5 ms·

The amount of hysteria over drones (Particularly incidents like this) is really concerning to me, because it plays right into the hands of regulators and lobbyi

The amount of hysteria over drones (Particularly incidents like this) is really concerning to me, because it plays right into the hands of regulators and lobbyists in the US trying to justify unnecessary Remote ID legislation under the guise of "safety". The recently released proposed rules for Remote ID raised a huge amount of concern in the model aircraft world, because it proposed restrictions that would effectively kill the hobby: - All drones/RC aircraft must have a GPS-based tracking ("Full remote ID") on the aircraft, connected to a ground station and relayed to a subscription third-party service. These "Full remote ID" aircraft can be flown past line of site. - Aircraft not constructed by a single manufacturer (For example, handmade RC planes) are not allowed to use full remote ID, and instead must use "limited" remote ID in which GPS can be on the ground station, but the aircraft must disable itself past 400ft from the ground station. - Aircraft with limited remote ID can only be flown in a dedicated "FRIA" flying site. - FRIA sites are "legacy" and after a short period, no new sites will be created. The stated intention of the FAA is to phase these sites out completely, meaning after a certain period all planes must comply with full remote ID, effectively killing hand-built model aircraft. The end result of this regulation is _not_ safer airways: It's an airspace <400ft owned by commercial entities such as Amazon who are able to comply with the requirements of the Remote ID tracking and single-manufacturer requirements. It's an example of regulatory capture that will genuinely make the world worse for us by increasing noise pollution and drone traffic at low heights. Meanwhile, the model aircraft and drone hobby will have a large barrier to entry that pushes away the innovation of millions of engineers who got their start as kids flying affordable DIY planes.

tlow 6y ago
As a RC enthusiast who flies for recreation and enjoyment, this is really alarming. Especially because I am someone who enjoys constructing my own aircraft. For what it's worth, the craft I make are in the "Ultra-micro" category which are only a couple ounces flying weight.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  Not sure your aircraft would be regulated if they are that small.
chrisdalke 6y ago
Citation to the Remote ID proposal, for those interested. The comment period is closed, but the proposal received over 50k comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2019-1100 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2019-1100
imglorp 6y ago
Also contributing ammunition here is there are plenty of actual situations created by random clowns. Anyone can make or buy something off the shelf and be in the air minutes later, with no accountability or training, causing trouble with privacy, aviation airspace, public gatherings, or emergency scenes. The FAA attempted to license operators but it doesn't stop the "anyone" part. As usual, a few bad actors ruin it for everyone else trying to do the right thing.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > As usual, a few bad actors ruin it for everyone else trying to do the right thing. This framing is reminiscent of a lazy schoolteacher engaging in collective punishment. The few bad actors are not the ones ruining it for everyone else - let's keep the responsibility for the overbearing and inept response on the FAA itself.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    The issue is without some form of radio ID it's pretty tough to catch bad actors that don't strike in one place multiple times. Right now to find someone they either have to be stumbled upon while doing it or with the device, be dumb and brag about it, crash and have it traced back to them via video on the quad, or get caught with radio direction finding equipment. To apply that to your classroom example instead of being easily identifiable the kids are anonymous, very fast, and appear and disappear quickly. In that case is it that weird to try to make a way to differentiate everyone? Quads/drones/UASs are in a pretty tough to regulate sphere because they fly and can do a lot of damage it's not that wild for governments to try to get a handle on them.
    - chrisdalke 6y ago
      DJI, who makes the majority of consumer drones, has already implemented broadcast-based radio ID, but that's not what the FAA proposal suggests and is not the part of the regulation that is being criticized. In fact, the FAA has explicitly stated that they don't want to use a radio-broadcast system like ADS-B (the equivalent for general aviation). The solution being proposed involves a proprietary internet-based system that has privacy/security implications among other issues -- The system would send the location of any user to a third-party company, would require a subscription, etc. The solution does very little to alleviate the concerns you are discussing and many more reasonable proposals have been suggested which DO involve radio ID. My favorite solutions involve a combination of a radio beacon broadcasting GPS and registration # in the style of ADS-B for larger drones/aircraft, and for smaller aircraft an app-based system where users "check in" with a flight plan. But keep in mind that the outrage is not over any regulation by the FAA, it's that their proposal completely disregards existing industry standards like those put out by DJI and creates an expensive, hard to enforce system that favors large corporate interests. Let's keep in mind that there are millions of drones in the US (1.1 million registered with the FAA, and many more that have not been registered because they are <250g or custom-built.) and have not had a single incident involving injury or death. Every single incident involving a drone has involved the concern of violation of someone's privacy or violation of an airspace, and even in those incidents there has been a lot of hysteria involved in the media response. In my opinion this absolutely does not justify preemptively building an expansive surveillance infrastructure around technology that has, so far, proven to be very safe.
hanniabu 6y ago
What organizations fighting for pro-drone legislature can we help support?
- chrisdalke 6y ago
  - Flite Test (A large RC community) has collected a lot of stories & comments but suggests reaching out to a local government representative: https://ftca.flitetest.com/ https://ftca.flitetest.com/ - If you are a member of a local AMA (Model aircraft association), communicate with the AMA leadership about your concerns since so far they've been relatively passive and haven't voiced any concerns. I, like many others, put a comment on the FAA proposal, but that comment period is over and the pandemic has slowed down a lot of the public progress of this legislation. It's hard to answer your question, since it feels like the FAA is proceeded as planned despite tens of tousands of concerned comments.
pj_mukh 6y ago
Yea. Simple question. What’s the evidence that these were not birds?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
coronadisaster 6y ago
They need to make military drones illegal over US soil, not sure what to do about toy drones though.

tlow 6y ago

As a RC enthusiast who flies for recreation and enjoyment, this is really alarming. Especially because I am someone who enjoys constructing my own aircraft. For what it's worth, the craft I make are in the "Ultra-micro" category which are only a couple ounces flying weight.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Not sure your aircraft would be regulated if they are that small.

chrisdalke 6y ago

Citation to the Remote ID proposal, for those interested. The comment period is closed, but the proposal received over 50k comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2019-1100 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2019-1100

imglorp 6y ago

Also contributing ammunition here is there are plenty of actual situations created by random clowns. Anyone can make or buy something off the shelf and be in the air minutes later, with no accountability or training, causing trouble with privacy, aviation airspace, public gatherings, or emergency scenes. The FAA attempted to license operators but it doesn't stop the "anyone" part. As usual, a few bad actors ruin it for everyone else trying to do the right thing.

mindslight 6y ago
> As usual, a few bad actors ruin it for everyone else trying to do the right thing. This framing is reminiscent of a lazy schoolteacher engaging in collective punishment. The few bad actors are not the ones ruining it for everyone else - let's keep the responsibility for the overbearing and inept response on the FAA itself.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  The issue is without some form of radio ID it's pretty tough to catch bad actors that don't strike in one place multiple times. Right now to find someone they either have to be stumbled upon while doing it or with the device, be dumb and brag about it, crash and have it traced back to them via video on the quad, or get caught with radio direction finding equipment. To apply that to your classroom example instead of being easily identifiable the kids are anonymous, very fast, and appear and disappear quickly. In that case is it that weird to try to make a way to differentiate everyone? Quads/drones/UASs are in a pretty tough to regulate sphere because they fly and can do a lot of damage it's not that wild for governments to try to get a handle on them.
  - chrisdalke 6y ago
    DJI, who makes the majority of consumer drones, has already implemented broadcast-based radio ID, but that's not what the FAA proposal suggests and is not the part of the regulation that is being criticized. In fact, the FAA has explicitly stated that they don't want to use a radio-broadcast system like ADS-B (the equivalent for general aviation). The solution being proposed involves a proprietary internet-based system that has privacy/security implications among other issues -- The system would send the location of any user to a third-party company, would require a subscription, etc. The solution does very little to alleviate the concerns you are discussing and many more reasonable proposals have been suggested which DO involve radio ID. My favorite solutions involve a combination of a radio beacon broadcasting GPS and registration # in the style of ADS-B for larger drones/aircraft, and for smaller aircraft an app-based system where users "check in" with a flight plan. But keep in mind that the outrage is not over any regulation by the FAA, it's that their proposal completely disregards existing industry standards like those put out by DJI and creates an expensive, hard to enforce system that favors large corporate interests. Let's keep in mind that there are millions of drones in the US (1.1 million registered with the FAA, and many more that have not been registered because they are <250g or custom-built.) and have not had a single incident involving injury or death. Every single incident involving a drone has involved the concern of violation of someone's privacy or violation of an airspace, and even in those incidents there has been a lot of hysteria involved in the media response. In my opinion this absolutely does not justify preemptively building an expansive surveillance infrastructure around technology that has, so far, proven to be very safe.

hanniabu 6y ago

What organizations fighting for pro-drone legislature can we help support?

chrisdalke 6y ago
- Flite Test (A large RC community) has collected a lot of stories & comments but suggests reaching out to a local government representative: https://ftca.flitetest.com/ https://ftca.flitetest.com/ - If you are a member of a local AMA (Model aircraft association), communicate with the AMA leadership about your concerns since so far they've been relatively passive and haven't voiced any concerns. I, like many others, put a comment on the FAA proposal, but that comment period is over and the pandemic has slowed down a lot of the public progress of this legislation. It's hard to answer your question, since it feels like the FAA is proceeded as planned despite tens of tousands of concerned comments.

pj_mukh 6y ago

Yea. Simple question. What’s the evidence that these were not birds?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

coronadisaster 6y ago

They need to make military drones illegal over US soil, not sure what to do about toy drones though.