3 ms·

I'm curious about how dramatically this will affect the price of drones. I did a skim-read of the PDF but couldn't find specifics about what size of craft/prop

by mdip 7y ago

I'm curious about how dramatically this will affect the price of drones. I did a skim-read of the PDF but couldn't find specifics about what size of craft/properties of the craft this would apply to. Would it apply to the little hand-held $14 thing that was used for exactly one hour on Christmas before it was destroyed? Even outside of the "disposable/toy" market -- Amazon has a number of $100-$200 drones that are quite capable, with video/GPS and a lot of the features that would have been found only on $1000 drones a couple of years ago. Adding regulation[0] greatly affects hobbiest builders. I'm going to avoid tinkering around with things that could result in me having to explain myself to a judge. And it affects the target market for these $100/$200 drones. Do I want to go through the trouble of ensuring I'm not violating a hundred-page rule just "for my own entertainment"? I'm not saying the regulation isn't needed. Frankly, I haven't spent time understanding the problem well enough to make that determination. I'm just wondering how well this balances preventing a drone-related catastrophe against the harm it will cause to the overall sector. [0] Especially if it's the sort that are required to be complied with in order to be offered for sale

TrueDuality 7y ago
There are no size restrictions, the only exception is hobby built ones but this also proposes those can only fly in certain designated places. limited exceptions, which include certain amateur-built UAS and UAS manufactured prior to the compliance date, operators flying UAS without remote identification capabilities would be permitted to fly only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule specifically to accommodate them.
gibolt 7y ago
The Mavic Mini that was released last month is a fully-capable drone. It is one gram less than the 250g classification requiring registration. I assume that will be the limit here as well
- avip 7y ago
  The mini is exempted for recreational activity only [0]. DJI is aware of remote identification requirements, it's on their product roadmap. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10169/exception-for-limited-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10...
eblanshey 7y ago
The proposal states that this applies to every UAV over half a pound, except amateur built drones (which must be flown within line of sight.)
- TrueDuality 7y ago
  ...and "only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule"
  - mdip 7y ago
    I wish regulations that used this kind of wording were reserved only for the most necessary/dangerous situations. Did they define what the "geographic areas established under this rule" are, or is that something that the FAA has to publish, later? If it's the latter, it has a good chance of never being defined, or being defined in a manner that effectively makes operating a drone impossible/pointless (see my comments re: mini-motorcycles). For instance, my family owns a house in a resort community up north. It's a place where you generally park the car and bike/walk everywhere. A lot of people purchase golf carts or similar vehicles to get around, however, the state does not allow these to be used except in "certain specific geographic areas" -- basically, the municipalities have to decide to allow them or not, and where to allow them. Now, it's arguably a good idea to keep a golf cart with no seat belts that does not accelerate very quickly, cannot exceed 25 MPH and has similar braking limitations from being used on major roads, however, nothing about this vehicle makes it any more unsafe to use in a residential neighborhood or within the 25 MPH speed-limited downtown than other vehicles (self-powered or otherwise). They were legalized in their city last year after several years of trying to get through the city board/mayor. We have no-fly zones and other regulations meant to keep traffic limited to specific needs/aircraft. It would be far better if they (narrowly) defined the areas that drones cannot be used. As a middle-ground, having an additional tier would be nice, i.e. "drone pilots who have completed some form of licensing with basic training" would be allowed to operate them outside of "established geographic areas" but still carry restrictions on where they cannot be used. I'm not a fan of adding a licensing burden, but it's better than a hard restriction with no flexibility. It wouldn't even be unusual for the FAA to put something together for this -- my dad's pilot license allowed him to operate his specific aircraft in VFR when he first received it. He trained up and received his instrument certification and a few others that allowed him to fly in adverse weather conditions, with an oxygen tank/mask, at the maximum altitude the aircraft he owned was capable of reaching and he did just that at least weekly. Even outside of the FAA -- we have graduated drivers licenses[0]. Heck, at 12, my son was able to get a boating license at school[1]. Depending on what these allowed geographical areas end up being, it could either destroy the hobbyist market or make every hobbyist a violator. And once it's in place, holy crap is it difficult to undo[2] [0] My son can get his learners permit at age 14 and (I think) 9 months, allowing him to operate a car on public roads as long as I'm in the passenger seat. [1] Pretty common in Michigan, especially if you live within 10 miles of any of the great lakes. I got mine in 7th grade as part of my science class at a different school/district than he is. [2] Marijuana laws come to mind -- arguably much safer than other, legal/regulated, vices but yet still illegal (at the federal level) in the US. Or maybe more closely related, a future of completely driverless cars -- assuming the technology matures to the point where the "driver" is really a "passenger", will they eliminate drivers licenses? My bet is no. Even if they work as safely/simply/reliably as a modern elevator.

by mdip 7y ago

TrueDuality 7y ago

There are no size restrictions, the only exception is hobby built ones but this also proposes those can only fly in certain designated places. limited exceptions, which include certain amateur-built UAS and UAS manufactured prior to the compliance date, operators flying UAS without remote identification capabilities would be permitted to fly only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule specifically to accommodate them.

gibolt 7y ago

The Mavic Mini that was released last month is a fully-capable drone. It is one gram less than the 250g classification requiring registration. I assume that will be the limit here as well

avip 7y ago
The mini is exempted for recreational activity only [0]. DJI is aware of remote identification requirements, it's on their product roadmap. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10169/exception-for-limited-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10...

eblanshey 7y ago

The proposal states that this applies to every UAV over half a pound, except amateur built drones (which must be flown within line of sight.)

TrueDuality 7y ago
...and "only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule"
- mdip 7y ago
  I wish regulations that used this kind of wording were reserved only for the most necessary/dangerous situations. Did they define what the "geographic areas established under this rule" are, or is that something that the FAA has to publish, later? If it's the latter, it has a good chance of never being defined, or being defined in a manner that effectively makes operating a drone impossible/pointless (see my comments re: mini-motorcycles). For instance, my family owns a house in a resort community up north. It's a place where you generally park the car and bike/walk everywhere. A lot of people purchase golf carts or similar vehicles to get around, however, the state does not allow these to be used except in "certain specific geographic areas" -- basically, the municipalities have to decide to allow them or not, and where to allow them. Now, it's arguably a good idea to keep a golf cart with no seat belts that does not accelerate very quickly, cannot exceed 25 MPH and has similar braking limitations from being used on major roads, however, nothing about this vehicle makes it any more unsafe to use in a residential neighborhood or within the 25 MPH speed-limited downtown than other vehicles (self-powered or otherwise). They were legalized in their city last year after several years of trying to get through the city board/mayor. We have no-fly zones and other regulations meant to keep traffic limited to specific needs/aircraft. It would be far better if they (narrowly) defined the areas that drones cannot be used. As a middle-ground, having an additional tier would be nice, i.e. "drone pilots who have completed some form of licensing with basic training" would be allowed to operate them outside of "established geographic areas" but still carry restrictions on where they cannot be used. I'm not a fan of adding a licensing burden, but it's better than a hard restriction with no flexibility. It wouldn't even be unusual for the FAA to put something together for this -- my dad's pilot license allowed him to operate his specific aircraft in VFR when he first received it. He trained up and received his instrument certification and a few others that allowed him to fly in adverse weather conditions, with an oxygen tank/mask, at the maximum altitude the aircraft he owned was capable of reaching and he did just that at least weekly. Even outside of the FAA -- we have graduated drivers licenses[0]. Heck, at 12, my son was able to get a boating license at school[1]. Depending on what these allowed geographical areas end up being, it could either destroy the hobbyist market or make every hobbyist a violator. And once it's in place, holy crap is it difficult to undo[2] [0] My son can get his learners permit at age 14 and (I think) 9 months, allowing him to operate a car on public roads as long as I'm in the passenger seat. [1] Pretty common in Michigan, especially if you live within 10 miles of any of the great lakes. I got mine in 7th grade as part of my science class at a different school/district than he is. [2] Marijuana laws come to mind -- arguably much safer than other, legal/regulated, vices but yet still illegal (at the federal level) in the US. Or maybe more closely related, a future of completely driverless cars -- assuming the technology matures to the point where the "driver" is really a "passenger", will they eliminate drivers licenses? My bet is no. Even if they work as safely/simply/reliably as a modern elevator.