Slashdot Mirror
How You Too Can Be Shut Down By the Feds For Flying Drones
An anonymous reader writes "University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor Matt Waite waived a government cease and desist letter recently received for his experiments using 3-pound, $500 drones for news reporting (specifically, for a story about drought in Nebraska). He gave journalism organizations the lowdown on what they can expect from the government on this front going forward and said he's posting his experience in trying to get certified by the FAA on GitHub so they can follow along."
No, that's not what news organizations can expect. That's what people trying to report on actual events can expect.
The government selectively enforces rules like this. It has been for some time now. We have to keep you away from the raw and unadorned truth... it's dangerous to democracy you know. You will receive an edited and redacted version suitable for consumption within 3-5 business days. Thank you for your cooperation, Citizen.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Have use them to report on the feds.
No, the FAA is being very deliberate about shutting down everyone who is deliberately breaking the law by commercially flying uavs. They should prosecute instead sending a C&D
I think your looking for 3lb
I think it's you're you're looking for. ;)
Great, a night at the Jumeirah Carlton Tower will run me $167K. Where's my AMEX Black?
I didn't RTFA, but the price sure makes me believe these were RC model planes and not actually drones. Or is anything that's remote controlled a drone now? Do RC cars count? If I use a wireless keyboard & mouse, my computer should. My television certainly should qualify, it does nothing but drone when it's on.
At what point is a hobby shop R/C Airplane or Helicopter a drone? I used to enjoy flying R/C planes as a teen. I mean they were the "trainers". I never had the space to dedicate a workshop towards building the larger model planes until recently. And delicate (and easily breakable) R/C planes and young kids probably wouldn't matter much.
I now wonder if by the time kids get old enough to know better if I'll be able to get back into the hobby due to every R/C plane being classified as a drone...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
s/waived/waved/ – it makes a difference.
Drones have an ability to make truth more evident. Not only people but governments do not like it when truth is available. Any effort to make good use of drones will be met with huge resistance. For example we are willing to spend billions of dollars on a border control as long as it does not work. Imagine what a fleet of drones could do to halt illegal immigration. Now tell me just how likely it is that drones will be heavily used to patrol our borders. I have seen this same phenomena in police work where a couple of cops came up with a great way to curtail drunk driving. Two cops simply waited outside popular bars and stopped drivers who pulled out of the parking lot late at night. Almost 100% of the stops resulted in a valid drunk driving arrest. The city quickly halted the practice. The problem was that the town bordered another town and when word got out people simply drove a few hundred yards to get drunk in the next town's bars. In other words the real working policy of the city was to make a show of stopping drunk driving while making sure that they really did not stop drunk driving.
Drones work too well. By using drones we can expose situations and that endangers all kinds of social institutions. With a good swarm of drones on patrol we could really knock out almost all home burglaries at night. But how many companies and jobs depend on a busy criminal justice system? Society really is that perverted.
It's illegal to fly an RC model for any kind of pay.
As long as you are doing it for fun (and follow AMA safety rules), RC camera work is legal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Nothing stops these UAVs from flying in the same airspace as planes carrying people - all it takes is a little software malfunction. They are small and hard to see, aren't in radio contact with air traffic controllers, and don't show up on radar. There's a reason the government is concerned about them, and I suspect it's not about supressing truth.
RC Plane: no camera and needs to be in direct line of sight of the operator.
Drone: real time camera and can be operated out of line of sight of the operator.
See the difference?
Which one, Zeus? G-Zeus? Anubis? Yahweh? Thor? Brahma? Quetzalcoatl? Ba`al adh-Dhubab? Vishnu? Me?
My bet is on myself.
Modern electric RC trainers like a slow stick are almost unbreakable. If your kids are old enough to shoot a 22 rifle they are old enough to fly RC. I'd say age about 8 to get started, depending on the kid. The slow stick is also surprisingly aerobatic.
If they're still at the BB gun stage you could try them with a 3 channel indoor slow flyer. Those are dirt cheap. $50 bucks complete.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You can have a real time camera, as long as you operate it in line of sight.
You can't operate it for profit. e.g. Aerial photography of real estate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Is this the same place that was in an uproar about licensing drones all over the US? There are people who seem to think that anyone should be able to use drones except the government. Interesting dichotomy there.
Drones have existed for quite a while too.
Heck RC pilots have been using video feeds to fly drones for quite awhile as well.
FTFY
I see it as a drone once it has autonomous functionality. Simple FPV (first person view) doesn't qualify in my book
Is a Predator a drone? It is continually piloted from the ground.
FAA regs specifically mention AMA rules. So yes, they are included in FAA regs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You know, even by Slashdot standards this summary is remarkably incoherent. And that's ignoring the waived/waved confusion.
"he's posting his experience in trying to get certified by the FAA on GitHub so they can follow along."
Likely his problem was that the FAA doesn't use Github for certification. They have their own computers and application forms and stuff.
Three Squirrels
can you rent it for personal photographing of real estate?
it sounds though like this is actually lobbying by commercial small time pilots though... shooting real estate and sending people offers for them to buy them(the pictures) is so easy money.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Regulating the parts of the airspace routinely used in interstate commerce is the job of the Federal government.
I don't know what the actual "airspace" that the feds claim jurisdiction over, but common sense would say it's anything at or within the safety margin of the lowest altitude a commercial aircraft flying from one state to another or flying in or out of the United States would routinely use over that spot, or the lowest altitude a military or other federal-government-owned aircraft would routinely use over that spot. In most areas the "FAA floor" should be a few thousand feet at the lowest (I suspect it's much lower, but I digress). For areas within a few hundred feet of runways, helipads, etc. this may be all the way to the ground (sorry kiddies, no radio-controlled toy airplanes for you without FCC approval).
However, FAA regulations should be safety-oriented, not use-oriented.
States should and do have the right to impose safety regulations below that height.
Now, when it comes to radio transmissions, the FCC gets involved. They can and for all I know do impose rules that would prevent a ground-based kiddie-toy remote-control aircraft transmitter from interfering with other, higher-priority, licensed radio users including radios used by commercial aircraft.
For aircraft which emit pollutants into the atmosphere, the feds also have the right to impose pollution controls.
One other thing that can come under regulation is the actual purpose of the drone's use and the harm to society by allowing the drone to fly at all. I'm thinking noise pollution from low-flying drones and invasion-of-privacy issues from drones with cameras aimed at your backyard swimming pool or aimed at your windows. Most of this should come under state regulation, but things like flying near one state's border and photographing inside someone's window who lives across the border would reasonably come under Congress's purview, as would photographing into the backyard of a home located on a military base even if the drone were flying over private property with that landowner's consent.
Now, would I favor my state banning camera-less or camera-turned-off drones flying over private property with the owner's consent, or flying so high and so quiet that they are not a nuisance but not so high that they interfere with interstate commerce? No, but I would expect my state to ensure the safety of such craft. Would I favor my state banning photography from a drone if the subjects of the photograph and/or their owners consented, and the photography wasn't creating a nuisance, safety, or other issue for anyone else? No.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It seems to me that guns aren't the only things that you can shoot with. Drones, as the government uses them are "arms", whether used offensively or as intelligence gathering devices. Perhaps it's not a weapon in the deadly sense, but it could certainly be used to provide for the common defense and in the defense of persons and property when carrying nothing more than a camera. If we hold the ability to shoot someone sacrosanct, why not extend that to the ability to see them coming?
Hmm, if you have two kids you could test if the slow stick is unbreakable to .22 rifle rounds.
Not in my opinion. It's a military RC plane.
Citation needed, please. Specifically the 'illegal' part
Good-bye
Jackson: The second Goa'uld representative we're expecting is Yu.
O'Neill: Me?
Jackson: Yu is the name of the Goa'uld.
O'Neill: Ah. Sorry.
Ezekiel 23:20
Just tape a handgun to your drone. Then maybe you can get the NRA to cover your legal costs and Republicans to fight for you in Congress.
A Barrett M82 .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle with 60,000 rounds of ammo is legal, but a quadracopter with a webcam isn't?
I could make a case that there's something a little out-of-whack in the good ol' USA.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's illegal to fly an RC model for any kind of pay.
That's what *I* thought, too. So why don't we take a page direct from the politicians: I fly for myself and take pics, and then give them to you because you ask. (Presumably I'd need to give them to all comers, but then again not Every Single Person I meet is my friend. So I don't see that saying "No" is that bad. A judge may disagree.)
You, then, contribute to my fund (charitable, PAC, LLC, something) that I just happen to control. No no -- it's not MY money at all, it's the funds' money; I just happen to be the one in control of it. Or my friend is, whatever.
Now, could the feds come in and take control and arrest me before, during, or after the fact? Yep, because the men with guns always win, especially if they have enough bullets.
By the way, I think that's great: "I use it to troll 'real world' groups... Completely legal as I'm doing it for fun." But mightn't fun have consequences? Just because you're having fun doesn't mean everyone else is. Aren't you responsible if you hurt someone else? And if there's not some kind of ID (owner sticker, serial number, etc) on it, how are they to know who owns it? Do you walk up and say "Sorry about that" and claim ownership and responsibility? Or do you just write it off as perhaps a bad battery and disappear?
Fun is by yourself or with friends, and perhaps with a few strangers accidentally nearby. Fun does not consist of ONLY strangers. Then again I'm an old fogie, so get off my lawn. And by the way: I'm practicing.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Without seeing the letter, and knowing more about the context... this article amounts to nothing but flamebait. It's entirely possible that Professor Waite, being quite inexperienced, has violated one or more of the existing regulations and has mistaken that for 'repression'. Digging around the relevant websites fails to discover any evidence that's he actually done any work or research on said regulations, only that he's an advocate for their use in journalism.
Two slow sticks and streamers would be more fun.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You can't operate it for profit. e.g. Aerial photography of real estate.
What happens if you operate it for non-profit... and then at a later date profit from it?
E.g. you post a youtube video of it.... you later decide to add advertisements; you get some click-revenue
FAA regs specifically mention AMA rules. So yes, they are included in FAA regs.
Citation required.
Show me where the FAA regulations specifically mention AMA rules and give them the weight of law. (And no, Advisory circular 91 57 isn't it.)
Modern electric RC trainers like a slow stick are almost unbreakable.
A slow stick is very easy to break. It's relatively easy to fix as well, but it's far from "almost unbreakable".
A much more durable plane would be a foam flying wing like a Zagi -- motor in the back, foam everywhere else. That's much more likely to survive a hard crash than a slow stick.
God will win.
It's for the national security of the children, if you oppose this, you're for the terrorists of the pedophiles.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
The AMA has nothing to do with it. Much as they'd like to be (and may perhaps achieve in the near future), they are not a regulatory organization yet, and have no power outside their own membership and flying fields owner or controlled by their member clubs. I fly with no AMA membership and without paying any attention to the AMA safety code, and it's all perfectly legal so far.
It's nice that your definition differs from the dictionary definition.
A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control.
I thing Google Earth has supplanted that business model in most areas now.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Durable yes, but easy no.
They dont fly as slow though and the aerodynamics are quite different. Usually no dihedral for a start, and the lack of a rudder can be a limitation. Lots of fun though!
He is full of it. First off FAA grants 'Authority' to R/C UAS via voluntary suggestions, not regulations. (AC 91-57)
You are correct AMA has ZERO legal standing or authority. They are at best an insurance company.
The only thing that is now being questioned is whether or not the FAA followed proper administrative procedures when it designated commercial (paid) hobby flight as not covered by AC 91-57. The problem is the can of worms it opens, regardless of the ruling. Someone selling a hobby R/C airplane is engaged is business, are they not? Will the FAA go after all of them? Even though they only sell to non-commercial hobbyists? Not likely.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
These aren't the drones you're looking for
- Raynet --> .
Which one
FSM obviously, any mere mortal who thinks he can prevent His Noodly Appendages from keeping objects pressed firmly to the ground must be punished!
Bocce?
Currently the FAA Reform Act of 2012 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf is the only place that specifically cites what "model sized" aircraft need COA's and which are exempt. Currently anything rc flown line of sight under 400 ft flown for recreation or hobby purposes is considered regulated under FAA Circular AC 91-57. Other than the 2012 reform act no mention anywhere can be found documenting public entities or commercial entities using rc for other than hobby purposes.
It is thought this act was pushed through the rule making process and was not open to public comment the required period.
The current case of the FAA attempting to fine an rc pilot under the Reform Act of 2012 is being fought by alleging the Reform Act failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act which sets Federal guidelines for regulation making. As such if it is found that they bypassed practice to push this regulation is unenforceable.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
This is not the "your", you're looking for.
Move along.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
One way around the "no commerce" rule would be to get a court to declare that your particular proposed use does not involve a "federal interest" and is therefore exempt from all federal regulation under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This would require, among other things, that there be no interstate commerce and that there be no interference with interstate commerce. While this legal technique would not be useful to journalists whose employer is out-of-state or to those wishing to use UAVs close to an airport that had inter-state flights, it would be potentially useful for the few remaining local news outlets covering events not close to flight paths or airports.
It would be particularly useful to local specialty photographers who work with local businesses like real-estate agents, provided there truly was no interstate commerce involved.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Of course you can break one. But a routine hard landing into grass will break the prop and knock the wing loose. Back in the air in 2 minutes.
They've added nylon rods to the leading and trailing edges of the wing sense version 1.0. Maybe you had on older version.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If the FCC cat detector van zeroes in on your radio controller and catches you red handed. The gig is up.
Yeah, but how many vans are out there running around trying to find a broadcast controlling a drone? Aren't they for the most part just trying to find signals interfering with others? You'd almost be better off with a general RF detector in the right frequency range, some binoculars, and a few warm headset-enabled friendlies mixed in with the crowd. And that's hoping he's not on a nearby hill with his own binoculars and a small parabolic antenna.
If I'm really being evil and have some remote vantage point, I just need to make sure it receives my control signals and forget about any returning status signals. THOSE are the guys to worry about -- the normal ones goofing around and cause accidental property/people damage are just annoying idiots and need to be taught to be more careful and respectful of things.
Sometimes it's self-limiting though. (Horrible accident -- "specialized in the most extreme form of flying" -- a practice just went terribly wrong. The only thing worse would have been if he'd killed more people along with himself, again not on purpose.)
That all being said, on occasion when my phone is WiFi sharing it's network access, you have to connect to broadcast access point "FBISURVELNCE0193". That's an old internet joke, but I thought it was funny enough to actually implement. I've only gotten one start out of someone -- that I've noticed, anyway. The upside here is that I think it's funny; the downside is that the FBI could get me for somehow "impersonating an official."
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?