5 ms·

Drones should be licensed and/or registered, much the same way as cars are. There are places where you can drive an unregistered car without a driver's license

by bdamm 11y ago

Drones should be licensed and/or registered, much the same way as cars are. There are places where you can drive an unregistered car without a driver's license. And that will be true of drones as well. There will be places where you can fly them unlimited. Just not in the common space defined by the government as such. That's what the government is for. "Drone ranch" here we come. I am a private pilot, so I appreciate how nuanced the airspace can be. Also I think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free. Drone operators should be required to take at least a brief ground school covering airspace (take it online!) and pass a quiz (also online!)

btgeekboy 11y ago
The one big ask I have is to learn to understand airspace, including reading charts, and be required to do a preflight including airspace and NOTAM checks. If that were done before a UAV/drone/multicopter/FPV/etc flight, everyone could easily coexist.
matheweis 11y ago
I am not a pilot (although the right $$ would have me there in a an instant... wishful thinking), but I have been flying various remote control aircraft (including so-called "drones", now) for nearly 20 years. A sensible system seems like it would be three tiered: Very small stuff would remain unregulated - obviously there is no concern with things like the CX-10, right? I can't imagine a "drone" of anything near that size causing any size of full-scale aircraft problems. Mid-tier stuff would be a world like Amateur Radio - modernized to be online or something as you've suggested. You are free to participate in the big boy's airspace within the rules, but some education and proof-of-knowledge about those rules is required. ... and of course large things should not be any different than a full-sized aircraft, with the same regulations.
- matheweis 11y ago
  Also, about the proposed registration, they fully acknowledged during the press conference that the trouble is tracking down the owners. You aren't going to be able to read the markings on a Phantom at any useful distance when you're trying to track down a violator. I'd propose instead a requirement for ADS-B for the mid and large classes below... Micro ~100g transponders exist, fully integrate with the existing aviation infrastructure, etc. [1] ... and most importantly would enable identification of the UAV, which is apparently the most pressing concern at the moment. Do the pilots here see any problems with this? [1] http://www.sagetechcorp.com/unmanned-solutions/unmanned-solutions.cfm#.ViWyInjYkmQ http://www.sagetechcorp.com/unmanned-solutions/unmanned-solu...
  - bdamm 11y ago
    I think it's a great idea. If anything the FAA (and the curmudgeon pilots) may have seriously underestimated the utility of ADS-B. Also, thanks for the link to the low power transponder. Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use.
    - dingaling 11y ago
      > Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use. They might be better looking into FLARM, which is specifically designed for low-weight applications https://flarm.com/ https://flarm.com/ ADS-B is competent in its own space, but is really just a clever hack on top of all sorts of Big Aeroplane Regulations and it carries a lot of financial and weight penalties as a result.
      - matheweis 11y ago
        Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard of it and it looks pretty interesting. I would note though, in case you missed it, that ADS-B transponder I linked is only 100 grams, vs 250+ for the powercore unit. I'm not sure about all the associated regulations, but my point was there's not any technological holdouts preventing the integration of medium to large UAVs into the existing infrastructure.
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    Why bother with transponders when most new transmitter/receiver technologies already have unique MAC-address-like fields, precisely for the purpose of identification? I guess its for the 'flew dangerously and then got away with it' case, where some followup/law enforcement would be required to nab the perps, and not so much for the 'lets find out who is flying this thing right now and where they are located' ..
    - jjwiseman 11y ago
      For the situations where a drone is flying autonomously or out of range of a transmitter; You could still use ADS-B type transponders to track it and avoid it.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Mid-tier stuff would be a world like Amateur Radio - modernized to be online or something as you've suggested. I generally agree with you, but I want to vent out about that amateur radio bit. Going on-line is something that makes it meaningless. Doing radio over real radio waves is playing with the limits physics throws at you. Doing it over the Internet is just throwing logs under your own feet because Skype isn't cool enough. It's like going outside vs. playing a video game in which your character goes outside.
  - matheweis 11y ago
    What I meant to suggest was that mid tier applications should be regulated like amateur radio; strict rules about what takes place, but anything goes within those confines. By online I meant the testing process could be done online.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Ah, I see :). Thanks for clarifying.
dbrannan 11y ago
I would assume that registration would be free, but now that I think about it I wonder if it will be that way (or stay that way). It seems like this may be less about the "protection" of people and just another revenue source for the government.
- analog31 11y ago
  Registration might be free, but the cost of insurance if required would probably depend on the capabilities of the drone. I might imagine an insurance market in which there is a discount for flying under the control of open source software.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    The more likely scenario is a penalty for flying under the control of open source software.
dingaling 11y ago
> Also I think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free. Why not free? Surely their use should be regulated on the basis of scope and competency rather than cost. Use of drones in personal airspace ( a few metres above one's land ) within the boundaries of one's property should not be the concern of the Government. This would be the equivalent of driving an unlicensed car on one's property. However if one wished to operate more freely in Class G airspace then I can understand operator and drone registration being necessary. But this should not be based on cost as the gate, but demonstrated competency.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I suppose the cost argument is meant to present a minimum barrier to entry to get rid of out completely random participants. However I've observed that usually the more irresponsible/douchier people have disproportionally more resources available for "tech toys" whereas actual hobbyists are often poorer, so I see cost barriers as driving out exactly the wrong part of the userbase.
- bdamm 11y ago
  Agreed. But it takes money to run testing. So that's really where I was going. If the barrier to entry is a $40 online quiz, is that going to stop anyone? Not likely. But it would allow the government to pay for that online curriculum.
themagician 11y ago
Yeah, we should regulate drones. Thing is, no one really flies "drones". People are just flying RC helicopters. But we call them drones and associate them with flying death machines and suddenly everyone is scared. RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so more people are interested. If anything, it's safer today than it was 10 years ago. They are more reliable, more controllable, and fewer people are flying gasoline powered craft. This won't make things any safer. Far from it. It will just stifle innovation by drying up the revenue streams of companies like DJI and 3DR. So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned toy fucking magnets, but 250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off limits. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything. Someone, somewhere, maybe almost had a "close call" a few months ago with a plane and an RC helicopter. Better get the DOT, FAA, and Congress on this stat. It's literally the next 9/11 just waiting to happen. So we'll come up with a registration list, licensing parameters, mandatory insurance, and we'll start "banning" anything that doesn't meet FAA specifications from being imported or manufactured. Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  >RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. Its not true that RC has been problem-less - there have been malicious uses of the technology, and fatalities, since the day it was possible to rig up a plane and fly it around. Flight systems, of any variety, are easy to weaponize. Regulation is a good thing because it requires a more responsible response from civil society. The number of times I've seen day-one flyers out at the local park with their new toy, swooping and hawing over peoples heads recklessly, crashing far too close to civilian life for comfort .. as an RC pilot with 30+ years of experience, I welcome a little enforcement on this subject, frankly. Todays new flyers are quite reckless. Not everyone, obvious, but enough evidence of recklessness exists that I think its a perfectly reasonable requirement that people be registered in order to fly. >So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits. That's not a bad thing, imho, because - especially in the RC world - the DIY crowd have always driven progress in the technology. Flight hobbyists have always been a significant contributor to the science - I would say that flight nerds manifest some of the very same traits that the hacker world admire, inasmuch as the desire to experiment and use technology in interesting ways is promoted with every successful landing.

by bdamm 11y ago

btgeekboy 11y ago

The one big ask I have is to learn to understand airspace, including reading charts, and be required to do a preflight including airspace and NOTAM checks. If that were done before a UAV/drone/multicopter/FPV/etc flight, everyone could easily coexist.

matheweis 11y ago

I am not a pilot (although the right $$ would have me there in a an instant... wishful thinking), but I have been flying various remote control aircraft (including so-called "drones", now) for nearly 20 years. A sensible system seems like it would be three tiered: Very small stuff would remain unregulated - obviously there is no concern with things like the CX-10, right? I can't imagine a "drone" of anything near that size causing any size of full-scale aircraft problems. Mid-tier stuff would be a world like Amateur Radio - modernized to be online or something as you've suggested. You are free to participate in the big boy's airspace within the rules, but some education and proof-of-knowledge about those rules is required. ... and of course large things should not be any different than a full-sized aircraft, with the same regulations.

matheweis 11y ago
Also, about the proposed registration, they fully acknowledged during the press conference that the trouble is tracking down the owners. You aren't going to be able to read the markings on a Phantom at any useful distance when you're trying to track down a violator. I'd propose instead a requirement for ADS-B for the mid and large classes below... Micro ~100g transponders exist, fully integrate with the existing aviation infrastructure, etc. [1] ... and most importantly would enable identification of the UAV, which is apparently the most pressing concern at the moment. Do the pilots here see any problems with this? [1] http://www.sagetechcorp.com/unmanned-solutions/unmanned-solutions.cfm#.ViWyInjYkmQ http://www.sagetechcorp.com/unmanned-solutions/unmanned-solu...
- bdamm 11y ago
  I think it's a great idea. If anything the FAA (and the curmudgeon pilots) may have seriously underestimated the utility of ADS-B. Also, thanks for the link to the low power transponder. Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use.
  - dingaling 11y ago
    > Some paraglider friends of mine might like to see those adapted for ultralight use. They might be better looking into FLARM, which is specifically designed for low-weight applications https://flarm.com/ https://flarm.com/ ADS-B is competent in its own space, but is really just a clever hack on top of all sorts of Big Aeroplane Regulations and it carries a lot of financial and weight penalties as a result.
    - matheweis 11y ago
      Thanks for the info, I hadn't heard of it and it looks pretty interesting. I would note though, in case you missed it, that ADS-B transponder I linked is only 100 grams, vs 250+ for the powercore unit. I'm not sure about all the associated regulations, but my point was there's not any technological holdouts preventing the integration of medium to large UAVs into the existing infrastructure.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  Why bother with transponders when most new transmitter/receiver technologies already have unique MAC-address-like fields, precisely for the purpose of identification? I guess its for the 'flew dangerously and then got away with it' case, where some followup/law enforcement would be required to nab the perps, and not so much for the 'lets find out who is flying this thing right now and where they are located' ..
  - jjwiseman 11y ago
    For the situations where a drone is flying autonomously or out of range of a transmitter; You could still use ADS-B type transponders to track it and avoid it.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Mid-tier stuff would be a world like Amateur Radio - modernized to be online or something as you've suggested. I generally agree with you, but I want to vent out about that amateur radio bit. Going on-line is something that makes it meaningless. Doing radio over real radio waves is playing with the limits physics throws at you. Doing it over the Internet is just throwing logs under your own feet because Skype isn't cool enough. It's like going outside vs. playing a video game in which your character goes outside.
- matheweis 11y ago
  What I meant to suggest was that mid tier applications should be regulated like amateur radio; strict rules about what takes place, but anything goes within those confines. By online I meant the testing process could be done online.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Ah, I see :). Thanks for clarifying.

dbrannan 11y ago

I would assume that registration would be free, but now that I think about it I wonder if it will be that way (or stay that way). It seems like this may be less about the "protection" of people and just another revenue source for the government.

analog31 11y ago
Registration might be free, but the cost of insurance if required would probably depend on the capabilities of the drone. I might imagine an insurance market in which there is a discount for flying under the control of open source software.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  The more likely scenario is a penalty for flying under the control of open source software.

dingaling 11y ago

> Also I think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free. Why not free? Surely their use should be regulated on the basis of scope and competency rather than cost. Use of drones in personal airspace ( a few metres above one's land ) within the boundaries of one's property should not be the concern of the Government. This would be the equivalent of driving an unlicensed car on one's property. However if one wished to operate more freely in Class G airspace then I can understand operator and drone registration being necessary. But this should not be based on cost as the gate, but demonstrated competency.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I suppose the cost argument is meant to present a minimum barrier to entry to get rid of out completely random participants. However I've observed that usually the more irresponsible/douchier people have disproportionally more resources available for "tech toys" whereas actual hobbyists are often poorer, so I see cost barriers as driving out exactly the wrong part of the userbase.
bdamm 11y ago
Agreed. But it takes money to run testing. So that's really where I was going. If the barrier to entry is a $40 online quiz, is that going to stop anyone? Not likely. But it would allow the government to pay for that online curriculum.

themagician 11y ago

Yeah, we should regulate drones. Thing is, no one really flies "drones". People are just flying RC helicopters. But we call them drones and associate them with flying death machines and suddenly everyone is scared. RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so more people are interested. If anything, it's safer today than it was 10 years ago. They are more reliable, more controllable, and fewer people are flying gasoline powered craft. This won't make things any safer. Far from it. It will just stifle innovation by drying up the revenue streams of companies like DJI and 3DR. So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned toy fucking magnets, but 250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off limits. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything. Someone, somewhere, maybe almost had a "close call" a few months ago with a plane and an RC helicopter. Better get the DOT, FAA, and Congress on this stat. It's literally the next 9/11 just waiting to happen. So we'll come up with a registration list, licensing parameters, mandatory insurance, and we'll start "banning" anything that doesn't meet FAA specifications from being imported or manufactured. Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die.

fit2rule 11y ago
>RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a major problem. Its not true that RC has been problem-less - there have been malicious uses of the technology, and fatalities, since the day it was possible to rig up a plane and fly it around. Flight systems, of any variety, are easy to weaponize. Regulation is a good thing because it requires a more responsible response from civil society. The number of times I've seen day-one flyers out at the local park with their new toy, swooping and hawing over peoples heads recklessly, crashing far too close to civilian life for comfort .. as an RC pilot with 30+ years of experience, I welcome a little enforcement on this subject, frankly. Todays new flyers are quite reckless. Not everyone, obvious, but enough evidence of recklessness exists that I think its a perfectly reasonable requirement that people be registered in order to fly. >So instead of them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits. That's not a bad thing, imho, because - especially in the RC world - the DIY crowd have always driven progress in the technology. Flight hobbyists have always been a significant contributor to the science - I would say that flight nerds manifest some of the very same traits that the hacker world admire, inasmuch as the desire to experiment and use technology in interesting ways is promoted with every successful landing.