FAA Moves Toward Treating Drones and Planes As Equals (hackaday.com) 167
Hackaday's Tom Nardi writes about the Federal Aviation Administration's push to repeal Section 336, which states that small remote-controlled aircraft as used for hobby and educational purposes aren't under FAA jurisdiction. "Despite assurances that the FAA will work towards implementing waivers for hobbyists, critics worry that in the worst case the repeal of Section 336 might mean that remote control pilots and their craft may be held to the same standards as their human-carrying counterparts," writes Nardi. From the report: Section 336 has already been used to shoot down the FAA's ill-conceived attempt to get RC pilots to register themselves and their craft, so it's little surprise they're eager to get rid of it. But they aren't alone. The Commercial Drone Alliance, a non-profit association dedicated to supporting enterprise use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), expressed their support for repealing Section 336 in a June press release: "Basic 'rules of the road' are needed to manage all this new air traffic. That is why the Commercial Drone Alliance is today calling on Congress to repeal Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and include new language in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act to enable the FAA to regulate UAS and the National Airspace in a common sense way."
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act does not simply repeal Section 336, it also details the new rules the agency would impose on unmanned aircraft and their operators. Under these proposed rules, all unmanned aircraft would be limited to an altitude of 400 feet unless they have specific authorization to exceed that ceiling. They must also be operated within line of sight at all times, effectively ending long-range First Person View (FPV) flying. There's also language in the Reauthorization Act about studying the effects of flying unmanned aircraft at night, or over groups of people. It also states that drones, just like traditional aircraft, must be registered and marked. It even authorizes the FAA to investigate methods of remote identification for drones and their operators, meaning it's not unreasonable to conclude that RC aircraft may be required to carry transponders at some point in the future. To many in the hobby this seems like an unreasonable burden, especially in the absence of clear limits on what type of small aircraft would be excluded (if any). The report also notes that the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act will require drone operators to have to pass an "aeronautical knowledge and safety test," and to show proof of their passing to any law enforcement if questioned. Also with the repeal of Section 336, "young people might actually be excluded from flying remote-controlled aircraft," Nardi writes. "While many RC planes and quadcopters are marketed as children's toys, in the absence of Section 336, it's not clear that a child could legally operate one. The FAA requires a person to be 16 years of age to obtain a pilot's license, and if unmanned aircraft are truly expected to obey the same 'rules of the road,' it's not unreasonable to assume that age requirement will remain in effect."
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act does not simply repeal Section 336, it also details the new rules the agency would impose on unmanned aircraft and their operators. Under these proposed rules, all unmanned aircraft would be limited to an altitude of 400 feet unless they have specific authorization to exceed that ceiling. They must also be operated within line of sight at all times, effectively ending long-range First Person View (FPV) flying. There's also language in the Reauthorization Act about studying the effects of flying unmanned aircraft at night, or over groups of people. It also states that drones, just like traditional aircraft, must be registered and marked. It even authorizes the FAA to investigate methods of remote identification for drones and their operators, meaning it's not unreasonable to conclude that RC aircraft may be required to carry transponders at some point in the future. To many in the hobby this seems like an unreasonable burden, especially in the absence of clear limits on what type of small aircraft would be excluded (if any). The report also notes that the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act will require drone operators to have to pass an "aeronautical knowledge and safety test," and to show proof of their passing to any law enforcement if questioned. Also with the repeal of Section 336, "young people might actually be excluded from flying remote-controlled aircraft," Nardi writes. "While many RC planes and quadcopters are marketed as children's toys, in the absence of Section 336, it's not clear that a child could legally operate one. The FAA requires a person to be 16 years of age to obtain a pilot's license, and if unmanned aircraft are truly expected to obey the same 'rules of the road,' it's not unreasonable to assume that age requirement will remain in effect."
irresponsible youths and their toys (Score:4, Insightful)
with the unsafe and perverted nonsense going on in my neighborhood because of punks with drones, some testing and regulation might be a good thing
Re: (Score:2)
with the unsafe and perverted nonsense going on in my neighborhood because of punks with drones, some testing and regulation might be a good thing
And this would stop stupid people willing to do illegal things ... how?
Re: (Score:3)
I could have the cops take their toys away when they are doing dangerous or intrusive things, that's how. Or maybe even give their illegal drone some #4 birdshot, what are they going to do, whine how their illegal drone was blown to bits?
Re: (Score:2)
---
Re: (Score:2)
no, it makes as much sense as grabbing the camera from the peeper standing on a ladder outside my daughter's bedroom window and smashing it. in other words, a lot of sense.
your stupid wuss world is inferior to mine
Re: (Score:1)
Not every problem needs to be solved with guns.
Sure, paintball is enough for dealing with hobby drones. Spend a few to down the drone - then another one when they come to pick up the pieces.
Or slingshot, and a large nut with a nice long string tied to it. String gets caught in propellers. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, birdshot falling down from the sky isn't going to hurt anyone but once every nitwit runs out and starts to shoot down drones there is a much larger risk that you will get hit in the eye.
Not every problem needs to be solved with guns.
No, I think this one needs lasers. Heavy powered type shit that'll melt a hole through the plastic in two seconds flat.
Re: (Score:2)
Lasers don't make great anti-aircraft weapons... You need a hell of a lot of power to do any real damage, and keeping locked on a moving target is hard. Range is quite limited too, due to beam divergence and particles in the air scattering it.
Re: (Score:1)
you're confused, birdshot falling down indeed won't hurt anyone, would have negligible momentum/energy in this world surrounded by atmosphere. what silly kind of cartoon physics are you imagining?
Re: (Score:2)
no, #4 merely falling isn't going to hurt anyone. won't make a bruise, won't raise a welt. good grief people have silly ideas
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, on anti-gun nuts. want everyone to be a defenseless victim rather than solve problems
Re: (Score:2)
no truck at all, don't need one. guess again
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we need to test and regulate some toys because of them damn punks are slightly unsafe. Also I want to be able to blow the drown out of the sky with my shotgun, because 'MURIKA!
Re:irresponsible youths and their toys (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to policy (government, business, whatever) I have two questions: (1) What specific problem is it trying to solve, and (2) will the policy actually solve the problem.
I'm not sure what the "punks with drones" in your neighborhoods are doing, but it does feel like that's the biggest set of problems. "Punks with drones" brings up images of people who are ignorant of the risks or problems, and also people who intentionally or maliciously use their aircraft for things like dive-bombing people or to otherwise annoy or harass. Since the law has now actually passed, it's a matter of looking at what it does.
Going through the list in the law, I think the rules mostly address actual problems, but introduce many of their own.
Item 1 on the law brings back the "strictly recreational purposes" rule, which was the source of several lawsuits that brought about the earlier policy. Now that it is back you can be sure lawsuits will follow it. Landscapers, survey crews, and similar workers lose a valuable tool but they weren't a problem before. Photographers and journalists lose the exemption although some of them were "punks with drones", some were not. Community search and rescue groups lose the exemption and they definitely weren't a problem. These eight words are highly problematic.
Line of sight restrictions are trying to solve a real problem, but the wording change is heavy-handed and sloppy. I have two aerial hobbies, and have had words with drone pilots who were beyond trees, flying their aircraft in areas that were still inside their line of sight above the tree line, but not where they could see the surrounding areas and couldn't see the dangers. I have been overflown, sometimes dangerously close, by pilots who were buzzing what they saw was the tree line, flying at the edge of their visibility. Their dangerous flight still meets the requirements of line of sight but they had no idea how close they were to causing major damage. Contrast with craft with cameras that grant a good view of the entire area yet fly out of direct line of sight. Even though the pilot might not see the craft, they have high visibility of their environment. There are far better solutions than the 28-word section of the policy.
Not interfering with manned aircraft, not interfering with established flight zones, and limits to height are all known-good solutions and were part of the old policy. Those solve real problems, both for other aircraft and for people on the ground. Many air fields (including model aircraft shows) have boundaries, and sadly many pilots (including those who know better) violate the boundaries and risk the safety of others. There is no bright line to know you've crossed the boundary, and it sadly needs better enforcement.
The rule about passing a safety test and maintaining "proof of test passage" to be displayed on request (i.e. must carry a license) doesn't seem to solve an actual problem. Those licenses require many hours of training, plus a few hundred bucks for the tests. The cheap little whirlygigs and palm-sized quad-copters really are children's toys and shouldn't need the license, but the policy includes them. Larger craft that cost thousands of dollars could reasonably require some training because they can easily cause serious damage and personal harm, HOWEVER, those pilots tend to get training because a crash is expensive and most people don't start with one of these. I don't know if a requirement to carrying a license that can be given to law enforcement on request is the right solution, but it doesn't feel like it. Time will tell, it might help with the "punks with drone" problem you describe, but I doubt it. Instead it will mean outlaws have drones because near-everybody is an outlaw.
The proof of registration is for tax revenue. It doesn't solve a real problem, it's just feeding the coffers. There are currently more than one million of these craft currently registered. Registration used to be mandatory but free. Now it is mandatory and paid. Some gov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares about kids getting their jollys. While someone might squeal, jump on a table, and shriek "kill it"; looking never actually hurt anything.
On the other hand there is a great deal of experimentation and learning to be had from these tools. In many ways it is like Ham radio of old... actually many of those who pilot these things become HAM radio operators so they can tinker with them further and take advantage of superior technology.
Re: (Score:2)
these "kids" as you call them, actually adult babies, seem to think it's funny to "buzz" people with a 5 lbs. drone going as close to the victim's head as they can.
they also think it's funny to spy on young women through windows.
Law abiding adults care what these "kids", juvenile adults, do.
They need the hammer brought down on them, and their toys.
Re: irresponsible youths and their toys (Score:1)
So request an altitude change and stop complaining :)
So I can land at airports? (Score:2)
Re:So I can land at airports? (Score:4, Insightful)
After you get their permission and pay the landing fees, sure.
Along with the usual flight plans and registering them with air traffic control.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: So I can land at airports? (Score:2)
Are you going to post this same comment in reply to everyone on this post?
Re: (Score:2)
Parent isn't at all insightful.
Neither flight plans nor registration are required for a private aircraft to fly into a local airport under VFR conditions. Private pilot here.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the airspace.
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly what it means. Once you have a pilot's license and your drone is equipped with sufficient instrumentation to see and avoid other aircraft, you could file a flight plan (if needed) and land at a local airport. Just keep in mind that depending on the services you require at an airport, you could be charged a landing fee.
And, despite the fact that I am a pilot and can fly my own damn plane, I can see the day when I would pay you for a drone ride to the other side of town in order to avoid he
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and you'll probably also have to read all the FAA Regulations. It sounds like they're being somewhat rewritten at the mo
An paragliders, paramotors, etc. are unlicensed? (Score:1)
They should at least be consistent. Paragliders and related are not licensed at all.
Re: (Score:2)
But paramotor pilots have eyeballs to see and avoid other aircraft. At least they do until they encounter a pissed off and highly territorial eagle or hawk and have their face ripped off, or just have their day ruined [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wide spectrum of drones (Score:1)
There is a very wide spectrum of drones. One one end there are the micro-quadcopters that weigh 50 grams, on the other one there is RQ-4 Global Hawk. Having one regulation for tiny quadcopters or model planes on end and multi-ton machines at the other end makes no sense whatsoever.
Anything that flies lower than 100 feet AGL in class G airspace should not need to be regulated. Any unmanned vehicle flying in any other class of airspace than class G and above 100 feet AGL in class G airspace should be regulat
Gee thanks you quad copter morons (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
RC enthusiasts go out in groups and cooperate to make it more or less safe. People still get hit or interfere with each other, and it's regulated by gentlemen's agreements.
That only works as long as the number of people is relatively low. Same with driving cars, anyone could do it at first with no test or check on their vehicle. Then everybody wanted to drive and more regulation was needed. Same with radio transmitters and many other things operating in shared spaces.
Sucks for you but it was inevitable real
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the overwhelming majority of you did NOT build your own, and have zero training. So, take your homebuilt one, and go show others how to be responsible with theirs, because there are many (not most) who aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been involved with R/C for over 30 years. Always go out of town or a very open field with NO people to
fly my stuff. Now all these lDIOTS that take their quads out of a box, charge them, turn them on and suddenly...
I'm a pilot! They have no idea the danger those spinning blade have, how to operate them, no respect for safety
or anything.
Friend of mine took his new DJI drone out at a local park. In seconds it was so high and distant I couldn't spot it in the sky, and at some point couldn't hear it either. Passing park rangers notified us that drone usage in a state park was illegal. Turns out there are few places in the state where it is legal to fly them
I was amazed at the flight capability. From your experience would you say these new devices are flown much higher and farther than what a traditional RC enthusiast was doing? Given th
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they've converted to UHF radios (that call for a FCC license), the DJI is still low and close.
Balloon released FPV that lets you see the horizon's curvature is where 'traditional RC people' are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
An _empty_ football practice field is a perfect place to fly a slow stick.
The summary is better than the headline (Score:3)
The section in question applies to small model planes uses only for recreation (no commercial use). In other words, toys. For decades model aircraft have been just fine using compliance with AMA rules, without a bunch of paperwork with the FAA for each foam plane.
The word "drone", used in the title, has at least three completely different meanings.
In the military, a "drone" is an aircraft, normally fixed-wing (an airplane) which has some degree of ability to operate autonomously.
Around the same time that new military drones were in the news, toy helicopters with four motors (quadcopters) became popular. Advertisers capitalized on the media coverage of military drones by calling these toys "drones", though they can in no way fly autonomously. Most can't go more than about 100 meters from the operator (though a few can go further).
Thirdly, although the physics are such that quadcopters are horrible for scaling up, some people thought about building 2 meter sized quadcopters and using them commercially. There have been some serious proposals, but largely that's gimmick to get attention because the physics don't work out very well. Anyway, that's a third thing called "drone" that's very different from military jets, and very different from little plastic toys.
Talking about what laws should be for "drones" doesn't make much sense because military jet planes are called drones, little plastic toys are called drones, and motorcycle-sized commercial aircraft are called drones. Talking about laws for "drones" is pointless, or worse, highly misleading, unless you first define which kind of "drone" you're talking about.
Section 336 is about model aircraft, little foam and plastic toys. Getting rid of it won't solve any concerns anyone may have with anything else called "drone", such as the commercial use vehicles Amazon talks about.
Re: (Score:2)
You've made an interesting point. But most of the current furor over abuse and privacy and safety are about precisely the "second" set of drones you mention. In common usage, those are what most people mean by drones, and they are what will be affected most strongly by removing section 336, which is the law currently affecting control of those devices by the FAA. A short news article seems unlikely to draw the distinctions about the other types of drones because the usage is clear.
Didn't hurt my fingers when I grabbed the prop (Score:2)
> But most of the current furor over abuse and privacy and safety are about precisely the "second" set of drones you mention. In common usage, those are what most people mean by drones, and they are what will be affected most strongly by removing section 336
I suspect most of the fear and furor is from confusing the second set, toys, with the third set, large commercial vehicles ala Amazon. If people are seriously worried about their safety from other people playing with toys, they are not well informed
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens, other government agencies are pretty picky about the safety of toys
Which is why so many products say "this is not a toy" on the box.
There are plenty of drones in between "kids toys" and "large commercial vehicles". Devices that are big enough to be potentially hazardous, big enough to accommodate automated flight stabilisation, automated waypoint flight, automated return home, long distance remote control and long distance remote vision yet small and cheap enough that any non-dirt poor adult can by go out and buy one.
Fastest in the country is unusual by definition (Score:2)
You do realize that the very fastest in country, competing in the unlimited class, are by definition highly unusual, right?
The average hobbiest runner runs about 8 MPH. The average person slower than that. Usain Bolt goes 28 MPH. Pretending that world record numbers are typical would be pretty silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Advertisers capitalized on the media coverage of military drones by calling these toys "drones", though they can in no way fly autonomously.
With a simple app on an Android phone (Pix4D) a DJI Phantom series "drone" can fly completely autonomously, from take-off through landing.
Talking about laws for "drones" is pointless, or worse, highly misleading, unless you first define which kind of "drone" you're talking about.
Isn't it great, then, that laws dealing with "drones" don't actually call them that and do, indeed, define exactly what is covered?
Section 336 is about model aircraft,
Part 107 is more important as a sign of how the FAA treats "drone" pilots as compared to "real" pilots, and no, they do not require nearly as much training or demonstrated ability from an RPV licensee as a PP-SEL.
This isn't new -- or particular burdensome. (Score:2)
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
No, you _can't_ fly your drone out of sight without a spotter or a waiver. You never know when a helicopter's gonna be around, or when you'll bump into something you can't see. No, you can't fly over 400 feet without a waiver — low flying air traffic can't see a 3 ft wide drone until it's too la
Re: (Score:2)
So, you think it's quite reasonable to require an airplane tethered to the ground with 70' wires, and entirely mechanically operated, no batteries, no electronics, and can only be flown in a circle should have a transponder and the operator pass a test about a air navigation? After having never even see a quadcopter up close, or ever having flown RC?
You know *nothing* about this, you are the problem, and you are the reason this is happening.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, this was a charitable comment. But there's no point in being a jerk on the internet, so:
I don't know much about tethered flight. You're right. How much of this kind of thing happens? Why are these even aircraft? How are they not regulated like kites?
Re:This isn't new -- or particular burdensome. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
You're either very confused or straight out lying.
I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.
Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.
Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.
Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
You're either very confused or straight out lying.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm still on point.
I fly a RC aircraft at a small RC airfield in a rural area which is around 10 miles from the nearest (small) airport. I fly a homebuilt RC aircraft that cost me $400 total (including the controller) and weighs roughly 2 pounds to a maximum altitude of around 300 ft. I only get to fly 10 times a year due to time constraints, and in fact, I didn't fly at all last year.
So nothing about these regulations would be especially onerous? You're flying in line of sight, you're flying under 400 feet, you're not flying in controlled airspace or at night...
Now we have the FAA pushing to RC planes like manned aircraft. Keep in mind a pilot's license currently costs $4-10k plus lots of training--to fly a toy in mostly unnavigable airspace.
Yes, we have a problem. There are drones operated near and in class B airspace, and they have caused issues and encounters with aircraft. Something must be done. But treating toy RC aircraft like planes is insane. Calling those laws "no burden" is wrong.
Yes, this is oppression. I should be able to play with toys without tons of training and paperwork in my own backyard. Except for near airports, the safety argument is crap. Last year in the US, 818 people died riding bikes. 110 died from lawnmowers. 51 died from lightning. How many people have died in the history of recreational RC aircraft? 3?
It's not tons of training and paperwork. The commercial exam is the aeronautical equivalent of the Technician ham radio license. You can do free practice tests online, and expect to pass the actual exam. I can't imagine a hobbyist license would be any more difficult.
Repealing 336 (as I'm rea
Re: (Score:1)
I'm using Verifly for insurance — they happily cover commercial operations. It's a few bucks per flight.
I fly an Inspire One, pretty comparable to the 3DR Solo.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the license cost $150 when a ham license costs $5?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you are flying about 30 to 40 feet from the ground in a public park, it's a pretty safe bet that a helicopter isn't going to be flying there. The drone might occasionally go out of sight as it passes behind a tree, but helicopters aren't going to be landing in such heavily wooded areas either because there's no room for them
Re: (Score:1)
Fabulous! These regs generally won't affect you!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my point... that people who fly their drones responsibly and unobtrusively would be very likely able to continue to use their drone exactly the way they always have without any legal repercussions, even if they don't have any kind of license or registration to do so.
Heck, I'd think that a high flying *KITE* probably poses more of a risk to low-flying aircraft than a drone that is being responsibly flown would. I've flown kites as a kid *way* way higher than any drone I've ever seen go.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, generally agreed. These changes just won't affect people flying RC or tethered aircraft who are flying within line of sight and under 400 feet. You might have to go sit for an exam and write a registration number on your aircraft, but it's not a tough exam and you can use small letters.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the "line of sight" thing that bothers me the most, really... because I can easily envision situations where the craft is flown into areas that you don't directly see, except by what the camera on the device will show you, but it's not invading anyone's privacy or flying in any area it shouldn't be either.
For example, making an obstacle course out of large cardboard boxes and navigating the drone through it entirely by on-board camera... obviously of no danger to anyone, but still technically in con
Re: (Score:1)
I think the way a lot of FPV racing folks get around that is by flying in large warehouses. Inside == not an FAA problem.
But yeah, sort of like flying a drone through a blow-up paintball course or something. That could be fun.
Re: (Score:1)
100% correct. There are many differences in hobby aircraft flyers. I fly mine not much higher than my house and over a field. While other people fly them way higher and over other people and houses. But the regulations often treat both as the same. I can throw a baseball as high as the max I fly and it is never above other people. There is no risk of an aircraft collision -- none at all. Why should we have lots of regulation on that?
But yes there are people who will fly them really high and crazy far distances. But treating the two the same would be like treating a house like a skyscraper. They are very different things.
'Cause you're able to. And sure, maybe you're not gonna, but there's plenty of people who could take that same drone in that same park and go off and do grander things with it. To make a scruffy analogy: You still have to know what a stoplight is to get a driver's license, even if your town doesn't have any.
But here's the thing: None of these regulations would affect the way you fly! Less than 400 ft altitude? Check. Not flying at night, or over crowds? Check. Not out of sight? Check. Maximum speed/weight?
and kites? gliders? (Score:2)
there goes my potato gun and water rocket!
The Commercial Drone Alliance ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... , a non-profit association dedicated to supporting enterprise use of Unmanned Aerial Systems ...
Is that like a special interest group for "for-profits", kinda like lobbyists or a PACs or stuff?
Re:The Commercial Drone Alliance ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They want the hobbyists to go away so they can own that airspace for their member's delivery drones and other money-making gimmicks.
The goddam FAA ... (Score:1)
... is going after our guns.
Where's the NRA when you need them and stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Syriasly?
"The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling!!" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Language would require a rubber band powered balsa air plane to be registered
Irony: ultralights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are able to get an ultralight in the air with no training and survive the landing, great! Welcome to aviation! And since you are carrying around a pair of Mark I Eyeballs in your head, please see and avoid other aircraft. And watch out for all the damn drones :-p
Rubberband airplane would require registration (Score:2)
FAA is going nuts, the language would require registration for simple balsa rubber band powered plane.
Alphabet soup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
why did they do something as stupid as treating drones and planes equally?
Why does the FCC regulate micropower AM/FM stations? Why does the DOT regulate home-built cars?
Re:FAA? (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, the DOT does not regulate home-built cars. I'm not sure where you got this bad information, but I'm not surprised, considering the quality of most of your assertions.
Second, "regulate" is not the same as "treat as equals". But thanks for setting up those two dopey strawmen for me to set afire.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the situation in the US with vehicle testing?
In most countries vehicles need to have periodic checks to make sure they are safe and meet emissions standards. If you don't want to get the test done you can only drive on private roads, not public ones. Self built cars are the same, if you want to drive on public roads you have to pass the test.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the state you live in, and what rules they have for inspections.
It ranges from very strict and PITA in like say, California, to other states where they have no inspection requirements at all.
I live i
Re: (Score:2)
The California inspection requirements are far less of a hassle (and less expensive) than the Texas ones.
Re: (Score:2)
When did CA stop requiring emissions testing? I sold my '78 Trans Am there in 1979, and had to get emissions tested.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe CA always does emissions testing.
I live in LA (Louisiana) and no emissions testing here.
Re: (Score:2)
So what is the situation in the US with vehicle testing?
Citizens of the USA are permitted to register one (1) custom-built vehicle for use on public roads. It has to have some basic equipment and it has to pass a basic visual inspection, and it smogs (where smog testing is required) as the engine donor. If you initially power it with a pre-smog engine, then you never need to do another emissions test, even in California. Each state's specific rules for the inspection vary; California's are focused on emissions, not safety. Vehicles to be operated on a public roa
Re: (Score:2)
Only one per person? That's interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's true. Since I built my Baja bug, I've gotten to know a lot of knowledgeable guys at the custom shop and I've never heard them mention a one-per-customer rule.
In fact, there is a guy on the next street over that has a dune buggy and a giant trike and they both have license plates and he built them both.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a local issue. Not Department of Transportation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Home-built cars are not subject to FMVSS regulations.
Are you just going to keep throwing bullshit up against the wall hoping nobody will notice?
Re: (Score:2)
Not interested in who's right here, but came across a related article...
https://www.caranddriver.com/n... [caranddriver.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You don't register your vehicle with the Department of Transportation. You register it with the state you live in. It's not a federal issue.
Maybe your confusion comes from the fact that states have their own little departments of transportation, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, dumbshit. As long as you're not making them to sell, you do not need to conform to all FMVSS regulations to get a car licensed and use it on the roads, and you don't need to conform to NHTSA regulations either (in case that was going to be your next bogus claim).
Here in California, where dune buggies and crazy home-brew cars rule, the process is easy and does not require anything from the federal government. Yes, you have
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Baja Bug.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? LynwoodRooster referenced a series of things: FAA, FCC, DOT. All of which are federal.
States can do what they want. when it comes to regulating home-built cars, whereas federal regulations govern aviation and communications.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
"$15,000 worth of training and certifications" is probably more than necessary.
Flying model aircraft pilots, depending on how good they are, will spend $100-$300 on lessons before they can pass their Bronze Wings tests (administered by the national aeromodelling organisation in each country) and then many more hours flying at registered aeromodelling airfields practising for the Gold Wings test that allows them to participate in organised aerobatics and racing competitions.
I'm not against enforcing that drone pilots go through such training. Drone pilots should also have to pay for public liability insurance every year just like the aeromodelling pilots are required to do.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
This mentality by the great unwashed is disturbing but carry on.
Re: (Score:1)
> I'm not against enforcing that drone pilots go through such training. Drone pilots should also have to pay for public liability insurance every year just like the aeromodelling pilots are required to do.
Liability is required for commercial use but not amateur. I have liability on a drone that I use for roof inspections and it's about $600 a year.
To add to this thought I was surprised at how much I had to learn about airports, reading charts, and airspace in order to get my drone license. Anyone flyin
anyone can receive and decode ADS-B data, not TCAS (Score:5, Informative)
TCAS has no dependency on ADS-B. TCAS depends on other aircraft having mode C, and is itself built on mode S, which is just a digital enhancement to mode C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
TCAS basically direction finds and ranges mode C broadcasts. TCAS antennas have multiple elements, thus multiple antenna cables, to allow the timed reception and calculation to determine range and direction.
ADS-B, once fully implemented, will mostly obsolete TCAS, as ADS-B has an integrated WAAS GPS source and broadcasts identity, location, and heading info. ADS-B transponders that both listen and transmit can provide proximity alerts and display relative positions and headings of other aircraft.
I say mostly because the ADS-B protocol is not secure, so bad actors can spoof being somewhere and/or someone they aren't. This could and would be detected, and, ah -eliminated with prejudice- rather quickly once deteced - i.e. in the range of a ground radar station (which is now most everywhere), but it would be very annoying none the less.
If you are really bored, you can buy a $10 usb TV tuner, now marketed as a 'software defined radio'. You can then run a program called dump1090, which will directly receive the 1090 MHz transmissions of aircraft transponders in the area. You can then plot these aircraft on a map (if they are broadcasting ADS-B), and see what commercial or civilian aircraft are flying in your area.
Flightradar24 would like you to send them the data you collect, which they will then display for the world to see:
https://www.flightradar24.com/... [flightradar24.com]
Politicians and hoity-toity folks who think they are special can request that the FAA not pass on tracking data to folks like Flightaware and Flightradar24.
If you receive the transmissions directly from nearby planes, you can track whoever you damn well please, because the only way to prevent it would be for the airplane to turn off it's transponder, which is illegal :) Except for non-civilian aircraft. They have alien technology :-p
Re: (Score:2)
If you receive the transmissions directly from nearby planes, you can track whoever you damn well please, because the only way to prevent it would be for the airplane to turn off it's transponder, which is illegal
Nit: Except that not all aircraft are required to have transponders. Here's info from the AOPA...
Exemptions
Aircraft not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or subsequently have not been certified with such a system installed, balloons, or gliders may conduct operations:
In the airspace within 30 nautical miles of the listed airports as long as operations are conducted:
Outside of Class A, B, and C airspace.
Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area des
Re: (Score:2)
A very valid nit. I always forget about those guys, but I have encountered one in congested airspace outside KOSH during the air show. They're ghosts.
Re:anyone can receive and decode ADS-B data, not T (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey bro, I didn't read any of that wiki article except the title and first two sentences. I glanced at some of the pretty pictures though. Dealing with aircraft systems like ADS-B was my day job once upon a time, so I just dug around in my brain for most of it, thus it's rambling and disjointed nature :-p
I have ADS-B in and out in a plane that I fly as often as I can, and I did a fair amount of the physical install, and worked with a repair station to make it all legal, a few years ago. I think I was one of the first IFR certified ADS-B installs in my state. I chased down the first air to air contact I saw on my first flight with ADS-B. That was a bad idea, turned out to be a Blackhawk helicopter. Up close, they look like flying anger, and they can fly sideways and look at you with intensity.
ADS-B adoption rates are increasing as my cockpit display is getting gradually more cluttered, and the FAA is likely to simply ground airplanes that don't comply, which I would support. I can see temporary exemptions being issued on a case by case basis. ADS-B brings too much capability to the table, both for pilots and for controllers, to put off any longer. Also, prices are coming down, and the FAA is likely to re-introduce some financial incentives and rebates. Check out the NGT-9000, it's sweet! And for not much more than the price of two new Continental O-470 cylinders, you can have one installed! The install really is easy. The hardest part is tying in to the encoder, so if you haven't already, it's best to upgrade to a serial output encoder. Encoders are cheap, under a kilobuck, below a standard aviation monetary unit! Not many devices going forward are going to keep supporting binary gray code, or so I've been led to believe.
Sparc up dump1090 on a linux laptop or pi and watch all the stuff flying near you that has ADS-B. Now, if you are in BFE small town, you'll mostly just see airlines and business jets going overhead, but you'll catch a bug smasher now and then. A pi and USB SDR will also receive FIS-B weather very nicely, and send it to your cell phone or tablet via wifi or bluetooth or something. Never tried it, too much cockpit clutter for me. I saw folks at Oshkosh 3D printing cases for a pi, usb sdr and battery for cockpit use one year. Kids and their toys :)
Similar levels of bitching were encountered when the mode C mandate was issued about the time my existence first became multi-cellular. The world didn't end, and aviation adopted mode C.
Re: (Score:1)
The FAA will not ground any planes, short of commercial airliners, without ADS-B. The ADS-B requirement only applies in class A, B, and C airspace, the vast majority of airspace under 18,000 feet in the US is class D, E, and G.
A bit of financial reality for you, an ADS-B install is a LOT of money to most people. It's not a c
Re: (Score:2)
Hey bro, I understand your frustration. Aviation is expensive, especially as a hobby, and nobody likes Uncle Sam breathing down their neck.
And I hate to break it to you, but ADS-B is also required in class E airspace at various altitudes depending on where you are: FAA Nextgen info. [faa.gov] These requirements are subject to change, and we all know the FAA regulatory process is pretty much one way, unless congress gets involved. The FAA grounds planes all the time. Every time an FAA licensed IA mechanic inspects
Re: (Score:2)
Great info, thanks!
I thought this kind of technique required synchronized clock signals, but I guess GPS time is good enough!