9 ms·

The FAA is flushing a multi-billion dollar industry down the toilet with their ridiculous restrictions on this gigantic, growing drone craze. Most of these thin

The FAA is flushing a multi-billion dollar industry down the toilet with their ridiculous restrictions on this gigantic, growing drone craze. Most of these things weigh a couple pounds and are mostly harmless (definitely less than, say, a baseball hitting you). I'm glad I live in Europe.

jff 12y ago
Yes, Europe, known for its lack of reactionary restrictions on useful technologies.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Aside from weapons I'm not sure that characterisation is fair.
  - jff 12y ago
    GMO food, off the top of my head.
    - eru 12y ago
      Fracking.
      - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
        Most countries have clamped down on Fracking since it is quite harmful to both the environment and the people living in the area. Only the US seems to plow ahead on the back of political bribes, expensive campaigning, and "energy independence."
icebraining 12y ago
Europe's a big place. They're banned in Spain: http://www.thespainreport.com/4617/spain-bans-civilian-drone-use-across-whole-country-commercial-purpose/ http://www.thespainreport.com/4617/spain-bans-civilian-drone... Apparently they're writing specific norms for what and how they'll be usable legally (and most likely it'll require a license), but for now, it's a full ban.
ratsbane 12y ago
That is exactly what they are doing. It is infuriating to watch our potential US drone industry developing in Canada, Australia, Japan, etc., but not here.
- Maxious 12y ago
  Australia: 146 registered Remotely Piloted Aircraft operators and counting http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100959 http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_1...
trhway 12y ago
>The FAA is flushing a multi-billion dollar industry down the toilet with their ridiculous restrictions Regulations follow the life with lag. AirBNB and Uber are most recent examples of "break the rules en-masse and thus force the rules change after". FAA will change their rules once a million drones will appear in the skies as they will just be not able to fine each and every aerial photographer. Until then it is just noise.
yellow 12y ago
Have you seen pictures of what drone props can do to skin? Even the handheld drones draw blood easily. The $500 phantoms can cause damage requiring stitches... Not sure a baseball is the best analogy.
- patio11 12y ago
  Baseballs are safe in their most common state, but can quite easily send you to the ER. "Hey, how about we have a game where we have one teenager fire a fast moving projectile through a space occupied by other teenagers?" "Doesn't sound fun! Let's tell the other teenagers to get in the way of the fast moving projectile."
- baddox 12y ago
  The drone lacerations may be a flashier image for a photograph, but baseball injuries are nothing to dismiss. Also note that all of the drone injury pictures I have seen are from the drone owner accidentally throttling up while holding the drone, which is an incredibly easily avoidable mistake.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
Mostly harmless like when you fly them next to an apartment complex? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBSsBscRDU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBSsBscRDU I find interesting that people are more scared of the NSA and yet we have tons of people flying these around your neighborhoods and apartments and nobody bats an eye about your invasion of privacy.
- baddox 12y ago
  Yes, still mostly harmless. Still comparable to playing baseball in a residential area. As far as privacy goes, of course it's possible to violate privacy with a drone. But it's a lot more practical to violate privacy with a telescope or a camera with a zoom lens. The only thing a drone can get you is a shot of the roof or backyard, a really easy way to get spotted, and relatively short "mission" duration.
- wastedhours 12y ago
  Partly ignorance. People I know see them a bit like those little toy helicopters, rather than as a stable, flying camera.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  It's a concern, but can't you just set up a camera on the ground, or any number of other ways? The benefits of accessing the third dimension are far greater than the benefits of restricting it.
bigiain 12y ago
"Most of these things"... My two newest ones both weigh in under 400g (a bit less than 1lb) ready to fly - fully loaded I could fly with 800 or 900g all up if I wanted to (they're a _lot_ less fun to fly loaded up like that though). They both use 5 or 6 inch props, usually plastic (though I do have some carbon fibre ones) which while they hurt a bit if you're careless are not super dangerous. I'd hesitate at calling them "mostly harmless" - you're right in that they're about as likely to cause damage in public as a baseball or frisbee - I think of them as about as dangerous as a kid on a bicycle. A friend has a octocopter with eight 14inch carbon fibre props spun by 2kW motors which weighs in at over 6kg with all five cameras it usually flys with mounted. Those _shouldn't_ be subject to the same rules - but the hobby/tech moves _way_ faster than the regulations, so while I disagree with it, I understand _why_ the restrictions need to first be based on the assumption that there are people flying unshrouded lawnmowers spinning blades capable of chopping heads off - because they _are_. At least here in .au, there's strong evidence our local authorities are thinking about a graduated set of regulations (at least for "non commercial, hobby use"), where sub 0.5kg craft will be treated differently to 2kg and 5+kg craft.
Already__Taken 12y ago
I odn't disagree but I think this is a bad argument. > definitely less than, say, a baseball hitting you Is it not quite common to see "No Ball games" signs in public places? I've seen a fair few in the UK. Obviously that's not a law but it's there to stop people going to the park to drive golf balls across the football pitch.
joezydeco 12y ago
You can shit on the US-FAA all you want. I enjoy the fact we have an FAA that errs on the side of caution and restraint until a technology is understood and all the implications sorted out. That caution and care (in cooperation with an equally cautious NTSB) has created an airline industry in the USA that's 10 times per mile safer than driving in a car. I shudder to think what air travel would be like if we had all adopted a "shoot first think later" attitude in the early days.
- ratsbane 12y ago
  The early days of commercial aviation in the US were largely open and unregulated. The first serious governmental effort to regulate aviation in the US was in 1926, by which time it was clearly needed. I don't know anyone who thinks the FAA should have no ability to regulate drones, but their unwillingness to draw limits for themselves is causing real problems. Noncommercial drones/model aircraft less than a certain weight and operating below 400 feet and not near an airport have always been legal. If hobbyists are safe to operate according to those rules for personal enjoyment, why should they be banned from operating under those rules for pay? [edit: grammar]
  - joezydeco 12y ago
    I agree, the FAA is a bit messed up when it comes to what can be allowed as a hobby and what needs to be regulated as a business.

jff 12y ago

Yes, Europe, known for its lack of reactionary restrictions on useful technologies.

Someone1234 12y ago
Aside from weapons I'm not sure that characterisation is fair.
- jff 12y ago
  GMO food, off the top of my head.
  - eru 12y ago
    Fracking.
    - UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
      Most countries have clamped down on Fracking since it is quite harmful to both the environment and the people living in the area. Only the US seems to plow ahead on the back of political bribes, expensive campaigning, and "energy independence."

icebraining 12y ago

Europe's a big place. They're banned in Spain: http://www.thespainreport.com/4617/spain-bans-civilian-drone-use-across-whole-country-commercial-purpose/ http://www.thespainreport.com/4617/spain-bans-civilian-drone... Apparently they're writing specific norms for what and how they'll be usable legally (and most likely it'll require a license), but for now, it's a full ban.

ratsbane 12y ago

That is exactly what they are doing. It is infuriating to watch our potential US drone industry developing in Canada, Australia, Japan, etc., but not here.

Maxious 12y ago
Australia: 146 registered Remotely Piloted Aircraft operators and counting http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100959 http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_1...

trhway 12y ago

>The FAA is flushing a multi-billion dollar industry down the toilet with their ridiculous restrictions Regulations follow the life with lag. AirBNB and Uber are most recent examples of "break the rules en-masse and thus force the rules change after". FAA will change their rules once a million drones will appear in the skies as they will just be not able to fine each and every aerial photographer. Until then it is just noise.

yellow 12y ago

Have you seen pictures of what drone props can do to skin? Even the handheld drones draw blood easily. The $500 phantoms can cause damage requiring stitches... Not sure a baseball is the best analogy.

patio11 12y ago
Baseballs are safe in their most common state, but can quite easily send you to the ER. "Hey, how about we have a game where we have one teenager fire a fast moving projectile through a space occupied by other teenagers?" "Doesn't sound fun! Let's tell the other teenagers to get in the way of the fast moving projectile."
baddox 12y ago
The drone lacerations may be a flashier image for a photograph, but baseball injuries are nothing to dismiss. Also note that all of the drone injury pictures I have seen are from the drone owner accidentally throttling up while holding the drone, which is an incredibly easily avoidable mistake.

at-fates-hands 12y ago

Mostly harmless like when you fly them next to an apartment complex? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBSsBscRDU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBSsBscRDU I find interesting that people are more scared of the NSA and yet we have tons of people flying these around your neighborhoods and apartments and nobody bats an eye about your invasion of privacy.

baddox 12y ago
Yes, still mostly harmless. Still comparable to playing baseball in a residential area. As far as privacy goes, of course it's possible to violate privacy with a drone. But it's a lot more practical to violate privacy with a telescope or a camera with a zoom lens. The only thing a drone can get you is a shot of the roof or backyard, a really easy way to get spotted, and relatively short "mission" duration.
wastedhours 12y ago
Partly ignorance. People I know see them a bit like those little toy helicopters, rather than as a stable, flying camera.
Houshalter 12y ago
It's a concern, but can't you just set up a camera on the ground, or any number of other ways? The benefits of accessing the third dimension are far greater than the benefits of restricting it.

bigiain 12y ago

"Most of these things"... My two newest ones both weigh in under 400g (a bit less than 1lb) ready to fly - fully loaded I could fly with 800 or 900g all up if I wanted to (they're a _lot_ less fun to fly loaded up like that though). They both use 5 or 6 inch props, usually plastic (though I do have some carbon fibre ones) which while they hurt a bit if you're careless are not super dangerous. I'd hesitate at calling them "mostly harmless" - you're right in that they're about as likely to cause damage in public as a baseball or frisbee - I think of them as about as dangerous as a kid on a bicycle. A friend has a octocopter with eight 14inch carbon fibre props spun by 2kW motors which weighs in at over 6kg with all five cameras it usually flys with mounted. Those _shouldn't_ be subject to the same rules - but the hobby/tech moves _way_ faster than the regulations, so while I disagree with it, I understand _why_ the restrictions need to first be based on the assumption that there are people flying unshrouded lawnmowers spinning blades capable of chopping heads off - because they _are_. At least here in .au, there's strong evidence our local authorities are thinking about a graduated set of regulations (at least for "non commercial, hobby use"), where sub 0.5kg craft will be treated differently to 2kg and 5+kg craft.

Already__Taken 12y ago

I odn't disagree but I think this is a bad argument. > definitely less than, say, a baseball hitting you Is it not quite common to see "No Ball games" signs in public places? I've seen a fair few in the UK. Obviously that's not a law but it's there to stop people going to the park to drive golf balls across the football pitch.

joezydeco 12y ago

You can shit on the US-FAA all you want. I enjoy the fact we have an FAA that errs on the side of caution and restraint until a technology is understood and all the implications sorted out. That caution and care (in cooperation with an equally cautious NTSB) has created an airline industry in the USA that's 10 times per mile safer than driving in a car. I shudder to think what air travel would be like if we had all adopted a "shoot first think later" attitude in the early days.

ratsbane 12y ago
The early days of commercial aviation in the US were largely open and unregulated. The first serious governmental effort to regulate aviation in the US was in 1926, by which time it was clearly needed. I don't know anyone who thinks the FAA should have no ability to regulate drones, but their unwillingness to draw limits for themselves is causing real problems. Noncommercial drones/model aircraft less than a certain weight and operating below 400 feet and not near an airport have always been legal. If hobbyists are safe to operate according to those rules for personal enjoyment, why should they be banned from operating under those rules for pay? [edit: grammar]
- joezydeco 12y ago
  I agree, the FAA is a bit messed up when it comes to what can be allowed as a hobby and what needs to be regulated as a business.