America Proposes New Rules Requiring Drones to Broadcast Their Location Online (arstechnica.com) 120
LetterRip (Slashdot reader #30,937) shares a report from Ars Technica:
More than 34,000 people have deluged the Federal Aviation Administration with comments over a proposed regulation that would require almost every drone in the sky to broadcast its location over the Internet at all times. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, with thousands of hobbyists warning that the rules would impose huge new costs on those who simply wanted to continue flying model airplanes, home-built drones, or other personally owned devices...
The new rules are largely designed to address safety and security concerns raised by law enforcement agencies. They worry that drones flying too close to an airport could disrupt operations or even cause a crash. They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas. To address these concerns, the new FAA rule would require all new drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds to connect over the Internet to one of several location-tracking databases (still to be developed by private vendors) and provide real-time updates on their location. That would enable the FAA or law enforcement agencies to see, at a glance, which registered drones are in any particular area...
The rules require that the drone itself have an Internet connection. That will instantly render many existing drones obsolete, forcing hobbyists to upgrade or discard them. And it will also make it significantly more expensive to own a drone, since you'll need to sign up for a data plan.... Apparently anticipating a backlash, the FAA does offer a workaround for people with existing or custom-built aircraft: special FAA-designated areas where people could fly non-compliant aircraft. These would be run by "community-based organizations" — most likely existing model airplane clubs that already operate fields for hobbyists to fly their aircraft.
The new rules are largely designed to address safety and security concerns raised by law enforcement agencies. They worry that drones flying too close to an airport could disrupt operations or even cause a crash. They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas. To address these concerns, the new FAA rule would require all new drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds to connect over the Internet to one of several location-tracking databases (still to be developed by private vendors) and provide real-time updates on their location. That would enable the FAA or law enforcement agencies to see, at a glance, which registered drones are in any particular area...
The rules require that the drone itself have an Internet connection. That will instantly render many existing drones obsolete, forcing hobbyists to upgrade or discard them. And it will also make it significantly more expensive to own a drone, since you'll need to sign up for a data plan.... Apparently anticipating a backlash, the FAA does offer a workaround for people with existing or custom-built aircraft: special FAA-designated areas where people could fly non-compliant aircraft. These would be run by "community-based organizations" — most likely existing model airplane clubs that already operate fields for hobbyists to fly their aircraft.
Terrorists Never Flout the Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas." No real terrorist would dare to disable the internet connection on their drone of doom. Would they?
Not arguing this specifically, but as to the usual general argument that only law-abiding citizen will comply with [insert rule here], well.... everyone is a law-abiding citizen right up to the moment they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
A royal pain in the ass for complying to be law abiding vs. ignore the FAA. My bets are on ignoring the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm feeling kind of dumb anyway today, but I don't grok your point. This system will only let the authorities know if unadulterated consumer drones are going "astray", and there will MANY of those. Most of the dumbasses who get into trouble with drones now will not know they are being tracked and the cops will soon ignore the flood of reports about them. Given the potential for so much noise, even stupid casual terrorists will probably be able to hit their targets before anything can be done about it.
Re:Terrorists Never Flout the Law (Score:5, Funny)
An obvious compromise would be to only require location reporting from drones carrying explosives.
Re: Terrorists Never Flout the Law (Score:2)
Yes, a sensible start, leading eventually to a total ban on murdering people with drones.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon drones will sneeze on you. So there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An obvious compromise would be to only require location reporting from drones carrying explosives.
That would violate the second amendment...
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously have no idea how US law enforcer quotas work and catching drones would generate a nice fat fine.
Personally I go with generally banned except in your own property or with the property owners permission but local government can set aside place where they can be operated.
How big does a drone need to be, well, metal blades coated with poison instead of plastic blades and fly it at a persons neck and well, you are done and so are they. Drones can be really dangerous and thanks to the CIA fucking ar
Re: (Score:2)
And since frisbees can be fitted with razor blades, we'll need to expand the rules to cover those as well.
And of course, paper airplanes since you can stick a sewing pin in the nose.
Re: (Score:2)
Terror today in Manhattan as dozens of paper aircraft were released from the top of several of the city's tallest buildings.
Horrified onlookers could only wait several minutes, the skies above them darkening as the paper slowly fell, delayed by the occasional loop. Not knowing the vicious nature of the attack many failed to take cover, only to fall to the inevitable pin prick that let them know they too had been infected.
Re: (Score:2)
Continuing the news story: "Republicans are blaming Democrats for thwarting a bill which would have required GPS tracking on all paper airplanes, thus preventing such an attack."
Re: (Score:2)
Its like ships transponders... you can see real-time ships that suddenly stop broadcasting their location as they wander off to hok up with another ship (generally for illegal fishing [globalfishingwatch.org] but also to ship oil from certain states)
If they cannot prevent ships from doing this, what's the chance drone operators will care.
And the chance that an Islamic terrorist about to drop a bomb on a crowd (or a right-wing terrorist dropping a incendiary on a mosque) will have the tracking turned on is naievety in the extreme.
So
It's even worse than that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is the solution if they bring in the law.
One of these every day until they give up.
Re: (Score:2)
You underestimate the laziness of lawmakers. (Score:2)
They'd just make every drone user register with a passport and verified address and pay $1000 for a license, and if you send even one airport approach, fake or not, you're off to Guantanamo without a trial. (Legal now, thanks to the USA PATRIOT act.)
All so they don't have to actually work and come up with a legiimate law that does not harm the innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
"They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas." No real terrorist would dare to disable the internet connection on their drone of doom. Would they?
This attempt by the government to heavily regulate and control hobbyist/"civilian" drone use has nothing at all at it's roots to do with any of their stated reasons. The government from local law enforcement on up to federal agencies have been largely able to keep things they don't want the public to see and know away from public eyes. Drones change that and they see that as a major threat as they view the public as their adversaries because they seek to rule rather than govern and an informed & aware p
Re: (Score:2)
The goal is to stop low skill terrorists using drones.
A lot of terror attacks in the west are very low tech and low skill. Even the old favourite the home made bomb is going out of fashion. These days it's mostly easily available stuff: vehicles and knives or guns.
If the drone's firmware refuses to fly without an internet connection that will stop most terrorists from using it.
Re: (Score:1)
And how many times has a background check or waiting period helped against some massacre? Or reduced inner city gun violence? Crazy people and criminals don't care about the law.
Re: (Score:1)
And how many times has a background check or waiting period helped against some massacre?
We don't know, because congress prohibited funds from being used to research gun violence. You can't tell without statistical research, because a lack of a massacre is not something you can notice directly.
So it could be zero, it could very well be thousands of times. But as it stands, trying to use it as a point in an argument is just talking out your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that - as with most other intrusive anti-privacy regulation - the proposed regulation doesn't provide any meaningful increase in funding for the government agencies which will be expected to manage and monitor this new data. Which means whatever the stated purpose is of this new regulation, it will fail - while providing yet another potential avenue for some government agency or individual employee to figure out how to abuse.
Sometimes I wonder if the real purpose behind these sorts of regulat
I don't want drones near where I live. (Score:2)
Drones should be restricted to public drone areas, and away from populated areas. I've asked our city managers to make drones illegal in our city.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the be so restricted?
Safety? Did you know that the recreational use of multirotor drones has never resulted in a single death... ever... in the entire history of mankind? Meanwhile, Tesla's autopilot has accounted for how many deaths and injuries -- yet isn't restricted in any way.
Privacy? Did you know that the cameras on drones are wide-angle and therefore people are generally unrecognizable at distances beyond 20-30 yards? Compare this to the average camera built into a smartphone and you'l
Re: (Score:1)
Your entire list is based on supposition, rather than reality. Comparing a drone, with a battery less likely to explode than the average LG cell phone, with a nuclear power plant experiencing a catastrophic failure, is not only unreasonable, it should be unethical.
I don't want ignorant fearmongers in my neighborhood. Please leave immediately.
Re: (Score:1)
PS: Lawnmowers are noisier, more disruptive to animals, and far more dangerous.
Broken window fallacy. (Score:2)
1.Yeah, they make it harder... ... but they don't *solve* it. Granted, that would be a plus but ...
2. then, it's a quetion of how much harm the law itself does!
Because that harm is a crime too! And if you add it all together, it can easily surpass the good a thousandfold!
See: All the cameras in the UK. They did fuck-all but literally terrorize people.
In this case, the law would lump an entire community in and harm them, just because of quite a few mights and coulds.
When you could have only included those th
First drones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your car will be next.
That would be harder to justify. Drones kill way more people than cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither drones nor cars kill many people at all. Drone pilots and car drivers do nearly all the killing. We do way more drone strikes than cruise missile launches now, because they're cheaper.
Putting that aside, deaths by drone strike are in the single digits of thousands per year, while automotive deaths are over a million per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Your car will be next.
Actually, when the FAA starts caring about cars, requiring them to broadcast their positions will probably be a good idea... though, obviously, the "on the Internet" part will still be dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm on the road!"
Lets hope the regulations worry more about accuracy than precision.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So true... just look at how succesful prohibition was in the 1920s. People only obey just and fair laws -- they ignore those laws which are patently unjust, unfair or unjustified. The latest example is how the prohibition of cannibis is being repealed in an increasing number of states.
What's even more interesting is that the FAA has performed no formal, independently peer-reviewed risk assessment to justify these rules. They're claiming that they need to remove the freedoms of the public and cripple th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unenforceable laws just create false expectation , additional bureaucratic overhead and blackhole tax dollars that could have been used for something useful. Be better off spending that money on therapy for those in fear, to get over their lack of self-confidence towards their own survival.
The situation is much worse than you think: this isn't just an unenforceable law, it's all illegal law. In a free country, people have the right to fly drones provided they do so in a reasonable manner - this is a subset of the general right to reasonable conduct that is applicable in any contrary that claims to be free - where the people and not the government have the ultimate authority to determine what is reasonable. The vast majority of drone use is in fact reasonable - and as long as people are ope
Re: (Score:2)
They work really well at criminalising the entire populace. Which is a good thing to have in your pocket if anyone starts getting uppity, or saying things you don't want to be said. Pass enough silly laws like this which aren't enforced and eventually you can pick up any random Tom, Dick, or Harry and find something to arrest him for.
Extreme measures. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to have drones broadcast an ID or respond to inquiries then that's one thing but it's something else entirely to require actively and continuously broadcasting to a privately owned and operated network. This is just non-sense and nothing they are suggesting will make people any safer.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to have drones broadcast an ID or respond to inquiries then that's one thing but it's something else entirely to require actively and continuously broadcasting to a privately owned and operated network. This is just non-sense and nothing they are suggesting will make people any safer.
If I read the proposal correctly, the specifically prevent such a setup:
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment in transmit mode.
Re: (Score:2)
That provision only prohibits using ADS-B Out to implement the reporting provisions proposed.
The proposal is for an alternate system to provide significantly more detailed location information that ADS-B Out currently provides. It proposes that drones use cellphone modems to send this data to privately owned and operated data collection services.
So, yes, what the GP said is what's being proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
If drones must register through the internet, then a drone can be spoofed anywhere. If a drone must be equipped with a transponder, then spoofing can only occur locally and can be tracked.
skimmed through the text (Score:4, Interesting)
the gist is:
for "Standard remote identification UAS":
1) "If, at takeoff, the UAS cannot connect to the internet" : "Broadcast" (and, i assume, do take off)
2) "If, at takeoff, the UAS is connected to the internet, but is not transmitting to a Remote ID USS" : "Do not take off"
for "Limited remote identification UAS":
1&2 same as above) : "Do not take off."
so, no, there is no hard requirement for an internet connection. That requirement is only for "limited remote identification UAS"
*STANDARD remote identification UAS*: "would be required to broadcast identification and location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection."
*LIMITED remote identification UAS*: "would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station. "
HOWEVER!
"For purposes of this proposed rule, a âoelimited remote identification UASâ is a UAS that: (1) Is designed and produced to restrict operation to no more than 400 feet from its control station; (2) is CAPABLE OF CONNECTING TO THE INTERNET and transmitting the remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; [...] Persons operating a limited remote identification UAS would be required to operate within visual line of sight"
sooo getting mixed signals here
In any case, whatever that text says, this whole deal is absurd to say the least. Do they think the internet is like air? That you can connect to it from any point in the continent? Are these people high, stupid, stupidly high or highly stupid?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm usually pretty agnostic on such things, but it's pretty clear that this rule was basically purchased by the drone delivery folks to clear the low-altitude airspace and merely given a veneer of "for public safety."
Re: (Score:2)
ah fak
i think i wrote the first part in the wrong order...
the first numbered list refers to *limited*, not standard.
the second one ("1&2") refers to *standard*, not limited
as always, trust but verify
What a stupid idea! (Score:1)
Right because Mr. Allah Akbar is going to register (Score:2)
and transmit his location. WTF are these people smoking?
Transponders? (Score:2)
Here is a thought...instead of a continuous Internet connection, how about a small transponder like onboard other forms of aircraft?
Tell you what... (Score:2)
When you can get every gun carrying American to wear a smart phone that reports their GPS location once a minute to a similar system, then maybe you can ask for it for the drone users. A drone probably has a 0.001% chance of going near an airport and causing a problem, but people with guns kill people every day.
2427 guns deaths in the U.S. already this year, including 604 kids shot. Another 4210 gun injuries on top of that. A drone is not even worth people's time to worry about if you're concerned about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't drones near airports that were causing the problem. It was looky Lou who just had to see the forest fire close up, forcing the water tankers to divert until they we're sure the drone had gone.
Title Fail (Score:1)
"America Proposes..." means that official representatives of America would make a proposition in an international forum, for a joint international rule set.
"FAA proposes" would have been more correct.
And BTW, America is first a continent. For most people in the world, who do not have English as their mother-tongue, "America" means the continent and not a nation. Not everyone who speaks English says "America" to mean USA either. Better to use the word "USA" instead of "America" to avoid this ambiguity.
Re: (Score:2)
Greek here.
i use 'usa' or 'the states' when talking in english
in greek i'll use the equivalent of 'america' to refer to the country, unless in a very strict context, like a lecture, official document or similar, in which case i'll use the unabbreviated name the first time and Î--.Î.Î'. from then on
i bet my left nut anyone who can understand what is presented on /. will *not* be confused when "America" is used to refer to the states, not the continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, 'America' is not a continent. 'North America' and 'South America' are continents. Pretty much every English speaker uses 'American' when talking about U.S. citizens, as opposed to 'Canadian', 'Mexican' or the other Central American residents of the North American continent.
Using 'American' when referring to U.S. residents in English makes more sense than using 'Norteamericano' does in Spanish, because the former is specifically NOT referring to an entire continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Although Canadians (et al) are also American, by virtue of being from the Americas.
Which really confuses the Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno when this started in recent years to be a thing.
USA = United States of America......and short for that is "America"...
That's also why we're knows as American's when speaking of us as a people.
It
How about for guns & vehicles? (Score:3)
Won't stop any crimes (Score:1)
"They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas. "
Terrorists are not going to comply with the new rules if they are allowed to go into effect.
It's the same old song and dance - the delusion that laws will somehow stop criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides which, terrorists have had this capability for almost 20 years. I'm the guy who highlighted the risk from DIY cruise missiles way back in 2002. That project got me into a heap of trouble but buy building a "proof of concept" craft using stuff sourced off the internet and from the local hardware store, I proved that it was possible. That nobody has done this in the 18 years since kind of proves that it's not the risk I (and now the FAA) thought it was.
https://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml
https
Areas to fly "non-compliant drones" etc (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual wording of the proposal suggests that allowing "non-compliant" aircraft to fly at designated fields is just a temporary thing. They expect that these "drones" will soon be obsolete and no longer flying at all. Which is really silly if they knew anything about the hobby whatsoever. They furthermore state they require a manufacturer's serial number to be registered. It's a totally bizarre disconnect with reality. My planes are built from sticks covered with plastic film. There is no "manufacturer" per se. Certainly no serial number.
But the more serious objection is that the FAA has no authority to govern airspace below 400' except on approaches or with specific authorization (life flight). Any full scale aircraft flying below 400' are doing so in violation of regulations and laws. Any RC aircraft flying above that are likely in violation of the law already. We've got enough public safety laws that can effectively govern the hobby already. Many cities ban flying toys in public parks. Of the many near-miss drone reports near airports, not one has been proven to actually be a drone. In fact in several cases police admitted later there was likely no drone.
Perhaps the hobby as I've enjoyed it for many years was dying with kids not being interesting in building from sticks anymore, but this will surely kill it.
Companies like FliteTest who are built on the idea of helping kids learn STEM and get excited about flight will be pretty much shut down by this kind of nonsense. I was going to build some FliteTest aircraft with youth groups, but this puts an end to that.
I don't think we can blame idiots abusing their toys for this either. Seems most likely these regulations are being bought and paid for by industry players who feel threatened by the rise of low-cost technology that threatens to make them obsolete. They are certainly not about public safety--again, aircraft should not be flying below 400' without authorization. There's just no reason for this sort of rubbish with sub-400', visual line of sight toy flying.
In the meantime sub-250g airplanes and mini drones are proliferating and are really fun. Don't tell anyone they can be FPV, carry 4K cameras, and fly for 20 minutes on a bettery.
Re: (Score:2)
when they say 400', do they mean sea level, ground level... ? how *exactly* is that measured?
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA defines the space where airplanes fly as 400' above ground level (AGL).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That makes you the manufacturer. You'll need to assign a serial number compliant with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. This will require you to join CTA (The Consumer Technology Association. I believe the minimum dues are something like $5000 per annum), and then obtain a manufacturer ID. There are 10,000 possible manufacturer IDs but I don't know what CTA charges to get one. Simple, reasonable, reg
Denial of service (Score:1)
Reminds me of this..
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/... [thesun.co.uk]
I hope they implement anti spoofing, otherwise some north Korean script kiddies creates a swarm of virtual drones over JFK..
Keep under the radar (Score:2)
Stealth drones won't only be for the military after this.
New FAA initiative (Score:2)
Tagging geese with a tracker. This can be a bit tricky with non-domesticated geese, they'll have to chase them if they want to attach the tracker.
Regulations like this should go through Congress (Score:2)
Unelected bureaucrats should only propose. All regulations, rules or interpretations should have to go through Congress, just like a law.
Hopefully one day SCOTUS forces Congress to stop delegating its responsibilities and actually votes on these issues.
A pattern behind such lawcrimes: Prejudice! (Score:2)
Note how it always follows the same pattern:
"*Everyone* in a group *has to* suffer $y
because *some* in that group *might* $x."
Which strikes me as awfully analogous to "every Jew ..." (just to end the discussion outright ;).
Complete prejudice. Punishing everyone for the faults of a few in that group. Even merely presumed faults.
But seriously ... shouldn't a legitimate law instead go "Everyone who 1. *actually does* $x, where 2. $x also actually does harm, shall suffer a disadvantage."?
No, laziness does not j
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately your analogy fails due to the voluntary nature of inclusion within the drone flying group, so we can ignore it and move on.
Here's another good reason (Score:2)
The price of progress ... (Score:2)
... is modeled (see what I did there) by the growth of automobiles.
Look at the registration, inspection, insurance, licensing, seat belts, air bags and all that.
I'm all for this. Let the free range drones pony up, and take the others to a compliant field.
Nice! (Score:2)
So we'll get good coverage finally in Buttfuck, Idaho?
This is the GOP's idea of small government (Score:2)
The head of the FAA is a Trump appointee. This is the GOP hard at work, taking away your freedoms and replacing them with security theater that does NOTHING to improve security.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fret. You can count on democrats hard at work fighting to revoke your freedoms of free speech, due process, and to own a firearm. The best part is that making it illegal to have a gun is definitely not security theater, and will ensure no bad guys have guns. Now that's a security improvement!
If you dislike what the FAA is doing, remember the power they exercise here only exists in the first place because a democratic led congress passed that buck to them. Democrats also currently lead the house co
No way! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
DJI will force you to comply, they can shut down all their drones (unless you've hacked yours). As a commercial pilot, you dare not refuse to comply; if they catch non-pilots, they can only fine us. If they catch you flying a drone without remote ID, they can pull your real certificate.
I am thinking speakers (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Or you could just ignore the rules (Score:1)
Summary is inaccurate (Score:2)
Despite the implications in the summary, the problem with this rule as currently proposed is that it applies to ALL model aircraft activity, not just drones. The R/C modellers who have been flying scale model aircraft for decades without causing problems are lumped in with the rogue drone operators who are buying completed DJI drones off-the-shelf and flying them recklessly.
Secondly, the summary implies this regulation is primarily addressing the concerns of law enforcement. Also not true. This regulation i
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on with your summary, much better than the original.
The correct answer is to put the regulatory and technology burdens on the large corporate entities that want to fly drone fleets, and also on the manufacturers of off-the-shelf drones, and not on the hobbyist R/C flyers who can neither afford nor require that level of technology nor supervision.
Which will never happen.
The government only really cares about the businesses and people with money. They don't care about the people in parks with home built products, the people in the RC clubs who are enthusiasts. Any damage to them --- regardless of their overall importance to the future of avionics as the budding students and explorers --- is irrelevant to government agencies. They only see the companies taking photographic surveys, the delive
Fuck drones (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Short Sighted Proposal (Score:2)
I'm curious, exactly, how the FAA plans on making this a reality since we can't even get the FCC to mandate the Telecoms cover 100% of the Continental US with wireless / cellular coverage.
Can't broadcast your position on the internet without a network of some sort.
( See recent Slashdot story about rental car that refused to start due to lack of network connectivity in rural area. )
In addition, a constant broadcast will just eat those batteries that much faster :|
I might be convinced of this plan if, and onl
Re: (Score:2)
Through the magic of "not our problem". If your "limited" remote ID drone can't get a signal somewhere, you just can't fly it there. If you have a "standard" remote ID drone, you can fly it and it'll broadcast location via RF... but if you have a shitty connection such that it _thinks_ you have a connection but it can't
The Ivory Tower (Score:2)
It figures that technologists and legislator spout off about their respective work product from the ivory tower of islands of broadband internet access. Both of these groups need to remember that there are lots of places in the country where there is no internet or cellular service (and they aren't too far from a major city) yet these are precisely the places where UAVs for search & rescue are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
What, because of all the thousands of dead from drone accidents?
Exactly what crimes do you think that have been going on?
Re: (Score:2)
I also have problems with RTF or RTR kits, as thats not really modeling in any air or ground hobby in my opinion. They are just toys at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the existing community it is the drones-as-a-toy
Why are toy drones a problem?
I live next to a public park. Soccer games are much louder than drones and one or two soccer balls land in my backyard every weekend. Should the federal government license and regulate soccer balls?
I also have problems with RTF or RTR kits
You seem to have "problems" with a lot of toys.
Re: (Score:2)
Toys deserve regulation separate from the hobby industry. Sadly this isn't happening. The actual hobby industry has it's own allowed frequencies that they obey - the drone toys should be regulated to use a different frequency set, then regulate that with registration requirements.
I have no problem with toys per say, just when they get lumped into a hobby that at least used to require some fundamental understanding of
Re: (Score:1)
"Toy drones are a problem because they are being lumped into the model aircraft hobby. "
Some of us build our own drones instead of going to a toy store to buy them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced the toys need any regulation. They're small, light, and not all that capable. They're mostly flown in the yard or even indoors.
At the rate we're going, next up will be kites bought at the convenience store.
The hobby drones also aren't a real problem. There are a few idiots with too much money, of course but even they haven't caused much in the way of real problems with drones..
The biggest problems are imaginary drones, and the drones with feathers that honk a lot. The closest I have seen t
Re: (Score:2)
1/10. Did you even try? That was honestly the most pathetic troll I've seen in a long time.
Re: (Score:3)
This is more of a manufactured problem. There have been very few actual incidents with civillian drones. For years the FAA has been manufacturing incidents, such as calling any instance where a pilot sees anything that could have been a drone thousands of feet below the plane's minimum altitude for the area a "near miss" (even though the drone in question was physically incapable of flying high enough to actually threaten aircraft).
You can't police against imaginary problems.
Re: (Score:2)
If those drone owners are not part of a community (ie: club or other congregation of like-minded individuals) then how do you suggest that this happen?
You also need to check your facts... on a per-capita and per-craft basis, drone pilots and their drones are actually better-behaved than the manned aviation equivalents.
1.5 million drones registered in the USA -- only 220,000 manned aircraft. How many have died as a result of recreational multirotor drone incidents? How many have died as a result of manned
Re: (Score:2)
"The model aircraft community failed to police drone owners "
that's because we are not the police and we have no right to tell others what to do