14 ms·

U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered

171 points by davidbarker 11y ago

MichaelApproved 11y ago
I love the progress drones have given our society. From surveying property to beautiful aerial views in a video to cool view of your kids soccer game to just plain fun. Drones are amazing. You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once. However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringing on the use of drones. I'd like to see the registration used mostly to enforce the rules and track a drone back to its owner. Ideally, drones should also broadcast its ID, so it's easy for other pilots to know they're in the area and also allow LEO to ticket/fine for offences. Without a broadcasting ID, most of these rules will be hard to enforce.
- striking 11y ago
  But then again, what if people start harvesting people's identities from the drones through the identifier? I think it's a neat idea, but it straddles the 4th Amendment line and could potentially expose your identity to people who don't like drones.
  - objclxt 11y ago
    ...really? Because both aircraft and road vehicles today have identifiers painted or printed on them. What about driving around with a license plate or flying with a tail number? What's the difference?
    - striking 11y ago
      It would make sense to expose an identifier, rather than the person's identity. I may have misunderstood the comment.
      - shoegumfoot 11y ago
        Would it be correct to think that you would be shocked to learn that the FAA has a publicly-accessible aircraft registration database? http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Aircraft and cars kill people daily. Constantly. Cars more. Aircraft sometimes more tragically.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    Well if you're flying a real plane or copter, you have its registration number widely visible. No difference there.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    You don't have a right to privacy in public spaces. You can be a weirdo and wear a baclava and only travel by foot or use cash to use public transit, but that behavior in itself de-anonymizes you.
    - jnbiche 11y ago
      Yum, baclava! Or perhaps you're thinking of a "balaclava"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_(clothing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_(clothing)
      - Spooky23 11y ago
        Haha autocorrect strikes again! Walking around with baclava would make you popular if you shared though!
    - resoluteteeth 11y ago
      > You can be a weirdo and wear a [balaclava] That's actually illegal in Virginia: http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-422.html http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-42...
- ctdonath 11y ago
  What is registration supposed to do? Broadly, those who will register are responsible enough to not be a problem, those idiots you want to control won't register, and it all just ends up mostly harassing the wrong people. Have and enforce laws against bad behavior, yes, but stop this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.
  - objclxt 11y ago
    Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.
    - Malstrond 11y ago
      Only if you drive them on public roads. So maybe not a public road -> airspace below a certain height?
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?). I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.
      - krasin 11y ago
        >Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.
        ctdonath 11y ago
        It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.
saulrh 11y ago
And now we hope that their definition of "drone" doesn't include traditional RC aircraft, ten-dollar indoor micro-quadcopters, paper airplanes, RC cars, model rockets, or children's balloons. Edit: oh, and that it does include commercial airliners under autopilot, military aircraft under autopilot, NASA-scale rocket launches, and military guided missiles and cruise missiles.
- objclxt 11y ago
  Somehow I have a feeling commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and rocket launches are already registered with the US government. Just a feeling.
  - saulrh 11y ago
    Oh, certainly. I just also want them registered and generally recognised as being "drones". I get really annoyed at people who scream about "future killer drones changing warfare" and "how can they possibly be safe" while they're sitting on an airliner that's been under computer guidance since it finished taxiing and when the US military has been using guided missiles since the 50s.
    - threeseed 11y ago
      And I get annoyed by people who simply don't "get it". Nobody cares about the definition of a drone. It is irrelevant whether it is manned/unmanned, large/small, heavy/light etc. They care that they are used safely and don't put innocent people at risk. Aircraft pilots and government officials go through rigorous training to ensure that anything they do is safe. A 15 year old kid buying one off the internet does not. Hence the need for regulations.
    - rcthompson 11y ago
      An aircraft flying under autopilot with a human pilot present who is monitoring the situation and can respond to ATC instructions and take manual control if necessary is not remotely similar to a UAV from a practical perspective, despite the superficial similarity of both being flown by a computer.
Malstrond 11y ago
I'm wondering how this will be implemented. If used recreationally, they're R/C flying models, no matter how much the DJI marketing dept likes the term. So will the the hobby that has been fine for decades be hit too? Will you have to register a Cheerson CX-Stars that weighs 8g? What about the congressional Special Rule for Model Aircraft? "Technically it's not the FAA so we can regulate everything!" or what? They're also not that hard to build yourself and the components are shared with other things (e.g. motors are shared with R/C cars and the first popular flight controller was an Arduino with the sensors from a Wii Motion Plus or Nunchuk) so you can't ban the part sales.
- MichaelApproved 11y ago
  You can't ban parts but couldn't you enforce a a rule that restricts airspace above a certain height to only registered devices?
  - Malstrond 11y ago
    This is already true. Model aircraft have to be flown within visual line of sight (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 336), which restricts the height. Commercial use is already FAA territory and you have to be registered (Section 333 Exemption). /Edit: Section 336, not 366.
    - sopooneo 11y ago
      I'm delving deep here, but it seems that section primarily states what the FAA will not regulate or "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding". To my reading, it does not state that operation outside those guidelines necessarily does put a craft under the FAA jurisdiction. I admit I could be reading it completely wrong. But then if you look at this page[1] on the FAAs web site, it says only that operators are "strongly encouraged" to follow certain restrictions like line-of-sight operation. It doesn't say they have to. Mind you, I follow all those rules myself when flying rc planes, and prefer that other in the hobby also do. I think they're good rules. I'm just playing with interpretation. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/
barefoot 11y ago
In case anyone is reading from NBC, would you mind using the term "UAV" or "RPA" over "drone"? When we throw around the word "drone" here on reddit and hacker news I feel like it's okay because many of us know the key differences between what we're flying and the hellfire raining completely terrifying semi-automated flying death machines deployed in war-zones around the world. However, many people who read your articles might not be so well informed. Many people have an incorrect and confused understanding of them and to them the word "drone" carries that jumbled mess of an associations. It would be helpful to everyone involved to use more precise modern language. You may argue - as the ACLU has - that the word "drone" is the most direct way to talk about unmanned aerial vehicles to the broad public. It may be easy to use and direct, but it's far from accurate. As Edward Murrow famously said "We cannot make good news out of bad practice."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- sopooneo 11y ago
  I'm with you, but at some point the battle is lost, and you're throwing good effort after bad.
  - Malstrond 11y ago
    People can be pretty stubborn about that, look at the title of this website. :-) The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart.
    - unimpressive 11y ago
      >The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart. Part of the reason for that is the hacker community made up a word that no self respecting person would use to describe themselves. The modern 'computer hacking' culture came out of the phreaker community and IMO is the proper description for this activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking
phren0logy 11y ago
If I attach a gun to it, then can I avoid registering it?
joshmn 11y ago
I won't be surprised if failing to be in compliance while flying a UAV/RPA results in being arrested.
jug5 11y ago
Land of the free.
mindcrime 11y ago
This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Not because it doesn't possibly have some noble intent behind it, but - if for no other reason - because it's going to be bloody impossible to enforce. When any hobbyist can easily build a drone/UAV without much in the way of special skills or equipment, how in the hell do they ever expect they'll get everybody to register them?
- discardorama 11y ago
  I'm guessing that they're not worried about the hobbyists, who are generally more responsible; but the random people getting assembled drones as Xmas gifts.
  - saulrh 11y ago
    Maybe there'll be a DIY exception like firearms have?
    - deckerdoes 11y ago
      I'm curious, what kind of firearm is classified as DIY and registration is not required?
      - mrbill 11y ago
        Anything short of full-auto or under 0.50 bore (more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons). Even then, certain categories (SBRs, AOWs) can be legally owned after paperwork and filing for a tax stamp ($5 for AOWs transfers, $200 for SBRs and supressors). This is why you see AR15 "80% Complete Lowers" being sold. You buy what is basically a chunk of metal, finish the machining (can be done with a special jig and a drill press), and you can have a functional AR15 that nobody but you has any knowledge of. The "upper receiver" and barrel, trigger parts kit, bolt assembly, and other bits are just pieces parts and pipe, as far as UPS and anyone else is concerned. When I built my AR15 (out of a locally purchased fully complete lower), I bought the upper receiver assembly online and UPS delivered it to my front door. Plus, not all states require registration of "normal" firearms. In Texas, the only "registration" is the ATF Form 4473 that is filled out at time of purchase, and those are held by the seller, not the government. http://www.vice.com/video/diy-guns-591 http://www.vice.com/video/diy-guns-591
kakakakaren 11y ago
Huh. I've been seeing a lot of startup friends transition into public policy & lobbying centered around tech. I wonder if legislation is the next phase of the industry?
neurotech1 11y ago
One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders. The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV. It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.
- lotu 11y ago
  That is a fucking sane and logical idea, no wonder no one has mentioned it.
- plantain 11y ago
  There is nothing about aviation GPS's that make them high accuracy. In fact they're mostly inferior to consumer GPS equipment. What drives up the cost is certification of the equipment.
  - swingbridge 11y ago
    Certification and also a lot more technology behind figuring out when the position data is inaccurate. Aviation GPS units will run forward looking simulations (for example when flying a GPS landing approach) and figure out that satellites are about to be in a suboptimal position and warn the pilot accordingly.
    - hueving 11y ago
      That's still a simple thing to do with software. The cost of the device shouldn't go up because of that.
curiousjorge 11y ago
how do they expect to enforce this?
canow 11y ago
They probably should require all birds to be geolocated as well... since they present about the same level of danger to real aircrafts..
- Jupe 11y ago
  Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know. Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous. Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.
  - canow 11y ago
    but tiny toy battery-operated "drones" typically fly at much lower altitude then any jet engine would be flying at... while some birds fly at much higher altitudes then toy quadcopters...
  - sleepybrett 11y ago
    My little racing drone is certainly carbon fiber but it weighs a couple hundred grams. DJI phantoms, last model I saw is built of plastic. There hasn't been a recorded plane v drone crash that I've seen documented (the last one that hit the news ended up being birds). Regardless the rules say under 400', not within 5 miles of an airport and some other locations. I'm not opposed to a drone 'license plate', I'm all for fining or jailing people that are flying these things near the white house. I'm seeing a lot of hysteria right now triggered by some jackasses who can't be responsible with their toys.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Wikipedia has that bird strikes "cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million within the United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial aircraft worldwide." So far drone strikes (excluding deliberate military stuff) have caused damages of $0 I think.
narrator 11y ago
All the big consumer drone makers are in China. I love how all sorts of unregulated surprisingly powerful tech comes out of China. The last mischief they engaged in was way too powerful lasers. They just don't have the fear of science in that country like we have in America.
- bizkeep2 11y ago
  It's all good until you fall down an elevator shaft.
- threeseed 11y ago
  Nothing more exciting then a unregulated wild west. Especially for a place like China with 2x the driver mortality rate of the US, staggering deaths caused by pollution and industrial accidents and swathes of land irreparably polluted. And of course the Chinese love it. That's why they are desperate for Western products like baby milk formula, vitamins and services in the health and old age sectors. But of course the US is totally scared of science. What with being the hub of almost all successful startups.
- guelo 11y ago
  It's all invented here.
  - chillacy 11y ago
    That's been less true in recent times. Nowadays the factories have moved up in the design chain towards remixing their own designs. There's also more than one hardware startup accelerator that flys founders to shenzen since it's so much more efficient to work locally. And regarding this meta commentary of thinking that China as merely the assemblers of american inventors, remember that this was thought of Japan and korea in the 70s and 80s, which now produce some good quality cars and TVs, respectively. I wonder if engineers at GM or Zenith (last great american TV brand) scoffed and thought the same in 1980.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    No it's not.
canow 11y ago
Drones are army planes that can fly for hours and probably weight hundreds if not thousands of pounds... Quadcopters are toys that can fly for minutes and weight only a few pounds...
- Evolved 11y ago
  "Drone" covers all UAVs/RPVs whether small enough to fit on your palm or large enough to need a full size air strip to launch. All UAVs are drones and all drones are UAVs. Not all drones are quadcopters but all quadcopters are drones. Even in the strictest definition, what we commonly call "R/C Planes/Helicopters" actually qualify as "drones." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
  - serf 11y ago
    >...but all quadcopters are drones. Well, not all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Bothezat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Bothezat http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v0ADuoE1cY/VHsBwdH-YGI/AAAAAAAAAhU/W55JRIKrwg8/s1600/Quad.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v0ADuoE1cY/VHsBwdH-YGI/AAAAAAAAAh...
    - Evolved 11y ago
      Well played, sir.
  - canow 11y ago
    ok, so just use an helicopter and load it with some random human and you'll be fine... no restrictions (as long as you don't crash). I'll use this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hughes-269A-Helicopter-/201447206828?hash=item2ee7306fac:g:6o8AAOSwwbdWGwI9&vxp=mtr http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hughes-269A-Helicopter-/201447206828...
    - mikeash 11y ago
      You might be interested to learn that the FAA has strict regulations on the registration and operation of helicopters, and the licensing of their pilots.
dham 11y ago
They just need to make these drones kit only and harder to fly. I've been flying RC with my dad since the early 90s. You would spend a month building these gas powered planes or helis. Only way to learn to fly was through other people or crashing a lot. It def kept irresponsible people out of the hobby. Plus you have to have skill to fly a 6 channel collective pitch heli. These things are not toys.
gesman 11y ago
I just found a tiny little drone on my backyard. Poor little thing crashed and now it's mine! :)
jongraehl 11y ago
Sure, new-tech drones should respond to a targeted ping w/ serial number or similar. Simple challenge/response crypto could avoid cloning/spoofing. Enforcement of registration: no response = police will follow the drone to its owner and ticket (else impound). Physical serial number for legacy drones.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- babuskov 11y ago
  It happens in every area. If there weren't malicious programmers, we wouldn't have to spend CPU cycles on anti-viruses and firewalls. If there weren't for SPAM, e-mail communication would be more enjoyable, etc. By definition, ~50% of the population has below average intelligence.
  - mrep 11y ago
    I think you mean median intelligence :)
  - fortyseven 11y ago
    The usual "hospitals would be great if it wasn't for the patients" applies. :-)
code_sterling 11y ago
I'm just curious, have we had an instance where a quadcopter has caused the crash of a commercial aircraft? I've seen birds filleted by tiny copters, and I can't help but feel this is more fear than anything. But I honestly don't know.
- jkaljundi 11y ago
  No we have not.
fiatmoney 11y ago
I'd love to see exactly what legislation they believe gives them the authority to enforce this kind of regime by regulatory fiat. And I'd also love to see how they plan on getting around the very clearly required notice-and-comment period for new regulations, to say nothing of sweeping new regulatory frameworks (no way this happens legally by Christmas, which in this context probably means "day after thanksgiving"). This quote: "Under the plan, the government would work with the drone industry to set up a structure for registering the drones" makes me hope that they're planning on an ineffective and widely ignored warranty-card type system.
ck2 11y ago
Just use your drone as a gun holster and then politicians will be too terrified to make any laws about it.

171 points by davidbarker 11y ago

I love the progress drones have given our society. From surveying property to beautiful aerial views in a video to cool view of your kids soccer game to just plain fun. Drones are amazing. You can buy a great drone and get amazing shots over and over for less than it would cost to hire a helicopter once. However, they also pose a risk. I'd favor a simple registration process and clear cut rules that are not infringing on the use of drones. I'd like to see the registration used mostly to enforce the rules and track a drone back to its owner. Ideally, drones should also broadcast its ID, so it's easy for other pilots to know they're in the area and also allow LEO to ticket/fine for offences. Without a broadcasting ID, most of these rules will be hard to enforce.

striking 11y ago
But then again, what if people start harvesting people's identities from the drones through the identifier? I think it's a neat idea, but it straddles the 4th Amendment line and could potentially expose your identity to people who don't like drones.
- objclxt 11y ago
  ...really? Because both aircraft and road vehicles today have identifiers painted or printed on them. What about driving around with a license plate or flying with a tail number? What's the difference?
  - striking 11y ago
    It would make sense to expose an identifier, rather than the person's identity. I may have misunderstood the comment.
    - shoegumfoot 11y ago
      Would it be correct to think that you would be shocked to learn that the FAA has a publicly-accessible aircraft registration database? http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Inquiry.aspx
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Aircraft and cars kill people daily. Constantly. Cars more. Aircraft sometimes more tragically.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  Well if you're flying a real plane or copter, you have its registration number widely visible. No difference there.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  You don't have a right to privacy in public spaces. You can be a weirdo and wear a baclava and only travel by foot or use cash to use public transit, but that behavior in itself de-anonymizes you.
  - jnbiche 11y ago
    Yum, baclava! Or perhaps you're thinking of a "balaclava"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_(clothing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_(clothing)
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      Haha autocorrect strikes again! Walking around with baclava would make you popular if you shared though!
  - resoluteteeth 11y ago
    > You can be a weirdo and wear a [balaclava] That's actually illegal in Virginia: http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-422.html http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-42...
ctdonath 11y ago
What is registration supposed to do? Broadly, those who will register are responsible enough to not be a problem, those idiots you want to control won't register, and it all just ends up mostly harassing the wrong people. Have and enforce laws against bad behavior, yes, but stop this "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.
- objclxt 11y ago
  Would you apply the same logic to cars? Because I think all of your points apply equally to cars, but nobody seems to object to the idea of both registering them and requiring a license to drive.
  - Malstrond 11y ago
    Only if you drive them on public roads. So maybe not a public road -> airspace below a certain height?
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?). I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.
    - krasin 11y ago
      >Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.
      - ctdonath 11y ago
        It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.

saulrh 11y ago

And now we hope that their definition of "drone" doesn't include traditional RC aircraft, ten-dollar indoor micro-quadcopters, paper airplanes, RC cars, model rockets, or children's balloons. Edit: oh, and that it does include commercial airliners under autopilot, military aircraft under autopilot, NASA-scale rocket launches, and military guided missiles and cruise missiles.

objclxt 11y ago
Somehow I have a feeling commercial aircraft, military aircraft, and rocket launches are already registered with the US government. Just a feeling.
- saulrh 11y ago
  Oh, certainly. I just also want them registered and generally recognised as being "drones". I get really annoyed at people who scream about "future killer drones changing warfare" and "how can they possibly be safe" while they're sitting on an airliner that's been under computer guidance since it finished taxiing and when the US military has been using guided missiles since the 50s.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    And I get annoyed by people who simply don't "get it". Nobody cares about the definition of a drone. It is irrelevant whether it is manned/unmanned, large/small, heavy/light etc. They care that they are used safely and don't put innocent people at risk. Aircraft pilots and government officials go through rigorous training to ensure that anything they do is safe. A 15 year old kid buying one off the internet does not. Hence the need for regulations.
  - rcthompson 11y ago
    An aircraft flying under autopilot with a human pilot present who is monitoring the situation and can respond to ATC instructions and take manual control if necessary is not remotely similar to a UAV from a practical perspective, despite the superficial similarity of both being flown by a computer.

Malstrond 11y ago

I'm wondering how this will be implemented. If used recreationally, they're R/C flying models, no matter how much the DJI marketing dept likes the term. So will the the hobby that has been fine for decades be hit too? Will you have to register a Cheerson CX-Stars that weighs 8g? What about the congressional Special Rule for Model Aircraft? "Technically it's not the FAA so we can regulate everything!" or what? They're also not that hard to build yourself and the components are shared with other things (e.g. motors are shared with R/C cars and the first popular flight controller was an Arduino with the sensors from a Wii Motion Plus or Nunchuk) so you can't ban the part sales.

MichaelApproved 11y ago
You can't ban parts but couldn't you enforce a a rule that restricts airspace above a certain height to only registered devices?
- Malstrond 11y ago
  This is already true. Model aircraft have to be flown within visual line of sight (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 336), which restricts the height. Commercial use is already FAA territory and you have to be registered (Section 333 Exemption). /Edit: Section 336, not 366.
  - sopooneo 11y ago
    I'm delving deep here, but it seems that section primarily states what the FAA will not regulate or "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding". To my reading, it does not state that operation outside those guidelines necessarily does put a craft under the FAA jurisdiction. I admit I could be reading it completely wrong. But then if you look at this page[1] on the FAAs web site, it says only that operators are "strongly encouraged" to follow certain restrictions like line-of-sight operation. It doesn't say they have to. Mind you, I follow all those rules myself when flying rc planes, and prefer that other in the hobby also do. I think they're good rules. I'm just playing with interpretation. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

barefoot 11y ago

In case anyone is reading from NBC, would you mind using the term "UAV" or "RPA" over "drone"? When we throw around the word "drone" here on reddit and hacker news I feel like it's okay because many of us know the key differences between what we're flying and the hellfire raining completely terrifying semi-automated flying death machines deployed in war-zones around the world. However, many people who read your articles might not be so well informed. Many people have an incorrect and confused understanding of them and to them the word "drone" carries that jumbled mess of an associations. It would be helpful to everyone involved to use more precise modern language. You may argue - as the ACLU has - that the word "drone" is the most direct way to talk about unmanned aerial vehicles to the broad public. It may be easy to use and direct, but it's far from accurate. As Edward Murrow famously said "We cannot make good news out of bad practice."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sopooneo 11y ago
I'm with you, but at some point the battle is lost, and you're throwing good effort after bad.
- Malstrond 11y ago
  People can be pretty stubborn about that, look at the title of this website. :-) The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart.
  - unimpressive 11y ago
    >The battle about the meaning of hacker (vs. cracker) was lost in the 80ies, yet some communities continue to use it in the old sense of the word to set themselves apart. Part of the reason for that is the hacker community made up a word that no self respecting person would use to describe themselves. The modern 'computer hacking' culture came out of the phreaker community and IMO is the proper description for this activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phreaking

phren0logy 11y ago

If I attach a gun to it, then can I avoid registering it?

joshmn 11y ago

I won't be surprised if failing to be in compliance while flying a UAV/RPA results in being arrested.

jug5 11y ago

Land of the free.

mindcrime 11y ago

This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in my life. Not because it doesn't possibly have some noble intent behind it, but - if for no other reason - because it's going to be bloody impossible to enforce. When any hobbyist can easily build a drone/UAV without much in the way of special skills or equipment, how in the hell do they ever expect they'll get everybody to register them?

discardorama 11y ago
I'm guessing that they're not worried about the hobbyists, who are generally more responsible; but the random people getting assembled drones as Xmas gifts.
- saulrh 11y ago
  Maybe there'll be a DIY exception like firearms have?
  - deckerdoes 11y ago
    I'm curious, what kind of firearm is classified as DIY and registration is not required?
    - mrbill 11y ago
      Anything short of full-auto or under 0.50 bore (more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons). Even then, certain categories (SBRs, AOWs) can be legally owned after paperwork and filing for a tax stamp ($5 for AOWs transfers, $200 for SBRs and supressors). This is why you see AR15 "80% Complete Lowers" being sold. You buy what is basically a chunk of metal, finish the machining (can be done with a special jig and a drill press), and you can have a functional AR15 that nobody but you has any knowledge of. The "upper receiver" and barrel, trigger parts kit, bolt assembly, and other bits are just pieces parts and pipe, as far as UPS and anyone else is concerned. When I built my AR15 (out of a locally purchased fully complete lower), I bought the upper receiver assembly online and UPS delivered it to my front door. Plus, not all states require registration of "normal" firearms. In Texas, the only "registration" is the ATF Form 4473 that is filled out at time of purchase, and those are held by the seller, not the government. http://www.vice.com/video/diy-guns-591 http://www.vice.com/video/diy-guns-591

kakakakaren 11y ago

Huh. I've been seeing a lot of startup friends transition into public policy & lobbying centered around tech. I wonder if legislation is the next phase of the industry?

neurotech1 11y ago

One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders. The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV. It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.

lotu 11y ago
That is a fucking sane and logical idea, no wonder no one has mentioned it.
plantain 11y ago
There is nothing about aviation GPS's that make them high accuracy. In fact they're mostly inferior to consumer GPS equipment. What drives up the cost is certification of the equipment.
- swingbridge 11y ago
  Certification and also a lot more technology behind figuring out when the position data is inaccurate. Aviation GPS units will run forward looking simulations (for example when flying a GPS landing approach) and figure out that satellites are about to be in a suboptimal position and warn the pilot accordingly.
  - hueving 11y ago
    That's still a simple thing to do with software. The cost of the device shouldn't go up because of that.

curiousjorge 11y ago

how do they expect to enforce this?

canow 11y ago

They probably should require all birds to be geolocated as well... since they present about the same level of danger to real aircrafts..

Jupe 11y ago
Is this true? Does anyone have evidence of this claim? I hear it a lot, but I don't know. Many "drones" are build with super-tough carbon fiber frames. Additionally, LiPo batteries (very common in quad copters) can be quite hazardous. Combine these together and toss one into a running jet engine - I don't believe the danger would be "about the same" as a bird.
- canow 11y ago
  but tiny toy battery-operated "drones" typically fly at much lower altitude then any jet engine would be flying at... while some birds fly at much higher altitudes then toy quadcopters...
- sleepybrett 11y ago
  My little racing drone is certainly carbon fiber but it weighs a couple hundred grams. DJI phantoms, last model I saw is built of plastic. There hasn't been a recorded plane v drone crash that I've seen documented (the last one that hit the news ended up being birds). Regardless the rules say under 400', not within 5 miles of an airport and some other locations. I'm not opposed to a drone 'license plate', I'm all for fining or jailing people that are flying these things near the white house. I'm seeing a lot of hysteria right now triggered by some jackasses who can't be responsible with their toys.
- tim333 11y ago
  Wikipedia has that bird strikes "cause annual damages that have been estimated at $400 million within the United States of America alone and up to $1.2 billion to commercial aircraft worldwide." So far drone strikes (excluding deliberate military stuff) have caused damages of $0 I think.

narrator 11y ago

All the big consumer drone makers are in China. I love how all sorts of unregulated surprisingly powerful tech comes out of China. The last mischief they engaged in was way too powerful lasers. They just don't have the fear of science in that country like we have in America.

bizkeep2 11y ago
It's all good until you fall down an elevator shaft.
threeseed 11y ago
Nothing more exciting then a unregulated wild west. Especially for a place like China with 2x the driver mortality rate of the US, staggering deaths caused by pollution and industrial accidents and swathes of land irreparably polluted. And of course the Chinese love it. That's why they are desperate for Western products like baby milk formula, vitamins and services in the health and old age sectors. But of course the US is totally scared of science. What with being the hub of almost all successful startups.
guelo 11y ago
It's all invented here.
- chillacy 11y ago
  That's been less true in recent times. Nowadays the factories have moved up in the design chain towards remixing their own designs. There's also more than one hardware startup accelerator that flys founders to shenzen since it's so much more efficient to work locally. And regarding this meta commentary of thinking that China as merely the assemblers of american inventors, remember that this was thought of Japan and korea in the 70s and 80s, which now produce some good quality cars and TVs, respectively. I wonder if engineers at GM or Zenith (last great american TV brand) scoffed and thought the same in 1980.
- themartorana 11y ago
  No it's not.

canow 11y ago

Drones are army planes that can fly for hours and probably weight hundreds if not thousands of pounds... Quadcopters are toys that can fly for minutes and weight only a few pounds...

Evolved 11y ago
"Drone" covers all UAVs/RPVs whether small enough to fit on your palm or large enough to need a full size air strip to launch. All UAVs are drones and all drones are UAVs. Not all drones are quadcopters but all quadcopters are drones. Even in the strictest definition, what we commonly call "R/C Planes/Helicopters" actually qualify as "drones." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
- serf 11y ago
  >...but all quadcopters are drones. Well, not all of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Bothezat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Bothezat http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v0ADuoE1cY/VHsBwdH-YGI/AAAAAAAAAhU/W55JRIKrwg8/s1600/Quad.png http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9v0ADuoE1cY/VHsBwdH-YGI/AAAAAAAAAh...
  - Evolved 11y ago
    Well played, sir.
- canow 11y ago
  ok, so just use an helicopter and load it with some random human and you'll be fine... no restrictions (as long as you don't crash). I'll use this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hughes-269A-Helicopter-/201447206828?hash=item2ee7306fac:g:6o8AAOSwwbdWGwI9&vxp=mtr http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hughes-269A-Helicopter-/201447206828...
  - mikeash 11y ago
    You might be interested to learn that the FAA has strict regulations on the registration and operation of helicopters, and the licensing of their pilots.

dham 11y ago

They just need to make these drones kit only and harder to fly. I've been flying RC with my dad since the early 90s. You would spend a month building these gas powered planes or helis. Only way to learn to fly was through other people or crashing a lot. It def kept irresponsible people out of the hobby. Plus you have to have skill to fly a 6 channel collective pitch heli. These things are not toys.

gesman 11y ago

I just found a tiny little drone on my backyard. Poor little thing crashed and now it's mine! :)

jongraehl 11y ago

Sure, new-tech drones should respond to a targeted ping w/ serial number or similar. Simple challenge/response crypto could avoid cloning/spoofing. Enforcement of registration: no response = police will follow the drone to its owner and ticket (else impound). Physical serial number for legacy drones.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

babuskov 11y ago
It happens in every area. If there weren't malicious programmers, we wouldn't have to spend CPU cycles on anti-viruses and firewalls. If there weren't for SPAM, e-mail communication would be more enjoyable, etc. By definition, ~50% of the population has below average intelligence.
- mrep 11y ago
  I think you mean median intelligence :)
- fortyseven 11y ago
  The usual "hospitals would be great if it wasn't for the patients" applies. :-)

code_sterling 11y ago

I'm just curious, have we had an instance where a quadcopter has caused the crash of a commercial aircraft? I've seen birds filleted by tiny copters, and I can't help but feel this is more fear than anything. But I honestly don't know.

jkaljundi 11y ago
No we have not.

fiatmoney 11y ago

I'd love to see exactly what legislation they believe gives them the authority to enforce this kind of regime by regulatory fiat. And I'd also love to see how they plan on getting around the very clearly required notice-and-comment period for new regulations, to say nothing of sweeping new regulatory frameworks (no way this happens legally by Christmas, which in this context probably means "day after thanksgiving"). This quote: "Under the plan, the government would work with the drone industry to set up a structure for registering the drones" makes me hope that they're planning on an ineffective and widely ignored warranty-card type system.

ck2 11y ago

Just use your drone as a gun holster and then politicians will be too terrified to make any laws about it.