to the point of always having to ask them for permission to fly in the form of regulatory fees. Thus far, most of the existing regulations are stupid. The 5-mile rule is dumb because the ILS approaches and patterns don't need that much space. The commercial rules are dumb because what makes anyone think that because you're getting paid to fly means that you're automatically going to do something stupid?
Re: (Score:3)
At least not without their expressed consent. That should be rule number one.
Why?
A one-ounce drone crashing into you will hurt a heck of a lot less than a cricket ball. Probably less than a football or tennis ball.
The only thing such nonsensical 'rules' will do is ensure the drone industry takes off in sane countries, while American companies are left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what? That's kind of ridiculous - that's like 20 times the average liability for car insurance. Far more damage is done by a car than a 4-lb quad, and far more frequently.
Also, "your property" might not be as 'yours' as you think. The general regulations for what's "yours" above your property is "what you can reasonably enjoy". Should it be defined? Maybe. But a common fallacy is to think that your property lines extend vertically to infinity.
Re:Don't fly over people or private property. (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, what? That's kind of ridiculous - that's like 20 times the average liability for car insurance. Far more damage is done by a car than a 4-lb quad, and far more frequently.
Actually, it isn't that far off the mark. Any RC hobbyist that joins the AMA does have an impressive insurance coverage.
Member Insurance Benefit
$2.5 Million Liability Umbrella
$25,000 Medical Coverage
$1,000 Fire and Theft Coverage
Re: (Score:2)
That's neat and all, but I don't (currently) want the AMA representing quads. Otherwise, we'd be stuck flying loops in the same fields over and over, which is not the purpose of this technology. I also think 400 ft is overly-restrictive (COAs allow for 500 ft). You must adhere to both of these in order to receive any of those benefits.
We need realistic policies that work with the technologies of these devices. It doesn't need the horizontal space of an RC plane, and they don't require the same kind of contr
Re: (Score:2)
No, the "solution" is to encourage common sense. You keep saying "wherever you like" and NOT ONE PERSON has EVER argued for that. Stop it.
There is a very large area between "fly anywhere" and "no overzealous regulation". We already have laws that cover every existing 'bad' thing you can do with a quadcopter; any other issue should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it isn't that far off the mark. Any RC hobbyist that joins the AMA does have an impressive insurance coverage.
That only applies if you're flying in strict accordance with AMA rules. Flying in your neighbor's back yard, at 25', in order to help him check the shingles on his roof? AMA insurance dries up and goes away. Poof.
Re: (Score:3)
"From heaven to hell" is not a thing in modern law. Please do more reading.
I have no interest in 'violating your rights' or 'invade your privacy'. It's your insistence that simply flying a quadcopter is inherently out to get you that we're arguing against.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm flying at 100-some ft or more, and I just happen to go over your imaginary line, whether by accident or on the way to a destination, I am not "invading your space" in any fathomable sense of the phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. Again, you REALLY need to do some reading.
Or have you been calling commercial airliners to demand they stop flying above your house, as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Or have you been calling commercial airliners to demand they stop flying above your house, as well?
Commercial airliners don't, and they don't have the right to: hover over your property and zoom in on your wife sunbathing in the secluded and fenced-off backyard or go fly over other random properties outside their flight plan, and flyover your property in order to scan it or take detailed photography of your property in particular.
Commercial airliners are not a threat to the secrecy or safety of ite
Re: (Score:2)
" zoom in on your wife sunbathing in the secluded and fenced-off backyard "
Are you familiar with the focal attributes of the cameras included on most quad-copters? Most of them are so wide angled one needs to process the video to rid fish-eye. Additionally, I don't know of any with zoom features.
Re: (Score:2)
You've been watching too much TV.
Your first example would actually be a violation of privacy - BUT WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST THAT. We do not need 'doubled up' regulations. Although, as someone else said, no 4lb civilian quadcopter has the ability to zoom. "Fly over your property in order to scan it" --again, too much TV. Or overinflated sense of ego; either/or.
It's clear that you don't actually know what you're arguing against. You're fearful because you've only been spoon-fed stuff from the media instea
Re: (Score:2)
Cases I've read seem to indicate the government as usurped all but around 500ft above my home.
If you know the rules, then you know they control aircraft from the surface up. Try hopping in your Cessna 172 and flying just 200' AGL and then tell the FAA that they don't regulate what you're doing...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big disconnect here is between those of us who believe we are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of our property and those who feel they are entitled to fly there drones wherever and whenever they choose.
No, I think the disconnect in what you are arguing is that you equate "no drones ever" with "peaceful enjoyment of your property", whereas most people realize that a drone 100' above your head doesn't automatically mean your peaceful enjoyment is prevented. Or a drone that wanders 10' over your property line while being used to take pictures of the next door neighbor's house doesn't ruin your entire life and make your property unusable.
And most people realize that the airspace is governed at a higher leve
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big disconnect here is between those of us who believe we are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of our property and those who feel they are entitled to fly there drones wherever and whenever they choose. Both believe that any intervention will be an encroachment on their rights. As much as hate government regulation, this is one of those cases where it is necessary.
What about people who live near an airport? Are they entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property? Because I've visited people who live near a major US airport and the noise of a landing airplane every 30 seconds is awful. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just asking whether some people are entitled to peace and quiet and others are not?
Hopefully a combination of laws and common sense will apply to drones: basically "thou shall not annoy your neighbors with great regularity". An occasional drone fli
Re: (Score:2)
The disparity in our opinions are likely lead to stupid laws like having to have a flagman 50 feet in front of a horseless carriage.
You're right. In this analogy, your position would be that any horseless carriage on the street is violating your right to peaceful enjoyment of the street and that no horseless carriages should be allowed anywhere but on someone's own private property because they're scary.
I'm certain there can be compromise, but it is doubtful if you continue to insist you have a right to invade my space.
I'm certain that no compromise is possible as long as you keep trying to claim every molecule of air over your head as your private airspace and that any incursion whatsoever is stripping you of your basic right to life. As long as yo
Re: (Score:2)
What about people who live near an airport? Are they entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property?
You mean people who bought a house next to an airport because it was cheap and then complain that there is noise from airplanes? Like the people who buy houses next to the railroad tracks and then complain about trains going by?
Hopefully a combination of laws and common sense will apply to drones: basically "thou shall not annoy your neighbors with great regularity".
As common sense, that's not a bad rule. As a law it would be atrocious. I'm annoyed by the cooking smells coming from my next door neighbor's house. Should that be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
"depriving them of their rights"? I think you're vastly overstating the impact of a 4 lb quadcopter on your life.
Also, #4 is pretty easy to ascertain: If they blindly rabble about "rights" or "privacy", the statement evaluates true.
Re: (Score:3)
...what the hell are you going on about? Flying in public airspace is not equivalent to a bathroom inside my house. How you got from one to the other is absolutely baffling to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Public airspace is for all to enjoy. It is not yours. For the fourth time, please actually research your implied claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "public airspace" over my property is actually mine. Congress established a public easement that allows people to cross that airspace 500 ft above the tallest structure on my property, but that's it. As soon as start using that airspace myself, your easement vanishes and you can't use it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No we aren't. We're talking about keeping the government out of over-regulating something that only needs minimal intervention. The FAA is not "giving" anything by failing to act except a little more freedom. I can assure you that you are not special enough for anyone to want to "violate your rights".