5 ms·

>The new rule, which takes effect in late August, offers safety regulations for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-ho

>The new rule, which takes effect in late August, offers safety regulations for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-hobbyist operations. This makes sense to me - the FAA being concerned with, well, basically commerically-oriented UAV flights and using their authority to establish parameters. Hopefully this is a helpful step to start integrating more flights and more interest in the field with trying to minimize ignorance that could be somewhat dangerous. >The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation. Sounds like this could get a waiver if the group is established and has the right safety record / resources. That's pretty neat. As a concert / festival / event attendee the last thing I'd want as a souvenir is a mangled noggin or appendage from an improperly or irresponsibly piloted UAV with a camera on it coming down on me. Also, while the licensing parameters might seem a bit overbearing to some, I kind of think they rather reflect just how utterly terrible the testing and credentialing process is for automobile drivers in the US. >Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate. To me it's not that the UAV license is too much, but that consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines.

MawNicker 10y ago
American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.
  - MawNicker 10y ago
    > I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  You don't own the airspace over your property though, the FAA does. I can stay at up to 400 feet over your property if I'm not over a densely populated area. Flying a drone over someone's house is plain stupid as well and should be avoided, but I can see a future where Amazon flies hundreds of drones at 400ft over someone's property as long as it's not densely populated, and destroying a drone will land the property owner in jail charged with a fellony, punishable up to 20 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20...
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Perhaps. There's at least some (though certainly not definitive) case law that suggest home owners have rights to 500 ft. or so above their property. e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417 http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-... Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.
bdamm 10y ago
> consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose It'll only take a handful of well publicized court cases to solve that problem. As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on. > FAA "will provide all drone users with recommended privacy guidelines as part of the UAS registration process and through the FAA’s B4UFly mobile app." Bonus points for wrapping public concerns with privacy into the registration sequence.
- CPLX 10y ago
  > As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on I'm a private pilot too. Were you able to decipher this to determine if people with an existing PPL will need an endorsement or currency requirement, or if we are already considered certified in this context as well? I couldn't figure it out.
  - btgeekboy 10y ago
    Reading the summary[0] I'm led to believe that, as a current private ASEL holder, I simply need to take "a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA" and apply for a certificate. The summary doesn't mention anything about UAS currency, just that you need to be BFR-current for your Part 61. I'll probably get a UAS certificate just for kicks. (Why not?) [0] http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf
VLM 10y ago
"consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines." In that case I think you'd find our rather loose maritime laws to be particularly triggering. Our gun regulations are the same way. In that way its semi-consistent, smart people aren't going to get in trouble no matter what, dumb people are going to do dumb things no matter what regardless of what laws are written, so why bother.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Fair enough, and I think you're accurate regarding the correlatives with firearms to some extent. I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people - which most gun owners would likely be classified as in the US, even with 'sport rifles' like the AR or AK type - so in this discussion it'd be more like regulating Armored Car drivers or Security Guards that are allowed to carry weapons as part of their job. No pass, no gun on the job. No pass, no commercial UAV license.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    > I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people These regulations regulate both hobbyist and commercial usage. Where did you see that the rules are for commercial use only?
    - uberdog 10y ago
      "The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations" https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516 https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2... "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf

MawNicker 10y ago

American's feel "entitled" to freedom in all the conflicting ways it can be contrived. I'm on your side of the fence here. I'd rather have the freedom to go outside without drones hitting my face. The freedom to fly one is secondary and predicated on the demonstrated ability to not hit me with it.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Yeah I mean I find the distinction for 'hobby' versus 'commerical' pretty relevant in the discussion. I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden. Gets back to whole notions of what society accepts as freedom I guess, in that we share the skies and give the FAA the 'power' to regulate how they are used with machinery in a lot of respects. I think it's good to be critical of regulatory over-reach, and also good to acknowledge when that doesn't seem to be the case.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  > I don't think small-time, little UAVs really pose enough threat - even if used improperly - to justify regulatory burden I'm ambivalent about this. I'd like my 8 year old cousin to have a toy UAV. It may be more practical to regulate the design of such devices. We could limit weight/speed/distance and require safety features like prop guards. The resulting devices would likely be safer than many common toys. I certainly agree that we should be critical of regulation. There are often solutions far more ideal than those proposed. This is especially true in tech where the conditions change so quickly. Object avoidance systems could revolutionize these regulations in less than a decade when the costs come down.
aioprisan 10y ago
You don't own the airspace over your property though, the FAA does. I can stay at up to 400 feet over your property if I'm not over a densely populated area. Flying a drone over someone's house is plain stupid as well and should be avoided, but I can see a future where Amazon flies hundreds of drones at 400ft over someone's property as long as it's not densely populated, and destroying a drone will land the property owner in jail charged with a fellony, punishable up to 20 years: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20-years-in-prison-211541710.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shooting-drone-will-get-you-20...
- ghaff 10y ago
  Perhaps. There's at least some (though certainly not definitive) case law that suggest home owners have rights to 500 ft. or so above their property. e.g. http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-who-owns-your-airspace-1431535417 http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-boom-raises-new-question-... Though that's probably not all that relevant. To the degree that high-traffic package delivery by drone were to imminently become a thing, I'd expect rules to be quickly established at some level(s) of government. It's not clear to me that those rules won't tend to favor property owners.

bdamm 10y ago

> consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose It'll only take a handful of well publicized court cases to solve that problem. As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on. > FAA "will provide all drone users with recommended privacy guidelines as part of the UAS registration process and through the FAA’s B4UFly mobile app." Bonus points for wrapping public concerns with privacy into the registration sequence.

CPLX 10y ago
> As a private pilot, I think this new regulation is bang on I'm a private pilot too. Were you able to decipher this to determine if people with an existing PPL will need an endorsement or currency requirement, or if we are already considered certified in this context as well? I couldn't figure it out.
- btgeekboy 10y ago
  Reading the summary[0] I'm led to believe that, as a current private ASEL holder, I simply need to take "a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA" and apply for a certificate. The summary doesn't mention anything about UAS currency, just that you need to be BFR-current for your Part 61. I'll probably get a UAS certificate just for kicks. (Why not?) [0] http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf

VLM 10y ago

"consumers in the US are a bit too fast and loose "entitled" when it comes to being able to play with big machines." In that case I think you'd find our rather loose maritime laws to be particularly triggering. Our gun regulations are the same way. In that way its semi-consistent, smart people aren't going to get in trouble no matter what, dumb people are going to do dumb things no matter what regardless of what laws are written, so why bother.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Fair enough, and I think you're accurate regarding the correlatives with firearms to some extent. I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people - which most gun owners would likely be classified as in the US, even with 'sport rifles' like the AR or AK type - so in this discussion it'd be more like regulating Armored Car drivers or Security Guards that are allowed to carry weapons as part of their job. No pass, no gun on the job. No pass, no commercial UAV license.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  > I think it's worth keeping in mind these FAA regulations aren't for hobbyist type people These regulations regulate both hobbyist and commercial usage. Where did you see that the rules are for commercial use only?
  - uberdog 10y ago
    "The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations" https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516 https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2... "Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf