FAA Drone Rules May Already Be Outlawed By Congress (hackaday.com) 226
szczys writes: New FAA rules about drone registration and operation are now in effect. So far the talk has centered around registering your aircraft, and about the weight restriction. But all of this may be moot since the US Congress made a law in 2012 prohibiting these types of rules: "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." Even if the rules hold up under this law, it is not all doom and gloom for drones. The FAA rules could have been much more stringent, and in general they do make sense. Brian Benchoff walks through the regulation, comparing the new rules to the FAA's existing pilot rules, and juxtaposing the threat drones make to full-size aircraft in flight with those risks associated with bird strikes.
Waiting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Waiting for the FAA to ban birds from flying around helos and airplanes...
Re:Waiting... (Score:5, Funny)
Traditionally, the first post is suppose to be utter nonsense. I suspect what you wrote will be a future regulation.
Re:Waiting... (Score:4, Funny)
> Traditionally, the first post is suppose to be utter nonsense. I suspect what you wrote will be a future regulation.
I submit that there is no contradiction here as these are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Sometimes I have the mistaken belief that lawmakers make laws to help people.
Re: (Score:3)
They do. The problem is, it's not the people they're supposed to be representing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of regulations regarding birds around airports and planes, so what are you waiting for?
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/management/
Re: (Score:3)
Waiting for the FAA to ban birds from flying around helos and airplanes...
I call Shotgun!
Redefine (Score:2)
Drones will be redefined as anything but model aircraft.
We'll see (Score:5, Insightful)
I can remember when the Feds wanted everyone with a CB radio to have a license, too.
Re:We'll see (Score:4, Informative)
The FCC almost got their way with the the GMRS radios. I suspect almost everyone who has bought a FRS/GMRS radio never bothered to get the GRMS license. I got mine just to say I have it.
Re: We'll see (Score:4, Informative)
This is totally different. The linked article even explains it
Following the link, it tells us that model aircraft to which the rule applies are defined as "unmanned aircraft ... Flown within line of sight".
As i understood it, the new FAA rule applies to drones capable of being flown outside the pilot's line of sight. Therefore this law is irrelevant as to whether or not the FAA can regulate, since it covers a different type of aircraft.
Re: We'll see (Score:4, Informative)
Negative, the FAA is apply their new registration rule to EVERY model aircraft whether it's a quadcopter, a helicopter, or a balsa plane. If it weighs more than 0.55 pounds, flies, and is remotely or autonomously controlled they want it registered. Flying a model aircraft out of LOS is against the rules. If the registration allowed for beyond LOS operation, less enthusiasts would be upset about it.
Re: We'll see (Score:5, Informative)
The FAA rules are exactly the opposite of what you understand:
https://www.faa.gov/regulation... [faa.gov]
Operational Limitations
- Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain
within VLOS of the operator or visual observer.
- At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to
the operator for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with
vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.
Re: (Score:3)
That's helpful clarification, since the Rule links to the actual codification which the original article seems to misread, deliberately or
So the linked article says "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft" (Did you notice the absence of a period at the end of their quote?)
And the Public Law referenced in the FAA Rule actually says:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's being flown within their guidelines AND as part of their programming.
That likely means as part of events scheduled by that organization. Simply being a member and following their guidelines wouldn't exempt you.
Re: (Score:2)
So the rule which the original article thinks would prevent the FAA from regulating actually says that it only applies to model aircraft flown as part of a nationwide community's programming.
No, it doesn't. Try re-reading it.
It says "in accordance with..." the safety guidelines of... That means "following the saftety rules of". It doesn't say it has to be "part of" a nationwide program, only that you have to follow a national hobby group's safety rules.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter. The FAA's angle is in "Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft"
They say they can still create rules that apply to all aircraft, model or not. Nowhere do they say this new rule applies to model aircraft. They say it applies to all unmanned aircraft of a certain weight, there is just no exception for model aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the operational limitations again. "Corrective lenses" means specifically eyeglasses (or contact lenses).
If you take the time to reread, you'll see that it just requires the operator to be able to see his drone. Do you think that's unreasonable?
Re: (Score:3)
I mistook the original for being able to see without corrective lenses. I read it completely wrong and took it to mean that using binoculars or similar lenses in order to see the aircraft was not permissible.
Yeah I reread it and it makes much more sense now. Thanks for pointing my error out.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is crowded with Star-Wars related RC flying toys right now, from a Millennium Falcon quad-copter to a really cool X-Wing RC airplane (with ducted fans, so it's safer then normal RC planes with props).
All these toys should be registered as drones under the new rules. It's total nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon is crowded with Star-Wars related RC flying toys right now, from a Millennium Falcon quad-copter to a really cool X-Wing RC airplane (with ducted fans, so it's safer then normal RC planes with props).
All these toys should be registered as drones under the new rules. It's total nonsense.
I can see Disney lobbying hard on this. And when Disney lobby the US government listens.
Re: (Score:2)
This is totally different. The linked article even explains it
Following the link, it tells us that model aircraft to which the rule applies are defined as "unmanned aircraft ... Flown within line of sight".
As i understood it, the new FAA rule applies to drones capable of being flown outside the pilot's line of sight. Therefore this law is irrelevant as to whether or not the FAA can regulate, since it covers a different type of aircraft.
What about "unwomanned" aircraft?
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC almost got their way with the the GMRS radios. I suspect almost everyone who has bought a FRS/GMRS radio never bothered to get the GRMS license. I got mine just to say I have it.
Once dual FRS/GMRS radio blister packs started being sold at big box retailers, GMRS licensing was effectively ended for those shared bands. Even if consumers paid attention to the licensing requirements (they don't), no one is going to buy a $90 license for a $30 set of radios.
Fortunately for GMRS license holders, there are still GMRS-only frequencies that aren't polluted with the FRS shared frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
And there are millions of people breaking that law. The FCC cannot effectively enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can remember when the Feds wanted everyone with a CB radio to have a license, too.
Just wait, there will be license and registration for shoes as well. And in case anyone thinks theres a handy loophole, virtually every city will have bylaws against going barefoot as well due to 'liability issues'.
Re: (Score:3)
The _massive_ flaw in these regulations... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the FAA model aircraft database is public, then what's to stop someone local from looking up your name, address and registration number and sticking that on their model aircraft instead of their own name ?
That way, they can fly in a reckless manner and if their aircraft crashes, it's an innocent person the authorities are going to be looking for.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Up until now, I've been saying that the FAA's registration isn't much different than the FCC's licensing requirements. But this is the part where the difference between the FAA's registration and the FCC's licensing are substantial, and it requires the FAA to rethink things to make it work.
I have a ham radio license. With just my callsign, you can get my name and last-registered address. It is my current home address, as I've kept my license up to date. Now, I won't post my callsign, lest I end up registere
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no. Whatever shall I do?
Just go here: http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-p... [arrl.org] Looks like the FCC is trying to protect operator license privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the FCC is trying to protect operator license privacy.
Nonsense. The FCC has stated flat out that it will not hide the operator license data for current licensees. The only accommodation to the privacy of amateur licensees is that they can now use a post office box instead of the physical address of their station on the station license application. I know about this because I have had a parole officer take her license exam at one of my sessions and she needed to be sure that her physical address wasn't on file for the safety of her family.
Perhaps if you actual
Yeah, except (Score:4, Informative)
That 2002 law saying they can't create regulations on model aircraft also have this stipulation:
Considering the whole reason these new regs were passed were because idiots weren't following safety guidelines, makes it a moot point. If the aircraft aren't being operated in accordance w/ safety guidelines the FAA is free to regulate the hell out of model aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
That 2002 law saying they can't create regulations on model aircraft also have this stipulation:
Considering the whole reason these new regs were passed were because idiots weren't following safety guidelines, makes it a moot point. If the aircraft aren't being operated in accordance w/ safety guidelines the FAA is free to regulate the hell out of model aircraft.
good find... so there simply needs to be a nationwide community-based organization that has a fee cheaper than $5 and some set of rules to follow and people are covered.
Safety Guidelines (Score:2)
The Nationwide Not Car Insurance Company By The Same Name Community Safety Guidelines:
1) Don't be a dick
2) Do not through inaction allow your remote craft to be a dick.
3) Make sure there is nothing on your craft that can be linked back to you in case of accident.
Oh, did you mean safety for OTHERS and not your own legal safety? Should have said so explicitly then!
Re: (Score:3)
More like the AMA rules I was thinking... Make membership $4:
Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code
Effective January 1, 2014
A. GENERAL: A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere. It may not exceed limitations of this code and is
intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition. All model flights must be conducted in accordance with this safety code and any
additional rules specific to the flying site.
1. M
About the weight requirement... (Score:3)
Do you have to register a model dirigible? A dirigible could weigh nothing. Weight is not the same as mass.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're exactly the same. They dont weigh planes by subtracting how much lift the wings generate, so they wouldn't 'weigh' a dirigible with it's lighter-than-air ballast in it.
Re: (Score:2)
weight officially defined exclusive of buoyancy (Score:2)
The official definition of weight is that it excludes buoyancy- the weight of an object does not change when the tide comes in. So while weight and mass are slightly different concepts, they are defined such that on earth at msl, an object of 1 gram mass is also 1 gram weight. Obviously on the moon the weight would be lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Force (weight) is commonly measured in Newtons; 1 N = 1 kg m/s^2,
I already got a letter from my flying club (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, drone regulations make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners. This, of course means they can come down nearby
-- Into traffic
-- Powerlines
-- Descend vertically into telephony/power equipment, thus bypassing fences.
No one is saying that these are deliberate but accidents do happen and like your driver's licence helps pay for public education regarding the rules of the road, the potential for error, mistakes and oversight means that there's a public good in ensuring safe navigation of the skies. Someone above said that people could therefore could fake your ID at an accident -- well I think the odds of that happening are small relative to the amount of regular accidents that will happen.
Of course people will stomp and yell about 'muh freedumbs' but these things will eventually -- by accident -- cause traffic accidents by uncontrolled descents and so having the infrastructure ready to ensure that people get a modicum of training is hardly the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners.
It's not like fixed wing RC planes need a lot of runway.
Or any at all, in fact [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners. This, of course means they can come down nearby
-- Into traffic
-- Powerlines
-- Descend vertically into telephony/power equipment, thus bypassing fences.
Kites have caused far worse outages than a few city blocks. People have been electrocuted to death on account of shoes thrown in power lines. Auto accidents daily lead to power outages even though driving is a regulated activity.
No one is saying that these are deliberate but accidents do happen and like your driver's licence helps pay for public education regarding the rules of the road, the potential for error, mistakes and oversight means that there's a public good in ensuring safe navigation of the skies.
I believe promulgation of law based on specific incidents and "feelings" is not in the public good. There must be fact based statistical account of actual harms. All proposed solutions must be merit based considering harms imposed by the solution as well as evidence of effective
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners.
So what you're saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
https://youtu.be/S3Ho3qE9Tys [youtu.be]
Model aircraft does not mean drone (Score:2, Insightful)
Drones have cameras, models do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Says who?
As one example: http://www.modelairplanenews.c... [modelairplanenews.com]
and then there's the actual law definition (Score:2)
That's an interesting definition. Here's the definition in the law, of what the FAA may not regulate:
A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition
Re: (Score:2)
Drones have cameras, models do not.
Please cite your source for that definition. Once you get done with that, please point out anywhere in the new DoT rule that the words "drone" or "camera" are even being used anyway. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Bird strike? (Score:2)
Sounds like a perfect time to register all birds.
Because of course, making broad-based laws because of incredibly rare events is always a good idea! /sarc off
Not really news (Score:4, Interesting)
We evil drone operators have known about Section 336 for a long time. It's not actually the only thing wrong with the current rules, but its a major one. The FAA asserts that "model aircraft" are included in the category of "aircraft" covered by pre-2012 regulations, and therefore they can regulate according to them and 336 doesn't apply. This is dubious already. But it's even more dubious when you find that
1) All "aircraft" must be registered, by statute and by regulation, already.
2) All "aircraft" require a airman's certificate to operate or to repair, again by statute and regulation.
3) All "aircraft" except helicopters, by regulation, are required to stay above 500 feet except on takeoff and landing.
Which means that model aircraft have been flown completely illegally for the entire time the FAA has been in existence. This interpretation seems absurd, hence the FAAs claim about "model aircraft" being covered under "aircraft" must be wrong. Either that or it's time to paint a little Jolly Roger on all the models.
Re: (Score:2)
if(model_aircraft_weight>250.0 && model_aircraft_weight>24948)
goto must_register;
goto no_register;
Re: (Score:2)
if(model_aircraft_weight>250.0f || model_aircraft_weight>24948).0f)
goto must_register;
goto no_register;
Re: (Score:2)
if(model_aircraft_weight>250.0f || model_aircraft_weight>24948.0f)
goto must_register;
goto no_register;
I don't understand (Score:2)
Any ideas how FAA's own interpretation of the "special rule" for model aircraft would allow them to continue with drone registration?
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/... [faa.gov]
The only out they seem to grant to themselves is general regulation non specific to model aircraft.
A drone isn't a "model aircraft" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Law says 55lbs, the FAA pulled 250g out of there ass.
The FAA came up with 250g by doing a point mass free-fall force equation. Didn't you know a solid metal ball and balsa model aircraft fall at the same rate with equal force?
Also see how the FAA suddenly redefined "model aircraft" and changed to say you need to register it. See
Molon labe! (Score:2)
is that a problem though? (Score:2)
Re:Can somebody explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of the people against one are also against the other. How is it hypocritical to oppose both registries?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because, guns only operate on line of sight, but drones can be operated remotely?
Because the danger of drones is a superset of the danger of guns as one could mount a gun on a sufficiently advanced drone?
Because the right to own guns is protected in the Constitution but the right to own (non weaponized) drones isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
And not for any other reason.
Re: (Score:3)
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
No IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
The founders used the Second Amendment to say that despite their grudging recognition that a standing army (at least at the militia level) was going to be necessary, nobody should use the fact of the existence of that standing military to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They just went through that with the British, and they didn't want to see it happen again.
They knew that some people would say, "Why should the local inn keeper or livery owner or farmer need to k
Re: (Score:2)
No matter. The gun grabbers have shifted gears.
They lost the Constitutional argument and now they are trying to work the Terrorist angle. Gun owners = terrorists, etc.
Just witness that effort to restrict rights based on the No Flty List [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
which is what I said.
Perhaps the 'ie' part threw you off. I used one case as an example of why you would need a militia, and thus a constitutional reason to have weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong! this is what it says.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Say that with a Yoda voice and it sort of makes sense
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can somebody explain to me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can somebody explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government.
So, you're only allowed to own guns when you're a member of an organized revolt fighting against a tyrannical government. You're literally saying that it's only legal to own a gun during an insurrection. And that makes perfect sense to you? You're honestly sitting here trying to get us to believe that WE'RE the ones incapable of understanding English?
Re: (Score:3)
Or to put it in a more entertaining way, it's only legal when you're attempting to overthrow the very document that makes it legal.
Re:Can somebody explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
It says guns exactly 0 times. What it says is Arms.
Yes, you are correct.
during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
And then you say all this other stuff that is not in the document at all.
You know what else was under "arms"? Cannons. Lots of shippers owned them, too. Make no mistake, any pro-gun-control interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is, no matter how well-meaning, historical revisionism and rationalization.
Re:Can somebody explain to me (Score:4, Interesting)
So this guy I knew, rolled up to Canadian Customs on the way to a Civil War Re-enactment in New York, the Customs agent asked him if he was bringing any firearms into Canada. He Answered,"well I have a canon, with canon balls, black powder and fuse on the trailer I'm towing (which was in plain sight), the Agent ask "but no pistols, shotguns or rifles?" "No just the canon", "Okay Sir, Welcome to Canada"
Most violent crime committed with a weapon in the US is committed with a baseball bat.
Re:Can somebody explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
It says no such thing. Your reading comprehension and understanding of the constitution is completely childish.
Those are the terms that must be met according to the documents.
No, they're not. The point is that THERE ARE NO TERMS. The government shall not infringe - as in, not place conditions on, not interfere with, not limit - on that basic right. The Second Amendment is saying that despite the inevitable need for a standing military (even at the militia level), the existence of such is not an excuse for the government to prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing their own arms.
I guess I am the only sane person capable of correctly parsing the english language?
No, you're just making stuff up. You are parsing it exactly 100% backwards.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll go with the people with the law degrees and huge research staffs....the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't understand what the militia was at the time of writing was , do you? Based on that alone, you should re-think your argument.
It doesn't MATTER what a militia was at the time. Because the amendment isn't ABOUT the militia, other than indirectly. What the amendment does is recognize that there's likely always going to BE something like a militia (a standing army of some scale), but that fact doesn't give the government the authority to deny individuals their own keeping and bearing of arms. It's that simple. Essentially, "Just because we'll have an army doesn't mean that the government has a monopoly on the ownership of arms." Per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
Re: (Score:3)
Not a reasonable part, since your right to own a gun isn't affected by said ownership being documented.
The Second Amendment doesn't just say you must be allowed to "keep and bear" arms, but that that specific inalienable right "shall not be infringed." Not "shall not be prohibited", but "shall not be infringed." As in "shall not be encroached upon". Yes, keeping a national database of gun owners is infringing upon that right because it has an affect upon those who wish to exercise it. It would be a special hoop that you must jump through before being able to use a right that the government didn't grant you b
Re:Glad for the Drone Regs (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that?
Woah there hold up, *I* never got in the way of any emergency responders. But *I* am now expected to register and pay of fee, so yea I am going to complain. Also the registration process does not collect any serial numbers or any other details so there is still no way to actually tie a drone to a responsible owner. Which means that people who do register are really just being added to another special government list.
As the TFA states this action by the FAA is probably not even legal, like so much of the other stuff this Administration does. So if they in fact breaking the law themselves that is another VERY VALID reason to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So when I write somebody else's number on my drone and then go crash it into the White House, who gets in trouble?
Re: (Score:2)
It's no different than registering your car.
Actually, it is quite different. For started, car registrations are at the state level, these FAA registrations are at a federal level. Second, car registrations are per-vehicle, the FAA drone registration is registering a person.
You personally aren't a moron with your car, but enough have to the point that all cars are required to be registered now.
That is hardly the reason why cars are registered and required to display license plates. The requirement is to show that you have paid the taxes for having a car. If identification of the vehicle was the intent, then the VIN laws would not exist. You do realize, I hope, that there
Re:Glad for the Drone Regs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> Woah there hold up, *I* never got in the way of any emergency responders. But *I* am now expected to register and pay of fee, so yea I am going to complain.
Hey there, I dont drive stupidly, so why should I have to pay for a license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does a one time test certify your competency a decade or century later? Don't forget that said test is often taken when one is in their teens and the passing of which usually automatically transfers when you move to another state?
Re: (Score:2)
Newer legislation required the FAA to create these rules. But then, this isn't the first time that Slashtards read a lie and get up in arms.
That's funny, because you're actually lying. Funny! Hah. Funny.
Unless you'd like to link to a new law from congress that supersedes the 2012 FMRA? Be specific. Which you won't, because you can't. Because you're a liar. Funny! Hah. Funny.
Re:Glad for the Drone Regs (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all.
This is it in a nutshell.
Quadcopters are a disruptive technology in the sense that the old paradigm, of expensive, difficult-to-fly, easy-to-destroy RC aircraft has shifted to cheap, somewhat-easy-to-fly "drone" RC aircraft. Additionally, the scale-model-of-real mentality has been replaced with a whatever-works mentality. This shift is helped by the reduction in weight of batteries and the reduction in size of high quality video camera and storage technology.
When one couldn't take high quality video for extended periods of time, when one had a lot of money tied up in an RC aircraft, and when that aircraft was difficult to fly, people who engaged in the hobby generally had a bit of etiquette, even if pragmatically due to flying over someone else's property was a good way to lose the expensive toy. It appears that quadcopter enthusiasts are less inhibited by this.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology. They are a new thing, and even if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
But they are by the actual definition of the terminology. Because the meaning of the terminology was specifically defined for the purposes of this exclusion:
SE
Re: (Score:3)
Memory error: confusing the admiral's name with a similar ship name. It was Yamato. Now I will have to hide from military enthusiasts and anime fans alike until the apocalypse obliterates the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
This is even mentioned in the article. This "disruptive technology" could be a helium-filled model of the battleship Yamamoto decked out to look like the original Star Blazers wave-motion-gun bearing "spaceship" and it would still be a "model aircraft" for the purposes of the exclusion.
Just saying this is an awesome idea if no one has done this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly glad that they're putting these rules into effect. Just after seeing the recent wildfire fighting efforts impeded by drone owners, and even structural firefighting efforts held up, all because drone owners wanted to get video of the destruction. Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that? Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all. But I'm not only glad to see that these rules are being put in place, I hope that emergency response is authorized to SHOOT DOWN drones that get in the way and fine the hell out of the owners of them.
You realize that unregistered drones will still fly, right? Unlike the responsible owners that will register their aircraft and follow common sense (and legal) rules, the idiots that get in the way of firefighting efforts are not likely to register their craft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you go about doing that?
So you want law enforcement (or civilians) firing their service weapons into the air? You realize that that high speed lead will land somewhere... right?
And registration does t
Re: (Score:3)
In the past we called this sort of thing LIBERTY, and handled it like adults, not name calling like petty children. You make curiosity out to be a vice. Yes people do stupid stuff, that doesnt mean you should go around shitting on everyone's Liberty because its an activity you dont like.
Re: (Score:2)
While I am generally a supporter of free speech, your eloquent words have changed my mind... seeing no purpose for what you have said here I think your own comments should be regulated to only those cases where you need to speak (in any form)... the fines for violating will be stiff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please show me your legal basis for saying:
in the same way that the president doesn't have the authority to create executive orders
Of course the president has the authority to create executive orders, who else would you expect to create them? Now, he doesn't necessarily have the authority to write certain EOs, such as the most recent immigration one that tried to counteract federal law, but he most definitely has the authority to write EOs as that is how he lets executive agencies know how he wants them to run.
Re: (Score:2)