Trump Administration Proposes Rules Allowing Drones To Operate At Night, Over Populated Areas (reuters.com) 141
The Trump administration is proposing rules that would allow drones to operate over popular areas and end a requirement for special permits for night use. The goal is to "help speed commercial use of small unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States," reports Reuters. From the report: The proposals, drafted by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Transportation Department, come amid concerns about dangers that drones potentially pose to aircraft and populated areas. The FAA said that in developing the proposals its challenge was to "balance the need to mitigate the risk small unmanned aircraft pose to other aircraft and to people and property on the ground without inhibiting innovation." The FAA is proposing ending requirements that drone operators get waivers to operate at night. Through 2017, the FAA granted 1,233 waivers and "has not received any reports of (drone) accidents," it said. The FAA would require that drones have "an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles," as well as testing and training.
Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."
Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."
Fly by night (Score:4, Insightful)
People are going love that racket buzzing over their houses all night long...
Re: (Score:1)
The airspace above their homes is not theirs. But maybe the Republican administration can introduce a free market solution - like auctioning it to the highest bidder. Then people will easily be able to Make America Peaceful Again, while generating business opportunities.
#MAPA #NoSocialism
Re: (Score:2)
Can we regret the decision in public forums?
Re: (Score:1)
You'll have the Secret Service knocking on your door in about 3, 2, 1...
Perfect. Then they can finally explain why it's ok for Trump to call on "the Second Amendment people" to stop Hillary.
I am not suggesting anyone #ASSASSINATE Trump. I am merely indicating that I am shocked it hasn't happened yet.
Who says it's ok? I certainly don't. If we had a Senate with a modicum of ethics, he'd have been checked a long time ago. But as long as we have Mitch running the Senate, nothing will get done unless Mitch's sponsors approve.
Re:Fly by night (Score:5, Interesting)
And always has been, historically. Just like the minerals under the ground are.
As a Constitutional matter, the FAA only has authority over airspace that is involved (at least theoretically) in interstate commerce. In fact that's where they got their authority in the first place: from the 1926 Air Commerce Act.
Anything other than potentially interstate, commercial airspace is beyond their lawful jurisdiction. That is, in fact, why the rules formerly stated a 5-mile radius around airports, and an altitude limit: closer than that to airports, or higher than that, is potentially subject to interstate air commerce.
This jurisdictional issue is one of the same reasons EPA's "Waters of the US" (WOTUS) regulation was thrown out.
So someone in central Nevada, let's say, who is not 5 miles from an airport, and is under 400 feet, should not be under Federal jurisdiction at all: there is no practical way they could be engaged in interstate commerce.
Further (I just looked up what the actual rules are): this new set of rules defines any "aircraft", anywhere, that is unmanned as falling under their regulations. That is unconstitutionally vague and overreaching. The wording suggests that toy gliders that cost $1, and paper airplanes, are under their jurisdiction, requiring the pilot to get a certification and the toy to be registered.
Surely that will be challenged in court. It is completely ridiculous. But that is what it says.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fly by night (Score:5, Insightful)
And the 500 (I believe it's actually 400) foot limit is because manned aircraft may be flying above that level, affecting "interstate commerce".
Still, the FAA is trying to have it both ways here. Looks like they want to regulate "all" airspace, but they have no Constitutional authority to do so. Only airspace that, as a practical matter, may be used for interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While these new rules may impose no "additional restrictions", that is misleading in this context.
The FAA did impose new restrictions in October, which I have written about above.
The language of the law says operators of ALL "unmanned aircraft", no matter how small or inconsequential, must get a certification, and register the "aircraft".
While the areas they can fly in are now greatly expanded, the new rules are actually rather draconian. You can't do anything without appro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Damn! You mean I gotta register my paper airplanes I throw around the room now?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, I'm completely right :)
Thanks for confirming it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the reason you have this question is that you're too stupid to understand the difference between "airspace" and "airspace up to 83 feet".
Re: (Score:1)
Please! No fighting in the war room! The 500 foot rule set by the FAA is a safety thing, it's not about private property. And if I remember right, it's 1000 feet in urban areas. It's about giving you enough time to avoid endangering anybody when the engine quits.
Re: (Score:1)
The United States Supreme Court ruled that you do OWN the airspace above your property to 83 feet. The FAA said 500 feet... So the 83 to 500 ft chunk is still in debate, but it's at least 83 feet for sure.
You own as much as you can legally build on, seems to be the rule of thumb. In a residential area you're not putting up a skyscraper (due to zoning), so you probably don't have good legal standing to claim your airspace is being violated, when the Amazon delivery drones start buzzing overhead at 400'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, Murricah interfering itself to death will be fun to watch. Like the Civil War version of the Shutdown.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah have fun getting raped by the FCC about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The drones will bomb the shit out of Omaha?
Re: (Score:2)
So the trick is to have bullets that can reach that altitude as well. So once the bullet reaches such altitude, it is no longer the shooters responsibility, and what happens there is no longer there concern.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the bullet is always shooter's responsibility.
Re: Fly by night (Score:1)
And just like that Slashdolters turned anti-drone.
Potheadering should get Trump to make a statement about how terrible systemd is, you fuckers would eat it up then.
Re: (Score:3)
We've always been anti-drone. Slashdot is a community of Luddites, who are always ready to take off their nice sabots. The only futuristic things we like are vaporware and glorified PR.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't a matter of being anti-drone. The issue is that people have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they cannot be trusted with the responsibility of operating drones. Flying drones into the path of planes, etc.
People want the freedom but they don't want the responsibility. Sorry, you can't and shouldn't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but you're not the one to decide how I should have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you speak for the people who, for example, have endangered aircraft with their drones? If your drone risks my safety, then I damn well *do* have a say in it. You don't want me to have a say? Get your drone out of my face.
We already do this with cars. If you have a license, that means you accept responsibility of whatever happens when you are behind the wheel. If you are not willing to take on that responsibility, then you're not allowed to drive a car. Very simple.
Why should drones be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
Your freedom to throw a punch ends at my nose, so to speak.
That's not the US way.
Re: (Score:2)
We've always been anti-drone. Slashdot is a community of Luddites, who are always ready to take off their nice sabots. The only futuristic things we like are vaporware and glorified PR.
And the sex robots. Don't forget the sex robots.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of the /. crowd will be as afraid of the real, loving AI sex robots as they are afraid of real women now. And for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of the /. crowd will be as afraid of the real, loving AI sex robots as they are afraid of real women now. And for the same reasons.
That, when approached by a /.er, the femobots will roll their eyes and head for the exit?
Re: (Score:2)
I think in the part "approached by a ./er" is describing a totally hypothetical situation.
Re: (Score:1)
And just like that Slashdolters turned anti-drone.
They should just be glad we never got flying cars, because you just know there'd be people installing huge subwoofers, and modifying the engines to be extra loud. Then they'd circle your fucking house, all night long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Birdshot is harmless on the way back down.
Pollutes the ground with lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Birdshot is harmless on the way back down.
Also harmless to drones more than 40ft away... but it is way more harmful to my sleep than some drone way overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Really doubt that far (Score:2)
I actually meant to say yards instead of feet... look at this thread [thehighroad.org] for example. Even if you managed to hit a drone, most drone bodies seems like they are flexible or tough enough plastic shells that it wouldn't really see any damage past 40 yards, clay shatters but I could see propeller blades just bending some under the partial hit from birdshot pellets that had spread out by that range (drone blades can take more than you would think as you can see in this video [youtube.com]..
Check out this video [youtube.com] of people trying
Re: (Score:2)
I actually meant to say yards instead of feet... look at this thread [thehighroad.org] for example. Even if you managed to hit a drone, most drone bodies seems like they are flexible or tough enough plastic shells that it wouldn't really see any damage past 40 yards ....
I've never shot a drone but I do shoot shotguns quite a bit. The 300 yard figure is the range after which the NSCA considers #7.5 safe for humans and likely has some margin built in, but a goose is a pretty tough target and they get taken further out than you might think. One key point to remember is that the previously mentioned standard is for pretty small shot, #4 will go a lot further. For long range shooting #2 steel birdshot is generally good to about 50 yards for killing birds humanely if the shotgun
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about drones though, is they have kind of a small vulnerable profile. The body if it takes a direct hit is way more robust than a clay pigeon, because of the usually fairly tough abs shell. The arms and rotors are somewhat weaker but then not much of the pellets are actually hitting anything due to the small profile... in one of the video links I showed a drone took a direct hit on a propeller with a paintball pellet and it just shredded it, no harm to drone.
Re: (Score:1)
Ever try skeet shooting with a rifle? I would definitely be impressed if you scored a perfect 100...
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, Trump is just trying to fuck as much shit up as possible before he's exfiltrated back to Russia in a submarine and lives out his life in a dacha paid for by his sponsors.
You just pitched Season 7 of The Americans [wikipedia.org] ... Well done tovarich.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in the most awesome way possible. Also, don't hate me because you ain't me.
Not in California (Score:2)
Non-competes are pretty much DOA in California, regardless of the state they were signed in.
Scooters in the Sky (Score:2)
Currently, probably not much of an issue. But it brings to mind the Electric Scooter and Bicycle Rental debacles, where the companies attempted to rapidly permeate the urban walkspace. If you have ever flown at night ( or navigated a boat ) at night, the presence of an exponentially expanding sea of randomly moving lights will gradually deteriorate situational awareness - it is very very difficult to estimate distance and closure rate of point sources of light at night ( See Norwegian frigate collision ).
Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
How the plan was conceived:
(Think of the old Guinness commercials, with two old time guys talking to each other):
Guinness guy #1: "Almost all the problems between planes and drones have been when drones are SEEN in the vicinity of aircraft or airports."
Guinness guy #2: "Correct."
#1: "Yes, and drones are much HARDER TO SEE at night."
#2: "Again, correct."
#1: "So we'll fly drones at night. The planes and airports won't be able to see them, so there will NO LONGER be problems between planes and drones."
#2: "BRILLIANT!!"
Funny, though reverse of the facts. Note stars (Score:3)
That was funny. +1 for the humor.
I noticed it is nighttime in the US. If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night. You'd also see about 100 times as many planes as you can see during the day. In a few hours, you'll be able to see the International Space Station.
You may have noticed in the summary they are required to be clearly visible from at least 3 miles, minimum. During the day, my drone is visible out to about 300-400
Typos make me sound stupid (Score:2)
I accidentally wrote:
---
It's night time in the US.
If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night.
---
That should of course be:
You can't see them DURING THE DAY.
Even fairly dim lights are visible at great distances at night, as long as it's above the horizon. They are visible at far greater distances than the same objects during the day.
Re: (Score:3)
Cut a long story short, law enforcers want to use infrared to spy on everyone at night, nothing more than that, no deliveries, no use by people, law enforcers wanting to use infrared at night in the open air prison that the USA is becoming, well, for the majority nobodies.
How is this different from automobiles? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Tens of millions of people in the U.S. drive automobiles and other vehicles every day. The potential for accidents, even fatal ones, is omnipresent. Operators must take driver education courses; they must be licensed; they must carry insurance; there are criminal penalties for reckless operation. Plus, there are rules: signs, designated lanes, speed limits, etc. Why should aerial drone operations be any different?
Because airborne vehicles are different to earthbound vehicles. Off the top of my head....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Don't be absurd. Of course there are consequences to the drone operator in the event of a collision: Damage to the drone and legal liability for any damage they cause. The pilot's life isn't at risk in a collision, but this seems like a benefit and
2) Yes, the vast majority of drones won't be piloted at all, and those that will be will be piloted at a very high level. This seems like a great way to reduce collisions. The current standard in consumer camera drones are quite hard to crash because of advanc
The weight limit is important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for commercial use, yet, but their are lots of drones below 250 grams out there for commercial sale. My bet is that the majority of consumer drones are well below 250 grams. Many of the little toy drones you see are more like 25 grams. Complete Tiny Whoop style indoor racers are generally no more than 35 grams. I'm building a sub-250 longish-range racer-style drone, complete with FPV and GPS out of ordinary stuff that anyone can buy online and solder together. My suspicion is that one could build a sub-
who wrote it? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Spying in your widows at your wife or you children... all night every night.
Yeah, I saw that South Park episode, too. It's also total bullshit, because just about every consumer drone has a similar wide-angle lens like what you'd find on a smartphone.
I've personally tried "spying" on my cat with my DJI Spark. I flew it as close to the window as the anti-collision system would allow, and on the video feed you could sort-of make out that there was in fact, a cat sitting on the window ledge. So yeah, if you're pressing your bare ass against the window glass and don't notice some ex
Well that settles that, doesn't it? (Score:2)
Good for new services (Score:2)
Remove federal laws and make the USA great again.
Re: (Score:1)
have enough battery power to power a light visible 3 miles away.
It doesn't; the TFA is poorly written. The night flying applies to drones that can weigh up to just under 55lbs. That's more than enough weight to carry some beefy lighting and a battery to run it.
The 0.55lb weight limit is for flying over people, which is actually more restrictive than the previous laws (which considered anything under 0.55lbs to be a toy and outside of the FAA's jurisdiction). Under the previous law, if you flew a Ryze Tello (for example) over people, it was perfectly legal because the
Why bring Trump into it? (Score:3)
The TFA starts:
The Trump administration on Monday proposed rules that would allow drones ...
This immediately primes a bunch of people to look for fault with the rules, and another bunch of people to ignore any possible faults with the rules. Why not say "The FAA on Monday ..."?
Is this something driven by political office holders/appointees, or is it just the FAA doing its job and modernizing its rules as best it can? Technically anything federal government does can be attributed to the Trump administration, but it is misleading to make this attribution unless the action was directed by someone at the Whitehouse.
The TFA does say
In 2017, President Donald Trump launched a program to expand testing of drones in what the White House said would “open the skies for delivery of life-saving medicines and commercial packages (and) inspections of critical infrastructure.”
This is some justification for bringing the administration into it, but without more information I'm left wondering how much influence this program had on the proposed rules. Does anyone have information to show a connection?
Re: (Score:3)
This will go well... (Score:3)
So many opportunities for terrorists, so little time.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine ... police departments suddenly responding to a constant barrage of complaints from freaked-out people hearing these drones overhead. All it would take is for one evil actor to shut the whole thing down. It seems like an incredibly bad idea to depend upon drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking. Plus, it took me about 10 seconds to come up with some truly nasty things bad people could do in an environment where drones were common and hard to identify.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn. I was planning to make a terrorist attack but I don't want to fall afoul of the FAA guidelines for when I am allowed to use a drone.
typical GOP president (Score:2, Troll)
It probably won't go anywhere. GOP presidents tend to do this. Pull a bunch of dumb crap and then they wonder why they lack the mojo to implement something intelligent.
Bush junior did this. One grudge war, re-introduced torture into our society, one irresponsible tax cut, VP shotgunned people in the face (wish I was kidding). At one point, a very large contingent of justice de
Sad (Score:1)
Came to see formerly libertarian Slashdot mainly grouse at some level of sensible freedom being restored - was disappointed but not surprised.
Why are supposed technologists scared about drones flying at night?
Re: (Score:1)
Because we are afraid of drones flying ANY time NEAR people and/or in populated areas because of the inherent danger they pose WHEN they fail. It is a guarantee that some WILL fail and we will get hurt. It is also because of the noise, light, and visual pollution that will result. Amazon wants to put a drone port near us. That means thousands of drones per hour taking off and landing near us with a large portion of them flying over our home. I hate rush hour traffic. Why would I want to encourage rush
Re: (Score:2)
Came to see formerly libertarian Slashdot mainly grouse at some level of sensible freedom being restored - was disappointed but not surprised
If I took the hamburger you're eating, crapped on it, and then wiped off most of the crap before giving it back to you, would you believe I'm doing you a favor?
That's more or less what happened here. Under the previous (before 45's administration screwed with it) FAA rules, a hobbyist could legally fly at night. People argued (on drone forums) incessantly over whether or not it was actually legal, but the FAA never took any action to indicate they gave a rat's ass if someone flew their Phantom around in t
Re: (Score:1)
These are toys that can pose a deadly risk to innocent people and property.
You do realize we're talking about drones that weigh less than 250 grams? For comparison, a regulation basketball weighs approx. 623 grams, and a soccer ball weighs approx. 420 grams.
Even the bigger, heavier, flying-meat-slicer drones haven't managed to kill anyone yet - your "deadly" claim is pure hyperbole. A sub-250g drone is something like the Ryze Tello [ryzerobotics.com]. You have to see it in real life to truly appreciate how tiny it is. The worst "crashing" one of those into a person will do is maybe get it tangle
when is night (Score:1)
what is the definition on night in this proposal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
so sometimes 24h a day, other times 0?
At last some leadership (Score:2)
The deaths happen mostly on the overcrowded roads, and the aerial deliveries can potentially free the roads. Not only in a city but also between cities.
Knock it off, this has worked for years... (Score:2)
...in Gotham City. You really think those climbs are manned? And not once has the Joker been able to hack'em.
This should be great ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even a small drone could carry dozens of them.
Of course, this could never happen because the FAA wouldn't allow it.