How You Too Can Be Shut Down By the Feds For Flying Drones 195
An anonymous reader writes "University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor Matt Waite waived a government cease and desist letter recently received for his experiments using 3-pound, $500 drones for news reporting (specifically, for a story about drought in Nebraska). He gave journalism organizations the lowdown on what they can expect from the government on this front going forward and said he's posting his experience in trying to get certified by the FAA on GitHub so they can follow along."
What's the difference between a drone & R/C pl (Score:4, Interesting)
At what point is a hobby shop R/C Airplane or Helicopter a drone? I used to enjoy flying R/C planes as a teen. I mean they were the "trainers". I never had the space to dedicate a workshop towards building the larger model planes until recently. And delicate (and easily breakable) R/C planes and young kids probably wouldn't matter much.
I now wonder if by the time kids get old enough to know better if I'll be able to get back into the hobby due to every R/C plane being classified as a drone...
Too Good To Live (Score:5, Interesting)
Drones have an ability to make truth more evident. Not only people but governments do not like it when truth is available. Any effort to make good use of drones will be met with huge resistance. For example we are willing to spend billions of dollars on a border control as long as it does not work. Imagine what a fleet of drones could do to halt illegal immigration. Now tell me just how likely it is that drones will be heavily used to patrol our borders. I have seen this same phenomena in police work where a couple of cops came up with a great way to curtail drunk driving. Two cops simply waited outside popular bars and stopped drivers who pulled out of the parking lot late at night. Almost 100% of the stops resulted in a valid drunk driving arrest. The city quickly halted the practice. The problem was that the town bordered another town and when word got out people simply drove a few hundred yards to get drunk in the next town's bars. In other words the real working policy of the city was to make a show of stopping drunk driving while making sure that they really did not stop drunk driving.
Drones work too well. By using drones we can expose situations and that endangers all kinds of social institutions. With a good swarm of drones on patrol we could really knock out almost all home burglaries at night. But how many companies and jobs depend on a busy criminal justice system? Society really is that perverted.
Re:I am a pilot... (Score:5, Interesting)
Those rules are simple. We stay under 400ft. You stay above 1000ft. We don't get anywhere near airports. We don't fly if we see any traffic.
Even under those rules, RC is strictly non-commercial. Amateur reporters can continue to use eyes in the sky.
Re:I am a pilot... (Score:3, Interesting)
I favor drone regulation, here's why (Score:3, Interesting)
Regulating the parts of the airspace routinely used in interstate commerce is the job of the Federal government.
I don't know what the actual "airspace" that the feds claim jurisdiction over, but common sense would say it's anything at or within the safety margin of the lowest altitude a commercial aircraft flying from one state to another or flying in or out of the United States would routinely use over that spot, or the lowest altitude a military or other federal-government-owned aircraft would routinely use over that spot. In most areas the "FAA floor" should be a few thousand feet at the lowest (I suspect it's much lower, but I digress). For areas within a few hundred feet of runways, helipads, etc. this may be all the way to the ground (sorry kiddies, no radio-controlled toy airplanes for you without FCC approval).
However, FAA regulations should be safety-oriented, not use-oriented.
States should and do have the right to impose safety regulations below that height.
Now, when it comes to radio transmissions, the FCC gets involved. They can and for all I know do impose rules that would prevent a ground-based kiddie-toy remote-control aircraft transmitter from interfering with other, higher-priority, licensed radio users including radios used by commercial aircraft.
For aircraft which emit pollutants into the atmosphere, the feds also have the right to impose pollution controls.
One other thing that can come under regulation is the actual purpose of the drone's use and the harm to society by allowing the drone to fly at all. I'm thinking noise pollution from low-flying drones and invasion-of-privacy issues from drones with cameras aimed at your backyard swimming pool or aimed at your windows. Most of this should come under state regulation, but things like flying near one state's border and photographing inside someone's window who lives across the border would reasonably come under Congress's purview, as would photographing into the backyard of a home located on a military base even if the drone were flying over private property with that landowner's consent.
Now, would I favor my state banning camera-less or camera-turned-off drones flying over private property with the owner's consent, or flying so high and so quiet that they are not a nuisance but not so high that they interfere with interstate commerce? No, but I would expect my state to ensure the safety of such craft. Would I favor my state banning photography from a drone if the subjects of the photograph and/or their owners consented, and the photography wasn't creating a nuisance, safety, or other issue for anyone else? No.
Re:Anything police can use should be restricted (Score:3, Interesting)
It's illegal to fly an RC model for any kind of pay.
That's what *I* thought, too. So why don't we take a page direct from the politicians: I fly for myself and take pics, and then give them to you because you ask. (Presumably I'd need to give them to all comers, but then again not Every Single Person I meet is my friend. So I don't see that saying "No" is that bad. A judge may disagree.)
You, then, contribute to my fund (charitable, PAC, LLC, something) that I just happen to control. No no -- it's not MY money at all, it's the funds' money; I just happen to be the one in control of it. Or my friend is, whatever.
Now, could the feds come in and take control and arrest me before, during, or after the fact? Yep, because the men with guns always win, especially if they have enough bullets [forbes.com].
By the way, I think that's great: "I use it to troll 'real world' groups... Completely legal as I'm doing it for fun." But mightn't fun have consequences [cbslocal.com]? Just because you're having fun doesn't mean everyone else is. Aren't you responsible if you hurt someone else? And if there's not some kind of ID (owner sticker, serial number, etc) on it, how are they to know who owns it? Do you walk up and say "Sorry about that" and claim ownership and responsibility? Or do you just write it off as perhaps a bad battery and disappear?
Fun is by yourself or with friends, and perhaps with a few strangers accidentally nearby. Fun does not consist of ONLY strangers. Then again I'm an old fogie, so get off my lawn. And by the way: I'm practicing [nbcnews.com].