FAA Eases Drone Restrictions Around Washington, DC

An anonymous reader writes with a link to Robotics Trends, which reports that: After doubling the radius of the "no-drone zone" from 15 miles to 30 miles outside of Washington, D.C. in 2015, the FAA announced drones can now fly in the "outer ring" of the Special Flight Rules Area. This means drones can operate between a 15- to 30-mile radius outside of the nation's capitol. Drones that fly between the 15- to 30-mile radius still have to operate under specific conditions: drones must weigh less than 55 pounds, be registered and marked, fly under 400 feet, stay in the operator's line of sight, only fly in clear conditions, and avoid other aircraft.

FAA doing it right

[hypergreatthing]

I always liked making up the rules as you go along. Always the most appropriate thing to do.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.

So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?

If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?

Re:

[davester666]

But now everybody is a terrorist. Before 9/11 we were all just regular Americans.

Re:

[AK Marc]

After OKC bombings (and a lesser extent car bombings in the middle east), government agencies created no-drive zones around federal buildings. There were some complaints, but little resistance.

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy. We shouldn't try to identify security flaws and patch them until after someone has exploited them with public results. Only then should the government be allowed to patch a security flaw.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.

No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're

Re:

[AK Marc]

That 9 oz pink copter won't fly outside anyway. Once you get to the tree-tops, the wind will blow faster than the copter can go, and it'll blow out of the park, to be lost forever. Also, the law won't be enforced against her.

You are presuming 100% enforcement. Not even homicides get that level of enforcement. Why would you presume this law would?

Such insane claims make you look like the luantic, not the governemnt.

Re:

[ScentCone]

There are all sorts of small foam park fliers and silly little quad toys that weigh far too little to be any security threat whatsoever, but which have owners who have now been swept up into this new public-facing database scheme. People flying inconsequential balsa-wood RC models they built 30 years ago will be breaking the law a week from now. The FAA's Huerta says that enforcement will include visits to flying clubs and encouragement for neighbors to contact law enforcement (they've provided local LEOs w

Re:

[AK Marc]

You are presuming an enforcement that's not only insane, but impossible. When you come off you LSD trip and want to talk reality, let us know.

Re:

[ScentCone]

You are presuming an enforcement that's not only insane, but impossible.

So you are in favor of passing new rules that you consider to be impossible to enforce? Why do you support that? Please be specific.

Re:

[AK Marc]

Now you are just lying. Explaining the why to someone who claims not to understand doesn't mean I agree or support it. Stop lying, you lying little liar.

Re:

[ScentCone]

So, I'm right, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Resorting to ad hominem, just like so many people who are confronting internal hypocrisy do in order to avoid reconciling their contradictory premises.

So, you're calling me all sorts of things for pointing out that the FAA is outside of its legal bounds on this, that the entire effort is pointless, etc. So, you are implying that you feel differently about that, in some way. Which way? Be specific. And reconcile your preference for some situati

Re:

[AK Marc]

No. Me pointing out that you lied isn't ad hominem. Me calling you a liar isn't ad hominem. Before you use the big words, you should learn what the mean.

"You are wrong in your opinion about the FAA because you incorrectly declared that I support the FAA decision" would be an ad hominem, and doesn't include any insults.

Someone to stupid to know what an ad hominem is obviously can't understand the nuance of government regulation.

There, for your pleasure, you may now correctly say I used an ad hominem.

Re:

[ScentCone]

We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do). You're calling me names for saying that it is NOT a sensible program, even as you yourself say it's impossible to enforce. And you won't address your own hypocrisy on the matter. Do you really still support an "impossible to enforce" regulatory burden, along with its associated costs and loss of privacy, forcing people

Re:

[AK Marc]

We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do).

So if they shouldn't do it, it's invalid, even if they have the power (and some argue, mandate) to do it?

Then again, it comes down to you using words with unique definitions to win an argument, rather than discuss a point.

As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up).

So now you are talking about what the government CAN do, not what they SHOULD do. Again, you are a lying hypocrite.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Really? You don't have room in your head for two concepts?

The FAA can't do it (because of section 336, which is why the administration has tried to weasel it in through the DoT instead) AND the FAA shouldn't do it (because it's not only utterly pointless, it also wastes money and provides a glaring breach of privacy for hobbyists that will become fishing targets for every neighborhood crank and axe-grinding reporter looking for "drone" operators in their ZIP code, much like those that have published inte

Re:

[publiclurker]

The same may be said of many anonymous cowards.

Re: FAA doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the FAA is forbidden by law from regulating model aircraft, if memory serves. Try arguing a drone isn't a "model aircraft".

Re:

[AK Marc]

The octo copters are a model of what aircraft? One could argue that http://www.rc-airplanes-simpli... [rc-airplan...lified.com] is a model aircraft. As it's literally a model of an aircraft, and RC. But an octo-copter is not a model of any actual aircraft, therefore it isn't a "model aircraft".

If you RC plane is a historically accurate P1 Mustang, feel free to fly it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. and see what happens. Your court case will be enlightening, if your assertion that it's illegal for the FCC to regulate "mod

Re:

[AK Marc]

That's how everyone has always done it. The progressive Founding Fathers of the USA were making it up as they went along as well. Taking bits of what worked, making sure to leave out what didn't and seeing what happens, we can always amend it later if it doesn't work. The first US constitution failed miserably. How are those Articles of Confederation working out?

Re:

[slimjim8094]

You're right. It would be much better if they came up with the perfect rules to start with and then never ever changed them.

Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[Harlequin80]

See the title. But there seems to be a lot of news about drones and lots of actions by the government. Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

I mean lots of people own drones here in Aus but I rarely actually see many flying around.

Re:

[OverlordQ]

A lot? No.

The ones that are, caught doing stupid shit? Yes.

Re:

[Coren22]

I live in this zone, I was concerned enough about this $20k fine that my son's drone has been grounded since it was announced. I don't know frankly what they were thinking, it isn't like many drones would be able to fly the original 15 miles to the white house/pentagon/cia headquarters, let alone an additional 15 miles. I never particularly understood this reg, but it is not worth risking the fine.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.

Re:

[ScentCone]

The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.

Which is why the Obama administration just instituted their new RC aircraft owner registration system (you have to sign up by the 19th of this month, or face up to $20,000 in fines ... and that includes operating any toy RC machine as small as just under 9 ounces/250g) through the Department Of Transportation instead of through the FAA. It's a sleazy maneuver that directly goes against the spirit of the law congress passed to prevent exactly such things from happening.

Hopefully you're not surprised that

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[pixelpusher220]

There aren't many terrorists in the US....but we still spend BILLIONS in fear of them. The driver on his phone driving next to you is FAR more of a threat to more people than drones or terrorists are - and kills more people every year.

The conflicting info is that my drones do not have to be registered being the toys that they are...yet to fly them in my own damned back yard (inside this 'outer circle') I need to register them AND notify the FAA an hour ahead of time and of course notify Dulles airport?

I can imagine the hilarity if every hobbyist starting calling the airports multiple times a day.

Re:

[mark-t]

The driver on his phone driving next to you is FAR more of a threat to more people than drones or terrorists are

Given that you are phrasing this in the present tense, and apparently a non-hypothetical sense, I imagine that the person who is reading your post at the same time while they also trying to drive is *FAR* more of a thread to more people than even a driver beside them who might be using the cell phone.

Re:

[pixelpusher220]

You're assuming I meant the driver and not the passenger ;-)

Re:

[Harlequin80]

That seems extreme. Here you aren't allowed to exceed 500ft without permission in anywhere that counts as controlled airspace. Which essentially is everywhere anyone lives or fly over heavily populated public spots. So you can fly in a park for example but not if it's full of people.

CASA is looking into the regulations around drones, but have actually been loosening them, in particular for low altitude commercial stuff like taking a video for a realestate site. That said I expect they will require licen

Re:

[pixelpusher220]

part of my point is these regulations don't mention *any* height restriction (if I'm wrong on this, good...and bad on the reporter). Any height in my own backyard has to be reported an hour prior.

That is absolutely absurd.

Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US

[WarJolt]

The rules are clear, but you have to practically be a pilot to know them. That's because the regulations require you to know what class G airspace is. It's also why commercially you need a pilots certificates to qualify for an exemption. Private pilots are required to know and follow all those same rules without any oversight because they are "hobbiests". That will probably change.

Re:

[ColdWetDog]

Apparently there are more drone registrations [phantompilots.com] than 'normal' aircraft. (Actually this represents more drone operators since the new FAA UAV registration registers the human, not the aircraft - unlike the traditional registry.)

Damn you FAA

[flopsquad]

...and avoid other aircraft.

Will the oppressive over-regulation never stop!?

Re:

[dcw3]

...and avoid other aircraft.

Will the oppressive over-regulation never stop!?

So, does this prohibit a "Battle Bots" style drone contest?

Unpopular opinion

[Sowelu]

Those restrictions sound 100% reasonable for all outdoor flight, period, without specific commercial licenses. The golden days of drones, where most users were hobbyists who cared about safety and were few in number, are over. As much as I'd like to keep flying a craft with totally automatic gps guidance outside of my line of sight--it's irresponsible these days. It only takes one collision between a couple of heavy craft over a crowd of people to cause a crackdown much worse than this.

Re:

[pixelpusher220]

where most users were hobbyists who cared about safety

So you're banning cars then? FAR more people are using actual cars to commit acts of terrorism (tm) than flying drones...

Re:

[Sowelu]

Who said anything about banning? This doesn't ban drones. This regulates where and how you can fly them and mandates registration...just like we have traffic laws and mandate car registration. I doubt the first cars had license plates either; now they do.

It's not like they're mandating drone pilot licenses, either.

Re:

[pixelpusher220]

Actually it was contemplated that, yes, you'd need a pilots license to fly your drone. linky [washingtonpost.com]

didn't come to pass but it WAS on the table.

Re:

[AK Marc]

Yes. The federal government has already banned cars around federal buildings (after OKC). This is the same thing. They are banning the drones in one specific area around federal buildings.

Re:

[pixelpusher220]

Around buildings is fine. I'm 35 MILES from DC.

Re:

[AK Marc]

So because you are near DC, logic doesn't apply? I didn't realize the no-logic zone extended that far from Congress.

Re: Unpopular opinion

[pixelpusher220]

Apparently it extends to just past your chair :)I have a drone that can't lift more than a few ounces and can't fly longer than 7 minutes. There is no logic at all in banning that 15 miles away from DC or requiring notification of airports for a 'flight' that doesn't go above tree tops.

Re:

[AK Marc]

There is no one rule that will be considered reasonable by *all* people. So they picked one arbitrary rule that at least one person thought reasonable. That's how reality works. That you are unaware of that indicates that the reality distortion field is on your end.

Re:

[JoeMerchant]

Those restrictions sound 100% reasonable for all outdoor flight, period

Until you start talking about tiny stuff like this...

http://www.onagofly.com/ [onagofly.com]

Drone Loophole

[BrookHarty]

So if you used a tethered control cable its not a drone by definition, its not unmanned. Loophole!

Re:

[bobbutts]

Good try, but no loophole to be found there
https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/ [faa.gov]

Q20. What about tethered drones?
A. Both tethered and untethered UAS must be registered.

Re:Drone Loophole

[mark-t]

So would that include children holding a model plane over their head and pretending it is flying under its own power? Technically, it's "tethered"... via the child's arm.

These restrictions are so outlandishly vague that they are absurd. At the very least, a minimum flying height should be mentioned, but it is nowhere to be found.

I have seen a childrens toy that has a tethered helicopter which cannot roam anywhere further than a couple of feet from the base of the tether Should those also be covered by the law?

Re:

[mark-t]

I'm suggesting that it would have made much more sense if they had made more explicit regulations that would leave toys and casual hobbyists that are not and have not ever posed any threats to anyone alone. For example, if they had said registration is only required for anything that flies more than a certain distance above the ground, or can be reasonably navigated while out of eyeshot of the operator, or possesses any autonomous flying capabilities beyond perhaps the ability to simply not immediately cr

Re:

[Aristos Mazer]

I can't believe you'd let a child handle dangerous munitions so casually! The child might be mistaken for a target and taken out by government hunter drones! Your child could trigger DefCon Ultimate! Won't someone think of the children?!

Re:

[toddestan]

Supposedly the aircraft must be powered by some kind of engine or motor. So paper airplanes, kites, model airplanes, helium-filled balloons, nerf guns, and rubber-band planes are not subject to this. Still, the rules seem ridiculous when applied to things like the toy quadcopters you can buy that pose no threat to actual aircraft or the Whitehouse.

Not exactly true..

[fred911]

"drones must weigh less than 55 pounds, be registered and marked, fly under 400 feet, stay in the operator's line of sight,"

First off, remote controlled aircraft less than 55 lbs don't have to be registered or marked until Feb 20 (for the grandfathered owners) and flying under 400 feet is a suggestion.

Dear Timothy

[koan]

You stupid, useless fuck, they aren't "drones", that's a negative connotation and RC modellers have been out flying planes and helis since the 1930's.
Long before the real "drones" took to the air to kill children and vaporize wedding parties.

I am so tired of you fucking sheep that believe what you're told, that live in some fucking mirror World that has 0 connection to the real World.
People like you swallow hook, line and sinker every turd the gov drops down your throat.

Go fuck yourself, and in the process

Re:

[ColdWetDog]

Have a nice day.

What is wrong

[terminal.dk]

What is wrong with those rules ? They are still more relaxed than what we have everywhere outside city areas here in Denmark.
Max 7 kg = 15.4 pounds vs US 55 lbs
Max 100 meters = 328 ft vs US 400 ft.
We have LoS only - But can use spotter that can take over.
We must move away from other aircraft (which normally have to stay above 150 meters / 500 ft)
We don't have the clear conditions requirement, but still Line of sight

Re:

[dcw3]

What is wrong with those rules ?

Only that it means that ~9.5 million people are unable to fly a drone in their own back yards. Pure bullshit.

Re:

[toddestan]

It's more than that. The rules are no UAS anywhere within 5 miles of an airport. The rules aren't clear as to what qualifies as an "airport", but assuming that any general aviation airport qualifies, that means a lot of people fall under that rule. I live within 2 miles of an airport, so it's technically illegal to fly a quadcopter in my yard*. Luckily the FAA doesn't care about what you do indoors, so I can fly around my living room all I want.

*You can supposedly fly if you get permission from the towe

Re:

[dcw3]

I get ya, but I was responding specifically to the metro DC area and it's ~9.5 million population, of which I'm one. I'm also near the glidepath to Dulles airport, but more than 5 miles, so the change from 30 down to 15 miles helps me since I'm ~20 mi. from DC