6 ms·

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

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.
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    Neither does buying an automatic weapon ... oh wait never-mind ...
    - lostapathy 8y ago
      Buying an automatic weapon is incredibly hard in the US.
      - Sebguer 8y ago
        It's not hard, it's expensive.
        gweinberg 8y ago
        It's nearly impossible to do legally.
        marshf 8y ago
        It is actually very easy to do legally. Just expensive. https://www.gunbroker.com/item/779349893 https://www.gunbroker.com/item/779349893
        lostapathy 8y ago
        Technically yes, technically no? The supply of transferable machine guns is fixed, and low, and it only shrinks over time. Technically yes, if you have the money you can buy one today. Technically no, we can't all go buy one because there aren't enough to go around.
        Spooky23 8y ago
        Depends on the state. There’s a national firearms act license and transfer tax.
  - diego 8y ago
    a $40 micro drone is training. It's a completely harmless toy, even less harmful than a soccer ball. This is not a $1000 hobby grade drone (for which you definitely should undergo training). A $40 drone typically has extremely weak brushed motors. You don't need training to operate a frisbee but you definitely need training to operate a discus. This comment is an example of how the general public does not know enough about the subject matter.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Do you routinely ignore advice from those more experienced in other aspects of your life as well? Based on just what you wrote alone, and having never operated a drone in my life, I side with lecturers. Because they're licensed operators with (I assume) experience, whereas your counter-argument is...nothing, and you're the one telling the story.
  - Bizarro 8y ago
    Do you routinely ignore advice from those more experienced in other aspects of your life as well? Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life?
    - okmokmz 8y ago
      >Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life? Yes, regardless of what I'm working on, be it construction/maintenance on my house, basic electrical or plumbing work, driving my car, handling/transporting a firearm, and any other number of cases I have to stop and listen to "random people" i.e. cops, regulators, politicians, FAA, and whoever else regardless of how I feel about them because they are, unfortunately or not, the authority
      - Udik 8y ago
        We're not debating whether we have to do as they say or not; we're discussing whether they're right ot not, which is a completely different matter.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  Just attach a gun to it ... your good.
- rikstar 8y ago
  I am intrigued by this, so long you are not flying your drone for commercial reasons you do not need a 107. However if you are flying a drone over 250 grams there are certain rules you should be following.
  - AngryData 8y ago
    Im not super into drones but 250 grams seems incredibly and excessively light. Sure, you can buy drones that aren't that much heavier than which could in unusual circumstance be a little dangerous, but if someone was to build some cheap DIY drone at home from parts im not sure how successful they would be making such a tiny model and lightweight model. 250 grams is almost half the weight of a baseball which could easily be going faster than such a tiny drone.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  > should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing children at parks Completely agree! Children should be allowed to play with toy guns in public areas.
ghaff 8y ago
I assume it's language from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 [1] and specifically § 45509. Among the requirements for recreational use is "(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request." [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text#toc-H4DF2835472A44A52B5D0356AF0DF48B1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...
- iamdave 8y ago
  aha. Thanks for that!
smacktoward 8y ago
> does anyone have the name of the bill or the full text that I may go read for myself? Frustratingly the story doesn't specify a bill number, which makes it harder than it should be to track down the actual text. I found some discussion of it on the AMA's Government Relations blog (see https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/26/faa-reauthorization-hr-302-passes-the-house-contact-the-senate-now/ https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/26/faa-reau...) -- but confusingly, they cite the relevant bill as "H.R. 302," which if you look it up on Congress.gov is actually a bill titled the "Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017" (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22h.r.+302%22%5D%7D&r=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...) which has nothing at all to do with UAVs. I then searched Congress.gov for the bill title they gave, the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018", and found H.R. 4, which appears to be the actual bill in question. The UAV-specific part of the bill is Title 2, Subtitle B ("Unmanned Aircraft Systems"), which can be jumped to directly here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22faa+reauthorization%22%5D%7D&r=1#toc-H9F124CF4BC6540DF92D8860D53D8D259 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...
- fermienrico 8y ago
  Why isn't it normal for journalists to cite their sources? Heck, we do here on HN for supporting our arguments.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    Because most people don’t verify the sources, so including them seems pointless to some people
    - fermienrico 8y ago
      I think that is a totally separate concern. Just because I don't research about every single reference in a scientific publication should not be a signal for its omission.
0xquad 8y ago
The hobby is broad (and changing rapidly). The media and public conflate the different uses. It was mostly stodgy model airplane fliers who regulated themselves through a community group (Academy of Model Aeronautics), somewhat like how gun owners might follow NRA's rules on gun safety at a range (and pass a test first). The bill would have the newer parts of the hobby (like those aerial photography drones) join in the self-regulation that AMA has been doing satisfactorily for ages. Sensible and not very controversial for most. But it also puts the hobby directly under the authority of the FAA in a way that it hasn't ever been before. This gives FAA the ability to impose new regulations directly on hobbyists without the input that would happen in either congressional legislation or community group standards. That is an epic big deal from the point of view of the old hobbyists and the new.

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.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  Neither does buying an automatic weapon ... oh wait never-mind ...
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    Buying an automatic weapon is incredibly hard in the US.
    - Sebguer 8y ago
      It's not hard, it's expensive.
      - gweinberg 8y ago
        It's nearly impossible to do legally.
        marshf 8y ago
        It is actually very easy to do legally. Just expensive. https://www.gunbroker.com/item/779349893 https://www.gunbroker.com/item/779349893
        lostapathy 8y ago
        Technically yes, technically no? The supply of transferable machine guns is fixed, and low, and it only shrinks over time. Technically yes, if you have the money you can buy one today. Technically no, we can't all go buy one because there aren't enough to go around.
        Spooky23 8y ago
        Depends on the state. There’s a national firearms act license and transfer tax.
- diego 8y ago
  a $40 micro drone is training. It's a completely harmless toy, even less harmful than a soccer ball. This is not a $1000 hobby grade drone (for which you definitely should undergo training). A $40 drone typically has extremely weak brushed motors. You don't need training to operate a frisbee but you definitely need training to operate a discus. This comment is an example of how the general public does not know enough about the subject matter.
mikestew 8y ago
Do you routinely ignore advice from those more experienced in other aspects of your life as well? Based on just what you wrote alone, and having never operated a drone in my life, I side with lecturers. Because they're licensed operators with (I assume) experience, whereas your counter-argument is...nothing, and you're the one telling the story.
- Bizarro 8y ago
  Do you routinely ignore advice from those more experienced in other aspects of your life as well? Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life?
  - okmokmz 8y ago
    >Do you routinely stop what you're doing to listen to random people that claim that they're more of an authority on various aspects of your life? Yes, regardless of what I'm working on, be it construction/maintenance on my house, basic electrical or plumbing work, driving my car, handling/transporting a firearm, and any other number of cases I have to stop and listen to "random people" i.e. cops, regulators, politicians, FAA, and whoever else regardless of how I feel about them because they are, unfortunately or not, the authority
    - Udik 8y ago
      We're not debating whether we have to do as they say or not; we're discussing whether they're right ot not, which is a completely different matter.
sharemywin 8y ago
Just attach a gun to it ... your good.
rikstar 8y ago
I am intrigued by this, so long you are not flying your drone for commercial reasons you do not need a 107. However if you are flying a drone over 250 grams there are certain rules you should be following.
- AngryData 8y ago
  Im not super into drones but 250 grams seems incredibly and excessively light. Sure, you can buy drones that aren't that much heavier than which could in unusual circumstance be a little dangerous, but if someone was to build some cheap DIY drone at home from parts im not sure how successful they would be making such a tiny model and lightweight model. 250 grams is almost half the weight of a baseball which could easily be going faster than such a tiny drone.
Koshkin 8y ago
> should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing children at parks Completely agree! Children should be allowed to play with toy guns in public areas.

ghaff 8y ago

I assume it's language from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 [1] and specifically § 45509. Among the requirements for recreational use is "(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration online for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request." [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text#toc-H4DF2835472A44A52B5D0356AF0DF48B1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...

iamdave 8y ago
aha. Thanks for that!

smacktoward 8y ago

> does anyone have the name of the bill or the full text that I may go read for myself? Frustratingly the story doesn't specify a bill number, which makes it harder than it should be to track down the actual text. I found some discussion of it on the AMA's Government Relations blog (see https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/26/faa-reauthorization-hr-302-passes-the-house-contact-the-senate-now/ https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/09/26/faa-reau...) -- but confusingly, they cite the relevant bill as "H.R. 302," which if you look it up on Congress.gov is actually a bill titled the "Sports Medicine Licensure Clarity Act of 2017" (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22h.r.+302%22%5D%7D&r=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/...) which has nothing at all to do with UAVs. I then searched Congress.gov for the bill title they gave, the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018", and found H.R. 4, which appears to be the actual bill in question. The UAV-specific part of the bill is Title 2, Subtitle B ("Unmanned Aircraft Systems"), which can be jumped to directly here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22faa+reauthorization%22%5D%7D&r=1#toc-H9F124CF4BC6540DF92D8860D53D8D259 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/te...

fermienrico 8y ago
Why isn't it normal for journalists to cite their sources? Heck, we do here on HN for supporting our arguments.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Because most people don’t verify the sources, so including them seems pointless to some people
  - fermienrico 8y ago
    I think that is a totally separate concern. Just because I don't research about every single reference in a scientific publication should not be a signal for its omission.

0xquad 8y ago

The hobby is broad (and changing rapidly). The media and public conflate the different uses. It was mostly stodgy model airplane fliers who regulated themselves through a community group (Academy of Model Aeronautics), somewhat like how gun owners might follow NRA's rules on gun safety at a range (and pass a test first). The bill would have the newer parts of the hobby (like those aerial photography drones) join in the self-regulation that AMA has been doing satisfactorily for ages. Sensible and not very controversial for most. But it also puts the hobby directly under the authority of the FAA in a way that it hasn't ever been before. This gives FAA the ability to impose new regulations directly on hobbyists without the input that would happen in either congressional legislation or community group standards. That is an epic big deal from the point of view of the old hobbyists and the new.