22 ms·

Drone Hobbyists Angered by Congress Ending the Aerial Wild West

190 points by antr 8y ago

bjt2n3904 8y ago
Calling the state of drones the "wild west" pretty much puts the conclusion at the start. How about, "Drone hobbyists angered at pointless laws that treat their hobby like it's a problem"
- MBCook 8y ago
  What about the part of the article where the FCC gets 100 complaints a day, including from pilots seeing drones in dangerous areas?
  - black6 8y ago
    Every large outdoor event I’ve been to recently has had at least one drone buzzing over the crowd at some point — and that’s been verboten from the start.
    - 24gttghh 8y ago
      Are you sure that's not the event flying/contracting out the drone work themselves?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    100/day isn't that bad when you consider that there's >300 million people in the country and how much of a hair trigger some busybodies are on when it comes to reporting stuff to the government. 100/day is on the same order as the amount of "doing X while black" or "teenagers looking sketchy" complaints that get called in to local police departments across the country. You just don't hear about them because they're thinly distributed to local PD's across the country.. If only 100 people/day are complaining to the government about something then that something isn't a problem.
  - tajobq 8y ago
    I think you mean the part that says 100 complaints per month. "Each month, the FAA receives more than 100 reports of drone sightings by pilots, citizens, and law enforcement"
    - dkresge 8y ago
      Note also it says “reports”, not complaints.
  - gorkish 8y ago
    100 reports per month. The relatively small city I live in gets this many or more animal-at-large reports on a daily basis which likely constitute a larger public safety threat than people flying their quads around throughout the entire country. Where is the regulatory capture on leash laws?
    - poof131 8y ago
      Animal populations aren’t growing at exponential rates. The future scale of drones and autonomous airborne vehicles is going to be huge. The growing possibility of midairs with drones is more significant than bird strikes or deer on a runway. Hobbyist drone pilots are going to lose the safety battle. Just as you can’t drive however you want on public roads, class G airspace is going to resemble class A airspace. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)
      - DocTomoe 8y ago
        > Animal populations aren’t growing at exponential rates. Erm, yes, if you ignore outside factors, they do. In fact, population growth has been a poster child to explain what exponential growth means for a while...
      - cuboidGoat 8y ago
        >The growing possibility of midairs with drones is more significant than bird strikes That seems amazingly unlikely.
      - freeone3000 8y ago
        Really? There are more drones than birds?
        CleaveIt2Beaver 8y ago
        More unaware drones/flying objects with greater mass than birds, maybe?
    - 8y ago
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    100 reports a month, which if you think about the scale of the US is remarkably low.
  - jzawodn 8y ago
    If the FCC gets that many, I wonder how many the FAA gets...
    - cuboidGoat 8y ago
      Hey, numbers and letters are hard. FCC, FAA, 100 reports per month, 100 complaints per day. Same thing, surely. Besides drones are bad, so exaggerating and misrepresenting is morally justified, as it will save the lives of billions that would otherwise have died from the flying evil.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    >“Each month, the FAA receives more than 100 reports of drone sightings by pilots, citizens, and law enforcement,” Drones interfering with manned aircraft or emergency services is already illegal. And these things are transmitting radio in both directions, putting money into tracking and prosecuting people interfering with flights is completely achievable, without any change in law. I suspect that this is more about protecting the interests of the commercial businesses by introducing licensing as a barrier to entry. >The bill is supported by the Commercial Drone Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group representing Alphabet’s Wing as well as other drone businesses.
- miranda_rights 8y ago
  The hobby can be dangerous. Overall, it isn't problematic, but there are a few drone hobbyists that ruin it for the rest, frequently due to lack of training. There's the person who hit the Space Needle [0], the person who crashed their drone mid-day in SF after they lost connection with it and it almost hit people walking on the sidewalk [1]. The ease of buying one and being able to use it means it's possible to fly it without having any knowledge of all the ways it could go wrong. [0]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-charged-with-piloting-drone-that-struck-space-needle-on-new-years-eve/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-charged-... (Open in incognito if you run into the paywall) [1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/drone-crashes-outside-millennium-tower-sinking-sf-13216498.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/drone-crashes-ou...
  - rhinoceraptor 8y ago
    AFAICT the SF crash was done by a professional hired to inspect the crack, using a drone for business of any kind requires a part 107 certification.
  - rrdharan 8y ago
    Don't forget the guy who crashed his drone in a Yellowstone geyser potentially causing irreparable environmental damage: https://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/a-crashed-drone-could-destroy-yellowstone-s-grand-prismatic-spring/article_009fb83c-20a0-11e5-9dcd-ffc330206e7a.amp.html https://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/a-crashed-drone-co... This one really pissed me off...
  - tzs 8y ago
    Don't forget the idiots who fly drones at forest fires, which several times last year resulted in fire-fighting tanker planes being diverted away. I've heard people say that keeping the tankers away when a drone is in the same airspace is an overreaction, but those people are not thinking it through. There are several factors that make fire-fighting flights very difficult for the pilots. 1. They are flying very low. 2. The air over and around large fires is often very turbulent. 3. The plane is heavily loaded, making it less nimble than normal, and making maneuvers put much more stress on the plane than they would on a less loaded plane. The pilots are in a dangerous, stressful situation that requires their upmost concentration. Anything that distracts them is dangerous.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  How about, "Drone hobbyists angered at pointless laws that treat their hobby like it's a problem" I thought it was pointless, too, until I saw that video taken from a drone that hovered right above a passenger jet as it was landing at KLAS. (Sorry I can't search for the video at work — no YT allowed.)
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    That isn't necessarily a justification. * Is that behavior already illegal under existing law? * Do these new laws meaningfully address that behavior?
    - Shivetya 8y ago
      you obviously haven't been keeping up with the current state of gun control legislation. governments are keen on making the illegal even more illegal as a means to look like they are doing something and to chip away at rights people are current exercising. drones will eventually become so heavily licensed than anything outside of law enforcement, large news organizations, and politicians, will be restricted to the point of needing specialized parks just to enjoy them. RC planes generally fall under 112-95 Section 336 which pretty much should work for drones
      - toss1 8y ago
        The problem is that RC planes almost universally require a much higher investment in skill-building to become competent enough to even fly, let alone fly well. There is also a large community of builders and flyers [1], a network of clubs with actual airfields for the purpose, and a multi-million dollar insurance policy with membership. Both the difficulty, the investment, and the training and peer pressure drastically reduces the number of participants who behave like asshats with their aircraft - to essentially zero. With hobby drones, it is exactly the opposite -- just go buy some overgrown toy, and you can now put up in the air a device that with any of hundreds of failures of the device or pilot, can become a lethal projectile falling from the sky. So, yes, serious requirements for anything over a few hundred grams is very reasonable[2]. [1] Academy of Model Aeronautics -- www.modelaircraft.org [2](no, I'm not implying that the Govt automatically implements every reg in a reasonable & effective way, that could still end badly.) [Edit: footnotes]
- bsder 8y ago
  When California has to ground fire control aircraft because idiots are too stupid to realize that flying drones near them is a bad idea, yeah, the hobby is a problem. The good drone operators didn't get control over the bad ones, so here we are.
  - pythonaut_16 8y ago
    > The good drone operators didn't get control over the bad ones What does this even mean? I buy a drone and now I'm responsible to go hunt down every idiot with a drone and tell him to knock it off? I'm sure that would be very effective. Definitely much more effective than the FAA regulations already in place that these people choose to ignore.
    - bsder 8y ago
      The early drone operators and builders had the opportunity to propose and install mechanisms to manage drones properly. Instead, they spent their political capital fighting regulations instead of making good ones that the FAA could simply adopt wholesale. Because of that, the FAA stepped in and now everybody gets to deal with the fallout.
- xg15 8y ago
  Well, that puts the opposite conclusion at the start.
- scandox 8y ago
  I want these things as highly regulated as possible. I found it extremely uncomfortable to have drones flying about over my kids head in the park. What do I know about the competence of the pilots? Or the onboard AI? Nothing. They're basically high speed aerial blades from my POV.
  - Balero 8y ago
    I don't like drones flying over public places from a privacy perspective. I've been hit by an admittedly, fairly small drone. I't didn't hurt much at all, and the rotors didn't break the skin. I don't think they're like aerial blades, unless someone attaches some to one.
    - scandox 8y ago
      Good to know.
    - alistairSH 8y ago
      It really depends on the drone. Those small toy drones? Yeah, might cut you a bit if the rotor cages aren't installed. Something heavier like a DJI Phantom? Even if the blades don't cut you, those carry enough mass/speed to seriously injure.
      - Balero 8y ago
        I mean yeah of course. I was talking about small hobby drones. Taking it to the absurd, if you get hit by one of those Reapers[0] you might get really seriously injured! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
- craftyguy 8y ago
  It is a problem.
- pc86 8y ago
  How about, "Some drone hobbyists angered they can't keep flying their drones at landing aircraft like assholes?" All the uncontrolled airports near me have to have drone advisories because nobody respects the 400' or line of sight regulations. I was landing on 35 at KTHV last year and nearly hit a drone at almost 900' turning to downwind to base. There needs to be registration and regulation so that when you as a drone operator violate airspace regulations you can be punished.
iamdave 8y ago
I'm mildly incredulous on the actual scope of the bill compared to what's being reported (it's a learned behavior), does anyone have the name of the bill or the full text that I may go read for myself? Mostly because as as a remote pilot, I have a feeling the proposals may be much less onerous than we're being lead to believe by Bloomberg here and what hobbyist groups are complaining about. Stated as a Licensed Part 107 operator. I think everyone should be required to undergo some kind of training, with tiers for educational, hobbyist, and commercial. I learned a lot more in those classes than just how to fly a Phantom DJI and found the regulatory knowledge alone to be HIGHLY insightful.
- ransom1538 8y ago
  Ugh. Everytime I fly a micro drone ($40) I get some "Licensed Part 107 operator" lecture me on how I need to "undergo some kind of training". I think these guys should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing children at parks.
  - iamdave 8y ago
    Interesting take on the matter. Certainly access to firearms is a discussion worth having in society, but gun control isn't the subject of the proposed bill-nor is it the subject of this thread.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - stevecalifornia 8y ago
    You should have to undergo some kind of training. It's wildly routine to see drone pilots flying at the end of a runway because they didn't realize the runway was there and they didn't know aeronautical charts exist and/or how to read them. Buying a flying battery pack doesn't entitle you to circumvent airspace rules and endanger lives and property.
    - 8y ago
draugadrotten 8y ago
Terrorists are already using Drones to attack people[1]. ISIS are buying and perhaps using drones in Europe[2]. Unfortunately, this means drones will need to be regulated like they are weapons, because they are used as weapons. 1- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan-president-targeted-in-attack-attempt-minister-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan... 2- https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-for-attempting-to-smuggle-drones-to-ISIS-568039 https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-...
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  Car bombs are rampant but cars are not treated as weapons except (somewhat) for vehicular manslaughter.
  - draugadrotten 8y ago
    Car analogies are always good. Well, cars must undergo heavy certification and testing before being allowed on public roads. Operators must undergo certified training and be certified before operating cars on public roads. Every car is registered and tracked with a visible marking. Cars are limited in how fast they can go, and how much emissions they can have and more. I believe these kinds of measures will be put in place for drones as well: only certified drones with enforced technical limitations of speed and height, certified operators only ,and remotely visible (rfid) license plates.
    - wnevets 8y ago
      It's always odd to see people choosing one of the most regulated products on the market for those kinds of arguments.
    - learc83 8y ago
      This works for cars because cars are too big to be easily concealable Most of regulations you mention also do nothing to stop cars from being used as weapons, so they are completely irrelevant to your point. The few regulations you mentioned that do provide some deterrent to being used as weapons weren't intended for that purpose, and are easily circumvented by determined attackers anyway.
gaahrdner 8y ago
Long gone are the days of needing only a Technician class radio license to operate FCC uncertified radio and video transmission gear, strapped onto a cheap foam RC plane from China, piloted by a human with nothing more than a controller, video goggles, and an antenna to achieve mile-long distances and thousand foot heights. THAT was the wild west. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Plus, we still have part 103 ultralight aircraft. As long as it weighs < 254 lbs and is slow enough, you don't even need to register the darn thing. Edit: to clarify, these are 'real' aircraft that humans can fly in. https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interest...
  - carapace 8y ago
    OMFG so if I can build a thing within these constraints I can fly it? (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. God Bless America!
    - trhway 8y ago
      my understanding they are trying to fit it into that regulation : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjqR4JAsL1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjqR4JAsL1A
    - dmitrygr 8y ago
      > OMFG so if I can build a thing within > these constraints I can fly it? Yes. You need not even build it yourself, you can buy it. eg: powered paragliders
LinuxBender 8y ago
Ending the Aerial Wild West implies that the wild west is no more. There are plenty of places to buy drone parts, controllers, etc... that do not require any registration. Would it perhaps be more accurate to say, that the wild west is slightly limited to true hobbyists and terrorists? Would such regulations just limit the average person from buying their "toy" drones? The drone hobbyists that I know are not impacted by this. They use 3d headsets and race their drones through buildings up to 6 miles away.
- superkuh 8y ago
  > race their drones through buildings up to 6 miles away. This is a pretty incredible claim. I think your friends may have been exaggerating things or you misunderstood.
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    Not at all. They are actually working on methods to extend even further by creating a network mesh in the air. This involves multiple RasPi's and multiple drone blimps and multiple quad drones.
    - superkuh 8y ago
      Alright. That's a little more plausible. At least that would give them line of sight. Now it's just incredible and unlikely instead of completely infeasible.
      - LinuxBender 8y ago
        There are companies deploying commercial solutions similar to what my friends are doing. There are a couple companies in the EU that will send an AED drone to emergency callers for heart attacks. The drone's wings collapse and it converts into an AED. It can fly to locations minutes before first responders get there. They are also being used to deliver medicine to remote camp-sites in the mountains and some jungles.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
asynchronous13 8y ago
The article is talking about the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te... The problematic portion for drone hobbyists is "S.2836 - Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018" that was attached to the FAA Reauthorization bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2836/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/283... In it's current form, it has some really vague wording and definitions. For example, the bill frequently refers to "threat" without a solid definition. It basically says that "threat" will be defined by the Secretary or Attorney General at a later time.
- iamdave 8y ago
  THREAT DEFINED.—In defining the term ‘threat’ for purposes of carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary or the Attorney General, as the case may be, shall take into account factors, including, but not limited to, the potential for bodily harm or loss of human life, the potential loss or compromise of sensitive national security information, or the potential severe economic damage resulting from use of an unauthorized unmanned aerial system in the vicinity of a covered facility or asset. Well no, 'threat' is not being defined by the Sec/AG at a later time, it's right there. Where I will concede to your point is that in the context of unmanned aerial flight, actions by the pilot that satisfy the above are not well enumerated or defined-but I'm only partially through reading the text of the bill.
  - asynchronous13 8y ago
    Please read that definition more carefully. Here's a paraphrase: In defining the term threat, The Secretary or the Attorney shall take into account factors such as potential for harm, loss of life, national security, and economic damage. That is not a definition, that is a list of things that must be taken into account when making the definition.
    - iamdave 8y ago
      Perhaps I should clarify myself then: there is a definition, but unfortunately that definition is sans-actions of the parties held to the legal standard compared to allowed actions enumerated by parties to whom the express, actionable authority is granted under proposed law in (b)(1). tl;dr - Pilots may not engage in action(s) that constitute a 'threat', nebulously defined, but the AG may engage in action(s) in response, more expressly defined. At least that's how I've initially read the proposed changes to this Reauthorization bill. Edit: fwiw, I think we're both in agreement, however the ends-that the proposal does not go far enough to detail the actions of operators.
trhway 8y ago
Ultra light aircraft don't need test/license while drones would be required to have it.
cmurf 8y ago
As a pilot and former flight instructor, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the recreational drone complaints. There are recreational kite fliers too, and they have FAA regulations that apply to them, I don't hear them complaining. There are model airplane pilots, they have FAA regulations, they have a community that is very serious about education, training, mentor-peer relationships and self monitoring and reporting. I do not see this at all with the drone pilot community. It's a community of individuals. And even if it's less than 1% of the total drone pilot population, there is a real problem with this bizarre demand that they have a right to do what they want. They do not. This is shared space. Ham radio operators have more rules, testing, peer review and community than recreational drone pilots.
- orclev 8y ago
  Interestingly much of the (hobbyist) drone hardware also requires a Ham license to operate, so there's quite a bit of overlap there. There are at least 3 distinct groups potentially impacted by this. First there are the non-commercial, "toy" users that are flying around cheap little "smart" drones using phones. Most of this class are using drones under 5" and that weigh negligible amounts. The second class are the non-commercial hobbyists that mostly build their own drones and use them either for recreational freestyle or racing. These drones can be anywhere from 3" all the way up to 12" on the extreme end, and similarly have a very wide weight and performance envelope. Much of the equipment in this class requires Ham licenses, or in some cases other federal licensing. Lastly there are the commercial operators that are mostly using drones for aerial photography. These tend to be medium to large sized drones (everything from 6" all the way to multiple foot wide monstrosities) which most definitely require FAA licenses to operate. Part of the problem here, is that each of these groups has different expectations. Little Timmy getting the 4" plastic drone he flies with his iPhone for Christmas shouldn't really be required to pass a FAA license to fly it around his backyard. The professional across the street with access to the 5 foot wide 150 pound hexacopter with the gyrostabilized 4k camera mount and an effective range measured in miles probably should have some kind of license. The guy who built his own 5" drone out of parts and tools around the local park probably falls somewhere in the middle. Lumping all drones under one single set of regulations really isn't going to work because not all drones are the same. It would be like trying to cover unicycles, bicycles, segways, and motorcycles with a single set of regulations just because they all had less than four wheels and required you to balance on them.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dragIo 8y ago
This is just to clear the airspace and sell licensing fees to Google, Amazon and the like in a few years.
samstave 8y ago
What year will we see the following scenarios actually happen: * Someone flies a drone into a government facility with an explosive | camera | contraband? * Public figure/celebrity or official assassinated by drone * Drone causes infrastructure damage or transportation accident * Drone used for spying /financial gain --- Honestly, the lack of the above happening in any large scale, notable or meaningful way shows that there arent a ton of people out there looking to wreak havoc with drones. What I am surprised by is there are not yet a range of security services based on drones - i.e. a swarm of autonomous drone cameras which patrol a given asset/area where they autonomously recharge themselves and fly around - coupled with motion sensors/proximity sensors that being triggered are dispatched to investigate.
- valarauca1 8y ago
  Someone flies a drone into a government facility with an explosive | camera | contraband? Yemen, Syria, or Iraq (any time within the last 1-2 years) Public figure/celebrity or official assassinated by drone Attempted assassination attempt of Nicolás Maduro earlier this year. Drone causes infrastructure damage or transportation accident Yemen, Syria, or Iraq (more then 2 years ago) Drone used for spying /financial gain Shit everything has already happened (outside of the US), so I assume this has as well. Just we aren't going to hear about it until the statue of limitations is up. --- Seriously the asymetic warfare from relatively cheap drones is a massive problem. The US has fired patriot missiles are little more then ~$300 hobbyist drones carrying hand grenades.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Considering half the point of drones is to have cameras on them I'd be absolutely shocked if nobody has used a drone to spy one someone yet...
  - samstave 8y ago
    I meant within here in the US. I am perfectly aware of military use of drones. I was referring to the hobbiest movement's potential use of drones for 'domestic terrorism'.
xchip 8y ago
LOL it will be harder to own a drone than to own a gun
- krapp 8y ago
  Put guns on all the drones and they'll be protected by the 2nd Amendment. And the guns.
upofadown 8y ago
The eventual value of low level airspace for drone use vastly exceeds the value of any current use. If we wait long enough we will get to read lurid articles about reckless people in manually controlled aircraft blundering through drone space, putting the lives of themselves and others at risk for no good reason. The governments of the world have entirely dropped the ball on anti-collision systems for small aircraft up to now. I anticipate them doing no better now that there are even smaller aircraft added to the mix.
Kiro 8y ago
Why are HN so keen on defending drones? Serious question. Is there any altruistic reason or do hackers just like drones? What about privacy issues? Drones seem much more intrusive than the CCTVs people here normally are against.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  Generally because the folks attacking don’t have the first clue anything what they are talking about. Those opposed are buying into pure FUD. Just read through the comments here alone, we have folks talking about regulations didn’t exist (they do), that licensing/testing isn’t required (it is, for the categories generally needing it), thinking a palm sized drone endangers their life (it doesn’t, unless they were being stupid), that commercials drones weigh 150lbs (almost none are remotely even close, 99% are under 25lbs, 99.9% are under 50lbs), etc etc.
swingline-747 8y ago
This is bureaucratic nonsense. For 50 years, RC planes have been fine. This is a knee-jerk overreaction to take out their frustrations on convenient bystanders, eg hobbyists, when they can't defend against terrorists with flying bombs whom aren't going to register anything. Plus, how will it be enforced? Going to put FAA goons in park trees to catch those felonious dads shooting Estees model rockets and buzzing RC planes (aka "drones") around?
EGreg 8y ago
While I think many of the provisions for drones are too restrictive, one provision is crucial: The law also weighs into the controversial issue of whether drones should have radio beacons that identify their position and registered owner. It would grant the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to require that. The agency is drafting such a regulation at the request of homeland security and law enforcement agencies and has signaled it may require retrofitting millions of drones already in use. Autonomous drones are far cheaper to produce than automobiles. And what if an autonomous drone drops grenades in a public area? Who do you blame? How does the law prevent further issues? We better crack down on unidentified drones.
- kxrm 8y ago
  If someone wanted to launch such an attack disabling identification would be fairly trivial.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    That’s the only way we can catch the drones early. Drone flying without a radio beacon would be instantly shot down by laser or emp or whatever. We would need tons of those. Otherwise there are huge dangers.
abledon 8y ago
About time. I'm F*ing amazed this has gone on so long! As if no one has duck taped some github computer vision human recognition AI's with some strapped on Pistol/Semi automatic hooked up to an onboard arduino.
FundThrowaway 8y ago
Almost every time we have a BBQ or other outside event someone buzzes a drone overhead and just sits there watching us. Almost every time I go out hiking I hear the high pitched whine of a drone flying around the country park. It seems no matter where I go there is someone flying one. They are a total nuisance, create tons of noise pollution in areas that are usually quite tranquil, invade privacy and just annoy me all around to be honest.
- mashgin 8y ago
  where do you live? I'm in the Bay Area and have never seen any drones flying overhead! I'm myself a drone enthusiast, and I take great care not to make anyone feel uncomfortable (at least not intentionally) when I'm flying a drone
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - iancmceachern 8y ago
    I live in norcal (sacramento) and spend a lot of time outdoors here, in the bay area, and near Tahoe and we see them consistently nearly every time were out, even when we're paddling on the water.
    - MisterOctober 8y ago
      Phoenix area here - drone nuisance an occasional but non-negligible problem here too. Sometimes they're a minor annoyance [e.g., 4th of July fireworks viewing], and sometimes genuinely creepy [hovering over backyards in my neighborhood, sometimes at night] I observe that the majority of drone owners use them with a mind to avoid making others ill-at-ease, but y'know, tragedy of the commons and all that
      - Jedd 8y ago
        Not really tragedy of the commons.
jakobegger 8y ago
Some time ago I wanted to see what kind of videos people make with drones, and the top result on Youtube was a compilation of videos of nude girls sunbathing who absolutely did not want to be filmed. When I saw that, I realised that there are too many assholes in the world to allow unregulated drones. Some people will invade the privacy of others without any thought, and the only course of action is to require registration of drones. It's a shame -- I'm sure there are plenty of responsible drone pilots out there. But the jerks ruin it for everyone.
CitizenTekk 8y ago
I think it's fair enough that there should be law to choose out fly zone only for drones to still preserve privacy, tranquility and lessen the noise pollution, some people might think that drones are also hobby for people, but not all people don't have the same exact common things to enjoy. City of LA is now issuing permits for this kind of issue Excerpt: The city and the county of Los Angeles have issued nearly 60 permits for drones on film and TV sets in the last year, according to data from FilmL.A., which handles permits for the Los Angeles region. In addition to the permits, applications for drone waivers have poured in, with more than 200 companies and individuals requesting authorisation from the FAA to operate drones for film production, per the FAA website. full article: https://beth.technology/drones-over-hollywood-an-aerial-view-of-video-security/ https://beth.technology/drones-over-hollywood-an-aerial-view...

190 points by antr 8y ago

Calling the state of drones the "wild west" pretty much puts the conclusion at the start. How about, "Drone hobbyists angered at pointless laws that treat their hobby like it's a problem"

MBCook 8y ago
What about the part of the article where the FCC gets 100 complaints a day, including from pilots seeing drones in dangerous areas?
- black6 8y ago
  Every large outdoor event I’ve been to recently has had at least one drone buzzing over the crowd at some point — and that’s been verboten from the start.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    Are you sure that's not the event flying/contracting out the drone work themselves?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  100/day isn't that bad when you consider that there's >300 million people in the country and how much of a hair trigger some busybodies are on when it comes to reporting stuff to the government. 100/day is on the same order as the amount of "doing X while black" or "teenagers looking sketchy" complaints that get called in to local police departments across the country. You just don't hear about them because they're thinly distributed to local PD's across the country.. If only 100 people/day are complaining to the government about something then that something isn't a problem.
- tajobq 8y ago
  I think you mean the part that says 100 complaints per month. "Each month, the FAA receives more than 100 reports of drone sightings by pilots, citizens, and law enforcement"
  - dkresge 8y ago
    Note also it says “reports”, not complaints.
- gorkish 8y ago
  100 reports per month. The relatively small city I live in gets this many or more animal-at-large reports on a daily basis which likely constitute a larger public safety threat than people flying their quads around throughout the entire country. Where is the regulatory capture on leash laws?
  - poof131 8y ago
    Animal populations aren’t growing at exponential rates. The future scale of drones and autonomous airborne vehicles is going to be huge. The growing possibility of midairs with drones is more significant than bird strikes or deer on a runway. Hobbyist drone pilots are going to lose the safety battle. Just as you can’t drive however you want on public roads, class G airspace is going to resemble class A airspace. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)
    - DocTomoe 8y ago
      > Animal populations aren’t growing at exponential rates. Erm, yes, if you ignore outside factors, they do. In fact, population growth has been a poster child to explain what exponential growth means for a while...
    - cuboidGoat 8y ago
      >The growing possibility of midairs with drones is more significant than bird strikes That seems amazingly unlikely.
    - freeone3000 8y ago
      Really? There are more drones than birds?
      - CleaveIt2Beaver 8y ago
        More unaware drones/flying objects with greater mass than birds, maybe?
  - 8y ago
- KirinDave 8y ago
  100 reports a month, which if you think about the scale of the US is remarkably low.
- jzawodn 8y ago
  If the FCC gets that many, I wonder how many the FAA gets...
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    Hey, numbers and letters are hard. FCC, FAA, 100 reports per month, 100 complaints per day. Same thing, surely. Besides drones are bad, so exaggerating and misrepresenting is morally justified, as it will save the lives of billions that would otherwise have died from the flying evil.
- cuboidGoat 8y ago
  >“Each month, the FAA receives more than 100 reports of drone sightings by pilots, citizens, and law enforcement,” Drones interfering with manned aircraft or emergency services is already illegal. And these things are transmitting radio in both directions, putting money into tracking and prosecuting people interfering with flights is completely achievable, without any change in law. I suspect that this is more about protecting the interests of the commercial businesses by introducing licensing as a barrier to entry. >The bill is supported by the Commercial Drone Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group representing Alphabet’s Wing as well as other drone businesses.
miranda_rights 8y ago
The hobby can be dangerous. Overall, it isn't problematic, but there are a few drone hobbyists that ruin it for the rest, frequently due to lack of training. There's the person who hit the Space Needle [0], the person who crashed their drone mid-day in SF after they lost connection with it and it almost hit people walking on the sidewalk [1]. The ease of buying one and being able to use it means it's possible to fly it without having any knowledge of all the ways it could go wrong. [0]: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-charged-with-piloting-drone-that-struck-space-needle-on-new-years-eve/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/man-charged-... (Open in incognito if you run into the paywall) [1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/drone-crashes-outside-millennium-tower-sinking-sf-13216498.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/drone-crashes-ou...
- rhinoceraptor 8y ago
  AFAICT the SF crash was done by a professional hired to inspect the crack, using a drone for business of any kind requires a part 107 certification.
- rrdharan 8y ago
  Don't forget the guy who crashed his drone in a Yellowstone geyser potentially causing irreparable environmental damage: https://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/a-crashed-drone-could-destroy-yellowstone-s-grand-prismatic-spring/article_009fb83c-20a0-11e5-9dcd-ffc330206e7a.amp.html https://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/a-crashed-drone-co... This one really pissed me off...
- tzs 8y ago
  Don't forget the idiots who fly drones at forest fires, which several times last year resulted in fire-fighting tanker planes being diverted away. I've heard people say that keeping the tankers away when a drone is in the same airspace is an overreaction, but those people are not thinking it through. There are several factors that make fire-fighting flights very difficult for the pilots. 1. They are flying very low. 2. The air over and around large fires is often very turbulent. 3. The plane is heavily loaded, making it less nimble than normal, and making maneuvers put much more stress on the plane than they would on a less loaded plane. The pilots are in a dangerous, stressful situation that requires their upmost concentration. Anything that distracts them is dangerous.
reaperducer 8y ago
How about, "Drone hobbyists angered at pointless laws that treat their hobby like it's a problem" I thought it was pointless, too, until I saw that video taken from a drone that hovered right above a passenger jet as it was landing at KLAS. (Sorry I can't search for the video at work — no YT allowed.)
- stickfigure 8y ago
  That isn't necessarily a justification. * Is that behavior already illegal under existing law? * Do these new laws meaningfully address that behavior?
  - Shivetya 8y ago
    you obviously haven't been keeping up with the current state of gun control legislation. governments are keen on making the illegal even more illegal as a means to look like they are doing something and to chip away at rights people are current exercising. drones will eventually become so heavily licensed than anything outside of law enforcement, large news organizations, and politicians, will be restricted to the point of needing specialized parks just to enjoy them. RC planes generally fall under 112-95 Section 336 which pretty much should work for drones
    - toss1 8y ago
      The problem is that RC planes almost universally require a much higher investment in skill-building to become competent enough to even fly, let alone fly well. There is also a large community of builders and flyers [1], a network of clubs with actual airfields for the purpose, and a multi-million dollar insurance policy with membership. Both the difficulty, the investment, and the training and peer pressure drastically reduces the number of participants who behave like asshats with their aircraft - to essentially zero. With hobby drones, it is exactly the opposite -- just go buy some overgrown toy, and you can now put up in the air a device that with any of hundreds of failures of the device or pilot, can become a lethal projectile falling from the sky. So, yes, serious requirements for anything over a few hundred grams is very reasonable[2]. [1] Academy of Model Aeronautics -- www.modelaircraft.org [2](no, I'm not implying that the Govt automatically implements every reg in a reasonable & effective way, that could still end badly.) [Edit: footnotes]
bsder 8y ago
When California has to ground fire control aircraft because idiots are too stupid to realize that flying drones near them is a bad idea, yeah, the hobby is a problem. The good drone operators didn't get control over the bad ones, so here we are.
- pythonaut_16 8y ago
  > The good drone operators didn't get control over the bad ones What does this even mean? I buy a drone and now I'm responsible to go hunt down every idiot with a drone and tell him to knock it off? I'm sure that would be very effective. Definitely much more effective than the FAA regulations already in place that these people choose to ignore.
  - bsder 8y ago
    The early drone operators and builders had the opportunity to propose and install mechanisms to manage drones properly. Instead, they spent their political capital fighting regulations instead of making good ones that the FAA could simply adopt wholesale. Because of that, the FAA stepped in and now everybody gets to deal with the fallout.
xg15 8y ago
Well, that puts the opposite conclusion at the start.
scandox 8y ago
I want these things as highly regulated as possible. I found it extremely uncomfortable to have drones flying about over my kids head in the park. What do I know about the competence of the pilots? Or the onboard AI? Nothing. They're basically high speed aerial blades from my POV.
- Balero 8y ago
  I don't like drones flying over public places from a privacy perspective. I've been hit by an admittedly, fairly small drone. I't didn't hurt much at all, and the rotors didn't break the skin. I don't think they're like aerial blades, unless someone attaches some to one.
  - scandox 8y ago
    Good to know.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    It really depends on the drone. Those small toy drones? Yeah, might cut you a bit if the rotor cages aren't installed. Something heavier like a DJI Phantom? Even if the blades don't cut you, those carry enough mass/speed to seriously injure.
    - Balero 8y ago
      I mean yeah of course. I was talking about small hobby drones. Taking it to the absurd, if you get hit by one of those Reapers[0] you might get really seriously injured! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper
craftyguy 8y ago
It is a problem.
pc86 8y ago
How about, "Some drone hobbyists angered they can't keep flying their drones at landing aircraft like assholes?" All the uncontrolled airports near me have to have drone advisories because nobody respects the 400' or line of sight regulations. I was landing on 35 at KTHV last year and nearly hit a drone at almost 900' turning to downwind to base. There needs to be registration and regulation so that when you as a drone operator violate airspace regulations you can be punished.

iamdave 8y ago

I'm mildly incredulous on the actual scope of the bill compared to what's being reported (it's a learned behavior), does anyone have the name of the bill or the full text that I may go read for myself? Mostly because as as a remote pilot, I have a feeling the proposals may be much less onerous than we're being lead to believe by Bloomberg here and what hobbyist groups are complaining about. Stated as a Licensed Part 107 operator. I think everyone should be required to undergo some kind of training, with tiers for educational, hobbyist, and commercial. I learned a lot more in those classes than just how to fly a Phantom DJI and found the regulatory knowledge alone to be HIGHLY insightful.

ransom1538 8y ago
Ugh. Everytime I fly a micro drone ($40) I get some "Licensed Part 107 operator" lecture me on how I need to "undergo some kind of training". I think these guys should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing children at parks.
- iamdave 8y ago
  Interesting take on the matter. Certainly access to firearms is a discussion worth having in society, but gun control isn't the subject of the proposed bill-nor is it the subject of this thread.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- stevecalifornia 8y ago
  You should have to undergo some kind of training. It's wildly routine to see drone pilots flying at the end of a runway because they didn't realize the runway was there and they didn't know aeronautical charts exist and/or how to read them. Buying a flying battery pack doesn't entitle you to circumvent airspace rules and endanger lives and property.
  - 8y ago

draugadrotten 8y ago

Terrorists are already using Drones to attack people[1]. ISIS are buying and perhaps using drones in Europe[2]. Unfortunately, this means drones will need to be regulated like they are weapons, because they are used as weapons. 1- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan-president-targeted-in-attack-attempt-minister-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan... 2- https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-for-attempting-to-smuggle-drones-to-ISIS-568039 https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-...

Raphmedia 8y ago
Car bombs are rampant but cars are not treated as weapons except (somewhat) for vehicular manslaughter.
- draugadrotten 8y ago
  Car analogies are always good. Well, cars must undergo heavy certification and testing before being allowed on public roads. Operators must undergo certified training and be certified before operating cars on public roads. Every car is registered and tracked with a visible marking. Cars are limited in how fast they can go, and how much emissions they can have and more. I believe these kinds of measures will be put in place for drones as well: only certified drones with enforced technical limitations of speed and height, certified operators only ,and remotely visible (rfid) license plates.
  - wnevets 8y ago
    It's always odd to see people choosing one of the most regulated products on the market for those kinds of arguments.
  - learc83 8y ago
    This works for cars because cars are too big to be easily concealable Most of regulations you mention also do nothing to stop cars from being used as weapons, so they are completely irrelevant to your point. The few regulations you mentioned that do provide some deterrent to being used as weapons weren't intended for that purpose, and are easily circumvented by determined attackers anyway.

gaahrdner 8y ago

Long gone are the days of needing only a Technician class radio license to operate FCC uncertified radio and video transmission gear, strapped onto a cheap foam RC plane from China, piloted by a human with nothing more than a controller, video goggles, and an antenna to achieve mile-long distances and thousand foot heights. THAT was the wild west. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0

zrobotics 8y ago
Plus, we still have part 103 ultralight aircraft. As long as it weighs < 254 lbs and is slow enough, you don't even need to register the darn thing. Edit: to clarify, these are 'real' aircraft that humans can fly in. https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interest...
- carapace 8y ago
  OMFG so if I can build a thing within these constraints I can fly it? (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. God Bless America!
  - trhway 8y ago
    my understanding they are trying to fit it into that regulation : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjqR4JAsL1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjqR4JAsL1A
  - dmitrygr 8y ago
    > OMFG so if I can build a thing within > these constraints I can fly it? Yes. You need not even build it yourself, you can buy it. eg: powered paragliders

LinuxBender 8y ago

Ending the Aerial Wild West implies that the wild west is no more. There are plenty of places to buy drone parts, controllers, etc... that do not require any registration. Would it perhaps be more accurate to say, that the wild west is slightly limited to true hobbyists and terrorists? Would such regulations just limit the average person from buying their "toy" drones? The drone hobbyists that I know are not impacted by this. They use 3d headsets and race their drones through buildings up to 6 miles away.

superkuh 8y ago
> race their drones through buildings up to 6 miles away. This is a pretty incredible claim. I think your friends may have been exaggerating things or you misunderstood.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Not at all. They are actually working on methods to extend even further by creating a network mesh in the air. This involves multiple RasPi's and multiple drone blimps and multiple quad drones.
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Alright. That's a little more plausible. At least that would give them line of sight. Now it's just incredible and unlikely instead of completely infeasible.
    - LinuxBender 8y ago
      There are companies deploying commercial solutions similar to what my friends are doing. There are a couple companies in the EU that will send an AED drone to emergency callers for heart attacks. The drone's wings collapse and it converts into an AED. It can fly to locations minutes before first responders get there. They are also being used to deliver medicine to remote camp-sites in the mountains and some jungles.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

asynchronous13 8y ago

The article is talking about the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te... The problematic portion for drone hobbyists is "S.2836 - Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018" that was attached to the FAA Reauthorization bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2836/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/283... In it's current form, it has some really vague wording and definitions. For example, the bill frequently refers to "threat" without a solid definition. It basically says that "threat" will be defined by the Secretary or Attorney General at a later time.

iamdave 8y ago
THREAT DEFINED.—In defining the term ‘threat’ for purposes of carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary or the Attorney General, as the case may be, shall take into account factors, including, but not limited to, the potential for bodily harm or loss of human life, the potential loss or compromise of sensitive national security information, or the potential severe economic damage resulting from use of an unauthorized unmanned aerial system in the vicinity of a covered facility or asset. Well no, 'threat' is not being defined by the Sec/AG at a later time, it's right there. Where I will concede to your point is that in the context of unmanned aerial flight, actions by the pilot that satisfy the above are not well enumerated or defined-but I'm only partially through reading the text of the bill.
- asynchronous13 8y ago
  Please read that definition more carefully. Here's a paraphrase: In defining the term threat, The Secretary or the Attorney shall take into account factors such as potential for harm, loss of life, national security, and economic damage. That is not a definition, that is a list of things that must be taken into account when making the definition.
  - iamdave 8y ago
    Perhaps I should clarify myself then: there is a definition, but unfortunately that definition is sans-actions of the parties held to the legal standard compared to allowed actions enumerated by parties to whom the express, actionable authority is granted under proposed law in (b)(1). tl;dr - Pilots may not engage in action(s) that constitute a 'threat', nebulously defined, but the AG may engage in action(s) in response, more expressly defined. At least that's how I've initially read the proposed changes to this Reauthorization bill. Edit: fwiw, I think we're both in agreement, however the ends-that the proposal does not go far enough to detail the actions of operators.

trhway 8y ago

Ultra light aircraft don't need test/license while drones would be required to have it.

cmurf 8y ago

As a pilot and former flight instructor, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the recreational drone complaints. There are recreational kite fliers too, and they have FAA regulations that apply to them, I don't hear them complaining. There are model airplane pilots, they have FAA regulations, they have a community that is very serious about education, training, mentor-peer relationships and self monitoring and reporting. I do not see this at all with the drone pilot community. It's a community of individuals. And even if it's less than 1% of the total drone pilot population, there is a real problem with this bizarre demand that they have a right to do what they want. They do not. This is shared space. Ham radio operators have more rules, testing, peer review and community than recreational drone pilots.

orclev 8y ago
Interestingly much of the (hobbyist) drone hardware also requires a Ham license to operate, so there's quite a bit of overlap there. There are at least 3 distinct groups potentially impacted by this. First there are the non-commercial, "toy" users that are flying around cheap little "smart" drones using phones. Most of this class are using drones under 5" and that weigh negligible amounts. The second class are the non-commercial hobbyists that mostly build their own drones and use them either for recreational freestyle or racing. These drones can be anywhere from 3" all the way up to 12" on the extreme end, and similarly have a very wide weight and performance envelope. Much of the equipment in this class requires Ham licenses, or in some cases other federal licensing. Lastly there are the commercial operators that are mostly using drones for aerial photography. These tend to be medium to large sized drones (everything from 6" all the way to multiple foot wide monstrosities) which most definitely require FAA licenses to operate. Part of the problem here, is that each of these groups has different expectations. Little Timmy getting the 4" plastic drone he flies with his iPhone for Christmas shouldn't really be required to pass a FAA license to fly it around his backyard. The professional across the street with access to the 5 foot wide 150 pound hexacopter with the gyrostabilized 4k camera mount and an effective range measured in miles probably should have some kind of license. The guy who built his own 5" drone out of parts and tools around the local park probably falls somewhere in the middle. Lumping all drones under one single set of regulations really isn't going to work because not all drones are the same. It would be like trying to cover unicycles, bicycles, segways, and motorcycles with a single set of regulations just because they all had less than four wheels and required you to balance on them.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dragIo 8y ago

This is just to clear the airspace and sell licensing fees to Google, Amazon and the like in a few years.

samstave 8y ago

What year will we see the following scenarios actually happen: * Someone flies a drone into a government facility with an explosive | camera | contraband? * Public figure/celebrity or official assassinated by drone * Drone causes infrastructure damage or transportation accident * Drone used for spying /financial gain --- Honestly, the lack of the above happening in any large scale, notable or meaningful way shows that there arent a ton of people out there looking to wreak havoc with drones. What I am surprised by is there are not yet a range of security services based on drones - i.e. a swarm of autonomous drone cameras which patrol a given asset/area where they autonomously recharge themselves and fly around - coupled with motion sensors/proximity sensors that being triggered are dispatched to investigate.

valarauca1 8y ago
Someone flies a drone into a government facility with an explosive | camera | contraband? Yemen, Syria, or Iraq (any time within the last 1-2 years) Public figure/celebrity or official assassinated by drone Attempted assassination attempt of Nicolás Maduro earlier this year. Drone causes infrastructure damage or transportation accident Yemen, Syria, or Iraq (more then 2 years ago) Drone used for spying /financial gain Shit everything has already happened (outside of the US), so I assume this has as well. Just we aren't going to hear about it until the statue of limitations is up. --- Seriously the asymetic warfare from relatively cheap drones is a massive problem. The US has fired patriot missiles are little more then ~$300 hobbyist drones carrying hand grenades.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  Considering half the point of drones is to have cameras on them I'd be absolutely shocked if nobody has used a drone to spy one someone yet...
- samstave 8y ago
  I meant within here in the US. I am perfectly aware of military use of drones. I was referring to the hobbiest movement's potential use of drones for 'domestic terrorism'.

xchip 8y ago

LOL it will be harder to own a drone than to own a gun

krapp 8y ago
Put guns on all the drones and they'll be protected by the 2nd Amendment. And the guns.

upofadown 8y ago

The eventual value of low level airspace for drone use vastly exceeds the value of any current use. If we wait long enough we will get to read lurid articles about reckless people in manually controlled aircraft blundering through drone space, putting the lives of themselves and others at risk for no good reason. The governments of the world have entirely dropped the ball on anti-collision systems for small aircraft up to now. I anticipate them doing no better now that there are even smaller aircraft added to the mix.

Kiro 8y ago

Why are HN so keen on defending drones? Serious question. Is there any altruistic reason or do hackers just like drones? What about privacy issues? Drones seem much more intrusive than the CCTVs people here normally are against.

jsjohnst 8y ago
Generally because the folks attacking don’t have the first clue anything what they are talking about. Those opposed are buying into pure FUD. Just read through the comments here alone, we have folks talking about regulations didn’t exist (they do), that licensing/testing isn’t required (it is, for the categories generally needing it), thinking a palm sized drone endangers their life (it doesn’t, unless they were being stupid), that commercials drones weigh 150lbs (almost none are remotely even close, 99% are under 25lbs, 99.9% are under 50lbs), etc etc.

swingline-747 8y ago

This is bureaucratic nonsense. For 50 years, RC planes have been fine. This is a knee-jerk overreaction to take out their frustrations on convenient bystanders, eg hobbyists, when they can't defend against terrorists with flying bombs whom aren't going to register anything. Plus, how will it be enforced? Going to put FAA goons in park trees to catch those felonious dads shooting Estees model rockets and buzzing RC planes (aka "drones") around?

EGreg 8y ago

While I think many of the provisions for drones are too restrictive, one provision is crucial: The law also weighs into the controversial issue of whether drones should have radio beacons that identify their position and registered owner. It would grant the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to require that. The agency is drafting such a regulation at the request of homeland security and law enforcement agencies and has signaled it may require retrofitting millions of drones already in use. Autonomous drones are far cheaper to produce than automobiles. And what if an autonomous drone drops grenades in a public area? Who do you blame? How does the law prevent further issues? We better crack down on unidentified drones.

kxrm 8y ago
If someone wanted to launch such an attack disabling identification would be fairly trivial.
- EGreg 8y ago
  That’s the only way we can catch the drones early. Drone flying without a radio beacon would be instantly shot down by laser or emp or whatever. We would need tons of those. Otherwise there are huge dangers.

abledon 8y ago

About time. I'm F*ing amazed this has gone on so long! As if no one has duck taped some github computer vision human recognition AI's with some strapped on Pistol/Semi automatic hooked up to an onboard arduino.

FundThrowaway 8y ago

Almost every time we have a BBQ or other outside event someone buzzes a drone overhead and just sits there watching us. Almost every time I go out hiking I hear the high pitched whine of a drone flying around the country park. It seems no matter where I go there is someone flying one. They are a total nuisance, create tons of noise pollution in areas that are usually quite tranquil, invade privacy and just annoy me all around to be honest.

mashgin 8y ago
where do you live? I'm in the Bay Area and have never seen any drones flying overhead! I'm myself a drone enthusiast, and I take great care not to make anyone feel uncomfortable (at least not intentionally) when I'm flying a drone
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- iancmceachern 8y ago
  I live in norcal (sacramento) and spend a lot of time outdoors here, in the bay area, and near Tahoe and we see them consistently nearly every time were out, even when we're paddling on the water.
  - MisterOctober 8y ago
    Phoenix area here - drone nuisance an occasional but non-negligible problem here too. Sometimes they're a minor annoyance [e.g., 4th of July fireworks viewing], and sometimes genuinely creepy [hovering over backyards in my neighborhood, sometimes at night] I observe that the majority of drone owners use them with a mind to avoid making others ill-at-ease, but y'know, tragedy of the commons and all that
    - Jedd 8y ago
      Not really tragedy of the commons.

jakobegger 8y ago

Some time ago I wanted to see what kind of videos people make with drones, and the top result on Youtube was a compilation of videos of nude girls sunbathing who absolutely did not want to be filmed. When I saw that, I realised that there are too many assholes in the world to allow unregulated drones. Some people will invade the privacy of others without any thought, and the only course of action is to require registration of drones. It's a shame -- I'm sure there are plenty of responsible drone pilots out there. But the jerks ruin it for everyone.

CitizenTekk 8y ago

I think it's fair enough that there should be law to choose out fly zone only for drones to still preserve privacy, tranquility and lessen the noise pollution, some people might think that drones are also hobby for people, but not all people don't have the same exact common things to enjoy. City of LA is now issuing permits for this kind of issue Excerpt: The city and the county of Los Angeles have issued nearly 60 permits for drones on film and TV sets in the last year, according to data from FilmL.A., which handles permits for the Los Angeles region. In addition to the permits, applications for drone waivers have poured in, with more than 200 companies and individuals requesting authorisation from the FAA to operate drones for film production, per the FAA website. full article: https://beth.technology/drones-over-hollywood-an-aerial-view-of-video-security/ https://beth.technology/drones-over-hollywood-an-aerial-view...