5 ms·

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

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.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > That's not a bad thing, imho, because - especially in the RC world - the DIY crowd have always driven progress in the technology. That's true in many fields and particularly quadcopters are, as far as I can tell, just like 3D printers - the entire industry exists because some hobbyists started making DIY models accessible to general public, and someone saw a new market in that.
peterbraden 11y ago
Why would this make people turn to DIY kits? DIY drones also have to be registered.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I think GP meant that registration will make people much less willing to get into the hobby, which will dry out the revenue for quadcopter-making companies, making them raise prices or close shop altogether. The few people who really want to play with those machines will prefer to order cheaper DIY kits, and since you can't effectively regulate the components they'll be flying whatever they could get assembled instead of tested constructions with proper safety measures. Also almost no one will bother to register DIY drones, since FAA won't fund an army of inspectors to check for license every time someone takes a quadcopter to the park. That's how I understood the comment.
- themagician 11y ago
  That won't be enforceable.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    I don't see why not. If an unlicensed drone is found operating off of the owner's private property, it's confiscated. Straightforward enforcement.
    - hga 11y ago
      It's slightly more complicated, seeing as how shooting them down with nets is a bit difficult (although we may see widespread application of serious DEATH RAYS, excuse me, lasers for that (hey, I want the future that was promised to me in the '60s to come to pass)). There's also the ECM approach, or maybe even EMP. Rather, follow the drone until it lands. If the owner is stupid enough to bring it back to him, you can go quite a bit further.
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      How would you find the drone owner and/or operator, exactly? I can see this being used to further erode the right to not be stopped and frisked without probable cause. Now, a drone flying overhead in a public place is probable cause to stop and search everybody in sight.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Half-humorously: maybe guns can save quadcopters? Let's encourage people to make flying handguns and thus turning the drone debate into gun control issue, at which point we can rest safe that it won't be resolved for the next couple of decades.
- hga 11y ago
  As far as I can tell, gun owners are no more thrilled about irresponsible drone operators as we are about irresponsible gun owners. We also tolerate, more or less, licencing to carry loaded guns outside our dwellings, which this sort of drone licencing could resemble (same generally goes for cars and other motor vehicles). The increasing spread of "constitutional carry", no license required, with Maine just being added a day or two ago, is based on a lack of problems with licensed concealed carry. Which is the opposite of the drone situation, with problems steadily increasing. And while I recognize the humor you're applying here, your short description of the situation with gun control doesn't really capture the reality. We've been fighting this since right after the Civil War, restrictions on freedmen a large part of the reason for the subsequently judicially nullified 14th Amendment. Ignoring a lot of anti-immigrant state level legislation, FDR then tried to license all handguns with a $3,500 in 2015 dollars transfer "tax", and since, oh, the '50s-'60s, the fundamental argument has been over whether we'd be allowed to possess any guns, with Obama and Hillary! just now calling for mass confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto long guns. I'm not aware of confiscations being on the table with drones, although that could quickly change if/when one brings down an airliner. And from the view of the FAA, it makes only so much difference if a jet engine injects a big drone vs. a big drone carrying a dense gun. But I am continuely amused by perceptions of our political power, which comes from at least two things: there are a zillion of us and we vote, and we have been motivated by a lot of government atrocities starting in the early '70s, plus, as noted above, a clear existential threat. The drone situation today currently lacks every single element of our history, but I can imagine murderous enforcement of these coming regulations changing some of that.
hga 11y ago
but 250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off limits. Further legislation is "off limits"; you're ignoring the "20,000" gun laws already on the books and the severe restrictions we gun owners are already living under. Something tells me you won't like getting a fraction of these applied to you. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything Why bother with that precursor to confiscation when Obama after Oregon and Hillary! during the debate called for mass confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto long guns? (More generally, registration has gotten about as far as it's going to go short of sparking the 2nd Civil War, and the plaintiff's bar has what's covered by legitimate testing under control, as Remington is experiencing with their shoddy Model 700 rifle safeties.) Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die. Most gun fatalities are suicides; I'm not aware of suicide by drone existing, let alone being a major issue.

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.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> That's not a bad thing, imho, because - especially in the RC world - the DIY crowd have always driven progress in the technology. That's true in many fields and particularly quadcopters are, as far as I can tell, just like 3D printers - the entire industry exists because some hobbyists started making DIY models accessible to general public, and someone saw a new market in that.

peterbraden 11y ago

Why would this make people turn to DIY kits? DIY drones also have to be registered.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
I think GP meant that registration will make people much less willing to get into the hobby, which will dry out the revenue for quadcopter-making companies, making them raise prices or close shop altogether. The few people who really want to play with those machines will prefer to order cheaper DIY kits, and since you can't effectively regulate the components they'll be flying whatever they could get assembled instead of tested constructions with proper safety measures. Also almost no one will bother to register DIY drones, since FAA won't fund an army of inspectors to check for license every time someone takes a quadcopter to the park. That's how I understood the comment.
themagician 11y ago
That won't be enforceable.
- fixermark 11y ago
  I don't see why not. If an unlicensed drone is found operating off of the owner's private property, it's confiscated. Straightforward enforcement.
  - hga 11y ago
    It's slightly more complicated, seeing as how shooting them down with nets is a bit difficult (although we may see widespread application of serious DEATH RAYS, excuse me, lasers for that (hey, I want the future that was promised to me in the '60s to come to pass)). There's also the ECM approach, or maybe even EMP. Rather, follow the drone until it lands. If the owner is stupid enough to bring it back to him, you can go quite a bit further.
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    How would you find the drone owner and/or operator, exactly? I can see this being used to further erode the right to not be stopped and frisked without probable cause. Now, a drone flying overhead in a public place is probable cause to stop and search everybody in sight.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Half-humorously: maybe guns can save quadcopters? Let's encourage people to make flying handguns and thus turning the drone debate into gun control issue, at which point we can rest safe that it won't be resolved for the next couple of decades.

hga 11y ago
As far as I can tell, gun owners are no more thrilled about irresponsible drone operators as we are about irresponsible gun owners. We also tolerate, more or less, licencing to carry loaded guns outside our dwellings, which this sort of drone licencing could resemble (same generally goes for cars and other motor vehicles). The increasing spread of "constitutional carry", no license required, with Maine just being added a day or two ago, is based on a lack of problems with licensed concealed carry. Which is the opposite of the drone situation, with problems steadily increasing. And while I recognize the humor you're applying here, your short description of the situation with gun control doesn't really capture the reality. We've been fighting this since right after the Civil War, restrictions on freedmen a large part of the reason for the subsequently judicially nullified 14th Amendment. Ignoring a lot of anti-immigrant state level legislation, FDR then tried to license all handguns with a $3,500 in 2015 dollars transfer "tax", and since, oh, the '50s-'60s, the fundamental argument has been over whether we'd be allowed to possess any guns, with Obama and Hillary! just now calling for mass confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto long guns. I'm not aware of confiscations being on the table with drones, although that could quickly change if/when one brings down an airliner. And from the view of the FAA, it makes only so much difference if a jet engine injects a big drone vs. a big drone carrying a dense gun. But I am continuely amused by perceptions of our political power, which comes from at least two things: there are a zillion of us and we vote, and we have been motivated by a lot of government atrocities starting in the early '70s, plus, as noted above, a clear existential threat. The drone situation today currently lacks every single element of our history, but I can imagine murderous enforcement of these coming regulations changing some of that.

hga 11y ago

but 250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off limits. Further legislation is "off limits"; you're ignoring the "20,000" gun laws already on the books and the severe restrictions we gun owners are already living under. Something tells me you won't like getting a fraction of these applied to you. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything Why bother with that precursor to confiscation when Obama after Oregon and Hillary! during the debate called for mass confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto long guns? (More generally, registration has gotten about as far as it's going to go short of sparking the 2nd Civil War, and the plaintiff's bar has what's covered by legitimate testing under control, as Remington is experiencing with their shoddy Model 700 rifle safeties.) Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+ people will get shot. A few thousand will die. Most gun fatalities are suicides; I'm not aware of suicide by drone existing, let alone being a major issue.