Slashdot Mirror
That Toy Is Now a Drone
fluxgate (2851685) writes "A notice from the FAA announced earlier this week just turned a bunch of kids' toys into drones. In the past, the FAA had made the distinction between model aircraft (allowed) and drones (prohibited without special permission) according to whether they were used for recreation (okay) or commercial purposes (verboten). Now they have further narrowed the definition of model aircraft: If you fly it through video goggles, it no longer qualifies. This move eliminates First Person View (FPV) radio control flying. I'm an editor at IEEE Spectrum with a special interest and blogged about this disturbing development as soon as I heard the news."
As an RC airplane enthusiast, who likes to dabble in FPV and UAVs, I must say that I'm not surprised. However my feelings are a mix of outrage at the FAA as well as understanding. When a few irresponsible people use their toys in ways that are, well irresponsible, I'm not at all surprised to see the FAA come down hard on everyone. I think in many ways this is a tragedy of the commons. A few idiots have actually ruined it for everyone. When a toy has the power to kill people, or to hurt them, and people do stupid things with them, then it ceases to be a toy. We are now seeing stories in the news almost weekly of stupid people flying their toys in reckless and dangerous ways.
That said, I don't see how the FAA's rules are enforceable, nor do I see how the FAA can actually claim to have the authority to make rules in an an area that, as far as I can tell, congress has never granted them the power to do.
If FAA truly has the power to regulate a hobby, then they need to have a framework in place to allow this activity to continue safely. It's happening everywhere in the world. Banning it in the US will only put companies behind the curve who want to develop and use the technology.
I'm sorry for those losing out here, but I also don't see why they should be allowed to operate unmanned aerial vehicles with surveillance capabilities any more than anyone else.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The article and comments miss the point. http://washington.cbslocal.com... They are trying to regulate the use of the drones for peeping in neighbors yards and windows. They are trying to regulate it in a way without banning them, the over-reaction which will probably occur the first time a nude child shows up on youtube from an evil neighbor's google glasses. The CBS article - and most articles via news.google.com - point out that you can buy these pocket yard drones on amazon and are more nuanced about the policy debate than the /. "government is gonna take your toys away" article.
Gently reply
So... regular quadcopter equals FAA-regulated and illegal but Quadcopter with a gun equals second amendment?
Good luck to all lawyers out there.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
I also don't see why they should be allowed to operate unmanned aerial vehicles with surveillance capabilities any more than anyone else.
The default should be yes, you're allowed to do it as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Going to a park or a field and flying a model airplane (or drone, however you want to call it) doesn't hurt anyone, so it should be allowed.
One of the main arguments against centralized government authority is that it's too big to take into account the concerns of everyone, so small constituencies get trampled. That is the case here, people who were not hurting anyone are now prevented from a healthy hobby, and have very little recourse.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Stop flying it more safely! You may only fly it the more dangerous old way!"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The largest hazard with that set seems to be swallowing the parts, in that in addition to potentially choking on small parts, some would sicken or kill you if you managed to choke them down. For mature children though, looks like a cool toy to use under supervision (for educational guidance in addition to safety).
The real problem with that thing seems to be that it was quite expensive, and even more expensive to produce (the company lost money on every unit).
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- in fact, I suspect from your choice of phrase that we would very much agree on the basic principles of how laws should work -- I'm just saying the law should apply equally to everyone. If certain areas are acceptable for this kind of hobby, they should be acceptable for other similar "drone" flights. Equally, if for whatever reason certain areas are not acceptable in law for general "drone" flights or if the default in law is that these devices aren't considered acceptable but they are then allowed under specific conditions, the same rules should apply for hobby aircraft with similar characteristics.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place, but the quadcopter-with-a-gun is certainly a weapon, so why wouldn't it be protected by the second amendment?
side note: To all those who say, "because that sounds super dangerous" the response is to draft a constitutional amendment to allow the government to regulate more things. Simply "interpreting" away the teeth of the second amendment merely encourages contempt of the constitution and all the other things protected by other clauses and amendments are sure to be abridged in the same manner.
Further side note: Perhaps it's me, but I've noticed over the past few years that while both congress and the people are interested in "regulating drones," both parties seem to have very different ideas about what will be regulated. Congress seems to want to regulate the use of drones by private individuals, but the clamor from the public seems to be about the use of drones by the state for surveillance or armed action. The whole thing is shaping up not unlike the calls for "immigration reform" where each party's ideas about what the reform should be are other parties' ideas about what needs to be fixed.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The FAA has always had this rule.
To be a flying a 'model' you have to fly by line of sight, i.e. with your eyes on the model, not via electronics. Its been this way for years.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
"I'm not sure that the FAA has the authority to regulate the quadcopter in the first place..."
Maybe not quadracopters, but they definitely have the authority to regulate airspace. And regulation of quadracopters is probably coming, in much the same way as every little device that transmits radio waves is regulated now.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
You know, I'm pretty sure that 18th century militia didn't wield pump-action shotguns all that often, either...
Ezekiel 23:20
They do something! They make my hipster hobby illegal!
In principle, this is a good change. The regulations should be not be based on "hobby" vs "commercial". They should instead be based on size, weight, speed, altitude, method of control (line of sight, or not, etc.), capabilities (camera, machine gun, etc.), and where it is flown (public vs private land). If you are flying a drone less than 5kg, on your own property, and keeping it below 100 meters, it should be anything goes, with no permit required. After that, there should be reasonable restrictions.
No the AMA(Academy of Model Aeronautics) is also going against the rule. Another case of a slashdot reader who didn't actually read the article.
"The FAA interpretive rule effectively negates Congress' intentions, and is contrary to the law. Section 336(a) of the Public Law states that, 'the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft', this interpretive rule specifically addresses model aircraft, effectively establishes rules that model aircraft were not previously subject to and is in direct violation of the congressional mandate in the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill."
"AMA cannot support this rule." said AMA Executive Director Dave Mathewson. "It is at best ill-conceived and at worst intentionally punitive and retaliatory. The Academy strongly requests the FAA reconsider this action. The AMA will pursue all available recourse to dissuade enactment of this rule."
Line of sight between the operator and the model - has always been a legal requirement of operating R/C aircraft.
That would only be true if one had never read the Militia Act.
Hint: it's not even in the fine print that pretty much every American citizen is a member of the Militia.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In coding terms, the militia part is a comment, the right part is code. The militia part isn't part of the operative law of the constitution; never was. It clarifies intent, however.
But viewed in the context of the time, with a bunch of ordinary people with weaponry in their private possession (including military-grade stuff) just having used that to overthrow an oppressive government, it's quite clear the intent there was "a check on government overreach". Even through the 19th century, it was common for 1%ers to buy cannon, Gatling guns and other clearly military hardware, and bring it along to war, or donate it to the town for local defense. Due to some remarkably stupid procurement decisions by the US military, we would likely have been soundly defeated in the Spanish-American War had it not been for rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves (and Roosevelt basically inventing the modern "base of fire" infantry tactic with those Gatling guns.)
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And there's no putting it back. I'm waiting for the first homemade (well, hobbyist or toy) drone attack. Won't be long. And I'm betting it'll be homegrown, no foreign terrorists required. FAA can regulate all it wants, but those drones are not going away.
Ask the French who armed, trained, officered, equipped and funded your army and Navy if it was your right to bear arms that made a difference. Hint: without foreign intervention it never would have worked then. See Syria for how well it works now. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
Yes, England had that system during the middle ages. Manditory bow training for all men.
But an army of the time wasn't like a modern army. There were a few professionals, but most of the men were conscripts. The idea wasn't to allow the militia to be quickly organised: It was to the King's representative could turn up at your village and declare he wanted thirty men to go fight the French (Again), and you'd better show some loyalty and do you were told.
Let existing state nuance laws handle the peeping-tom problems
As we've seen in the middle east, small weapons can pose a threat to a government. The trick is just preventing the government from bringing their really big weapons to bear. If you march your patriotic rebellion upon Washington, it would just be carpet-bombed into a bloody and burning pulp - but if you instead have your men infiltrate in civilian clothes, fight dirty, use sabotage where possible, snipe from a distance and disappear into the population again... well, then the only way to kill them all would be to kill several times as many loyal civilians, which would just inspire more rebellion.
What regulations are you talking about?
TFA is referring to the interpretation and enforcement of HR 658 which specifically separates hobby and commercial (with no commercial provisions for the Continental United States!)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/B...
The FAA agrees with you and you still retain the ability to fly the craft as a hobbyist, but you must do so below 400 ft and within line of sight (not using FPV). You must not operate the craft for money, nor as a part of a business.
The problem is that when people take their quad out to a park and fly it using FPV, they often go above 400 ft, fly over other people's property, fly over crowded areas, fly over highways, and fly in dangerous areas (near power lines, etc). This isn't a "few bad apples" either, this is the glut of FPV users.
Ars Technica got their hands on a DJI Phantom and IMMEDIATELY did the things I mentioned and wrote about it: link
Some emboldened quad users have been more than willing to put others at risk and fly their aircraft in the landing path of airports. In 2013 an Alitalia pilot identified a quad in the flight path at JFK International Airport, coming within 200 ft of the airplane on it's descent: link
There were rifles in the US War of Independence, and both sides had them. But they weren't the main infantry weapon because of the slow reloading time.
Would you apply that same argument to the first amendment? At the time of the signing of the bill of rights, the most advanced methods of written communication was the hand-operated newspaper press. By your "no unforeseen technology" argument, the first amendment would not apply to telegraphs, radio, faxes, photographs(!), telephones, photocopiers, computers, the internet, wifi, etc.
This is obviously insane. The first amendment is designed to protect the message. The medium used to transmit that message is irrelevant. Likewise, the second amendment is designed to protect the right and capability of the people to overthrow a government and establish a new one. If new technologies are invented, then the people must be allowed access to them, in order to maintain the balance of power.
In 2013, an Alitalia pilot identified a quad on the landing path to JFK International: link. There's already reason for concern.
" It's very clear and there is little room for interpretation here."
No, it isn't. You might have notice experts in constitutional law, and experts in the history of the constitution can not agree.
If you can't understand why that is, stop talking about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, It's very clear in the various letters it's there because they couldn't afford a standing army.
The right to bear arms on the federal level is relatively new. Until it the 1970's cities and states determined local laws. Orrin Hatch commissioned a report, ignored the reports finding, but still waved it around as proof. hell, 100 years ago and more many cities and towns didn't allow firearms;
Add to that congress can change the amendments should it like, this is really a PR issue created by the PR company the runs the NRA and also supports gun manufactures.
Here is a little bit of history regarding the NRA and politics. Surprisingly accurate for a media report.
http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's only been in the past century that we've had this notion that the right to keep and bear arms had secret limitations written in invisible ink.
God damn; well said.
only if it has an actual weapon mounted on it.
Otherwise, pickup trucks/jeeps are also weapons under this idea, because military forces trivially bolt large machine guns or antiaircraft guns or even small missiles to truck beds all the time.
and if you go with "the vehicle itself is a weapon" argument, then again, pretty much every vehicle you see on the street also meets that definition.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Process matters. There's a legitimate process for changing the Constitution as the world around us changes. I'm all for outlawing nuclear weapons in private hands, but the way do limit the second amendment is not by justices just deciding one day it means something different!
But of course, no one cares these days. You can't go to court or fly without a clearly unconstitutional search by government employees, and the NSA collects our private correspondence wholesale. The Fifth Amendment gets whittled away at the edges, and the First limited to Free Speech Zones. The federal government arrogates itself ever more power, and people just shrug, or even cheer if their side is in charge when it happens.
Well, I supposed this is what's meant by "you get the government you deserve".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It is YOU who needs to learn some history.
The Rights outlined in the US Constitution are the Rights every person is born with as they are the rights of "Nature and Nature's God" (as described by the founders).
Every person has a natural right to protect themselves. Every person has a right to voice their opinion. The US Constitution merely highlights and emphasizes what the Founders considered some of the most important of these rights in order to emphasize that the government may not infringe upon them.
The Constitution incorporates a negative list of Rights, that is, it is a non-exclusive list of some of the natural individual Rights that every person is born with that the government may not infringe upon.
It is always disturbing when the ignorant speak out with such vehemence and confidence upon matters in which they have no clue. Such public ignorance is what allows tyranny to take root.
Please, for all our sakes and for your own, educate yourself rather than parroting partisan political talking points.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You don't need an even number of rotors to cancel torque about the yaw axis if you run the rotors at asymmetric rates; tricopters are common in the hobbyist community.
Your characterization of Citizen's United is not complete.
Being "content neutral" (or, perhaps more correctly, "viewpoint neutral" -- fire, crowded theater and all that is considering content, but not of political speech) is necessary, but not sufficient, for a restriction that limits speech to pass constitutional muster.
Roughly speaking (I'm not a constitutional expert or a lawyer), there also has to be, at whatever level of scrutiny the court decides applies, sufficient (and, in practice, generally quite narrow) justification that a speech restriction furthers an important public good and that (depending on level of scrutiny applied) the one chosen is the narrowest possible restriction and there is no other possible solution that doesn't infringe on speech. Look to this week's abortion clinic buffer zone rejection. The justices decided that the ban was, in fact, viewpoint neutral (I don't agree with that, but then I'm no wearing a black robe so my opinion matters little). That didn't save the law though -- the flaw was that the ban was too broad and the government hadn't proven that it was the only solution or even a necessary measure.
In general, SCOTUS has upheld many campaign finance regulations (such as disclosure) on the grounds of preventing bribery and corruption -- NOT for the purpose of "leveling the playing field" (which is what most advocates of campaign finance regulations actually seem to desire).
I've not read Citizen's United in a while, but a main issue there, as I recall it, was that an individual living breathing human with a heartbeat can spend an unlimited amount of money backing a measure or a candidate -- as long as they don't coordinate with the campaign (unless, of course, they are the candidate spending their own money). Citizen's United decided that corporations and organizations had similar rights (being composed of, at their core, humans).
And, the ability and desire to prosecute someone for violating a constitutional law is up to law enforcement and proprietorial discretion. Ayers wasn't "allowed" to do what he did -- he just didn't get prosecuted for it.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
While there have been a few comments claiming otherwise, the simple fact is that not all airspace in the US can be regulated by the FAA. The US Supreme Court ruled in US v Causby in 1946 ""We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land.[9] The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport, 84 F.2d 755. The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense — by the erection of buildings and the like — is not material." The FAA has jurisdiction of the navigable airways, it does not have jurisdiction over YOUR use of the airspace immediately above your backyard and they cannot regulate the use of drones of model aircraft outside the navigable airspace any more than they can require you to get a permit to plant a tree in your backyard. Now the FAA won't admit it and likes to pretend that they have control of the air around your head, but it is clear from US v Causby that "must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere".
rich guys bringing along artillery they bought themselves
That's the way wars worked before WW2, one of my distant ancestors donated 22 Viking boats and 300 paid soldiers to William the conqueror's invasion force and sailed across the English channel with him, his reward? - Wales (the country, not the animal). In fact this is how modern democracy first appeared, rich merchants basically forced the crown to sign the Magna Carta by withdrawing financial supports for the crown's military adventures. Even during and after WW2, rich merchants still own the means of production for military hardware. The one sign of hope is that for most (but not all) rich merchants - war is bad for business in the modern world.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Some further good reading is Pirker's reply to the FAA's appeal http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirk... It clearly lays out the argument, which prevailed in the Pirker decision, that the FAA has only offered up advisories on safe operation of model aircraft and they had not issued any actual, enforceable regulations governing them. The latest FAA move is an attempt to create regulations governing them, though the question remains as to whether they have the authority to do so.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence â" economic, political, even spiritual â" is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Not really. The problem with federal government regulation is that they do not by default have jurisdiction unless it somehow it granted to them by the constitution. Hence the reason there is a recreational exemption to regulation- it doesn't influence interstate commerce or whatever other stretch of power they use in order to devise regulatory authority. The federal government is not like a traditional government that can just pass laws. It's original jurisdiction is outlined in the constitution and some court cases have expanded those to seem like it is all encompassing.
This is even true for things like tractor trailer operations too. There are recreational exceptions to even that which do not require keeping a log book, having a DOT or MCC number or anything of the sort. There is even an exemption for a CDL requirement if it is what they consider recreational/hobby.
If the exemption was not there, the regulation ability would not survive a court challenge by people clearly outside the scope of their regulatory jurisdiction.
Which is what I think is funny about this whole "drone vs model" crap, they are talking about planes even the largest of which frankly isn't gonna be able to carry enough payload to do even a tenth the damage of a Rider truck with fertilizer. If there is anything we should have learned from OKC its that low tech does a hell of a lot more damage while being easy for even the dumbest terrorist to construct. And I'm sure that if you counted up every vehicle used for combat out there? Drones wouldn't even be in the top 50, probably not even in the top 100 when it comes to terrorists, its technicals and bomb trucks.
This is just another case of "Hollywood scenario planning" where the government treats the high tech shit they see on NCIS and 24 and treat it as a legitimate threat because they can't/won't admit the truth.....which is that what makes terrorists effective is the fact they can take pretty much anything and make it a weapon. If you want to see what terrorists weapons are like you should look at the crazy IEDs the military has disarmed in Iraq, everything from copies of late WWII German wooden mines made out of footlockers and packing crates to paint cans filled with homemade explosives and metal scraps and rigged to a beeper, what makes terrorism so hard to stop isn't them using high tech shit, its just the opposite, they often go so low tech that you'd have to ban pretty much all agriculture and household cleaning products to stop 'em.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Exactly. Imagine what they could do with everyday objects if they decided to do more than go for a body count and actually had the inclination to come over here. *cough* southern border *cough* Let me just throw out a few possibilities to make the point.
Caltrops. This several thousand year old weapon, first used against humans and horses, remains effective today against vehicles with pneumatic tires. You can make them out of darn near any piece of thin metal. Just have every member go around town once a month to every hardware/big-box store in town and buy a box of nails or screws for cash. Pickup a gallon of milk or something else and you'll blend right in with the millions of other people picking up odds and ends for home.
With a few basic tools and a welder a few guys can build caltrops assembly line style. Then just go out on the road just before rush hour when its dark or during ran so it's harder for the car behind to notice the bouncing spike thing coming from under your car and drop them one at a time through a hole in the floor. (Make sure you make sure they don't bounce into your own tires.) Home-rigged caltrops like these usually don't cause blowouts, but will case a slow leak that will deflate a tire. How many car and truck tires do you need to take out before you case a cluster of a traffic jam? Sure sounds lame, but what happens when your group does this once every month and there are 4 other cells in the area doing the same? In certain areas of the country this could bring commerce to a standstill.
High tension wooden power pole in middle of nowhere + Chainsaw. Don't really need to explain this one further except that power pole wood is hard on chainsaw chains. Sure just one cell doing this would just be a nuisance, a couple dozen driving around the country doing this will quickly overwhelm the repair crews. Just cutting one will usually result in the neighboring poles holding the wires up for the time being, allowing an escape and not letting people know exactly when you did the deed.
Supposedly Iran has sleeper cells in the US tasked with doing exactly this should the US attack Iran. No idea if it's true or not, but attacking infrastructure wouldn't exactly be a hard thing to do.
You've just dangerously oversimplified a complicated problem.
100m? What happens if you live on a property right in the flight path next to the airport?
Weight? Weight means nothing. I accidentally ran into myself with my 6kg hexacopter doing a stupid stunt. I ended up with bruises and a few broken cheap plastic props. On the flip side one of my friends flies this tiny little ~2kg quadrocopter which he also flew into himself. He ended up in hospital thanks to very high speed carbon fibre blades slicing him up his arms and his face. He ended up with quite a few stitches as a result.
So what's a reasonable restriction? Any quad could potentially kill someone. If you're interested in safety you'd need to take into account weight class, propeller speed, propeller type. Now you're talking private property, so if I fly my quad some 100m above my house on my private land and I have an incident, where will the quad end up? Prop failure, RF failure, actually every failure I've seen has resulted in a little multirotor craft not falling straight down. Maybe you should only be able to fly on private property if you live in an acreage?
This is much more complicated than you think.
You haven't seen a drone have you? They sound like a large angry swarm of bees from a horror movie. It would be the equivalent of a peeping tom setting up a photo studio in your hot tub or sun bathing area. It would be immediately obvious. Typically when I fly mine around neighbours from all over come out and find out what the noise is about. There's no discrete peeping with these things.
I believe it was the Stuarts that started the modern army thing with full time professional soldiers who were also used on their own subjects. Of course the Stuarts were nuts and really believed that they were appointed by God and had a natural right to be tyrants. This led to two revolutions, one with the King losing his head and the second Parliament replacing the King and becoming supreme. It was also the time when the average person came to believe in natural rights and the second revolution gave the first Bill of Rights, which included the right to bear arms (for protestants).
One of the things that pissed off the American colonists was that they considered their natural rights as Englishmen was being infringed and most of the Bill of Rights of 1789 reflected this with many of the rights expanded including the right to bear arms expanded from self-defence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The FAA's published interpretations show the multiple areas they are saying they can now regulate. They want to preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. They do acknowledge that standard eyeglasses are OK. Note that they are NOT prohibiting remote cameras, only the goggles which fit over the face.
Also, they are giving their interpretation that anything involving money removes the operator from the "hobby and recreational" exemption that congress granted. A pilot that gives a demonstration of advanced aerobatics and receives a payment is now not flying for hobby or recreational purposes. This is equivalent to saying a fly fisherman that demonstrates casting techniques and receives a payment is no longer a recreational fisher and now must be a commercial fisherman.
They also say if you take any pictures or video while flying, they have the right to decide what you do with the pictures or video can also change you from a hobbyist. Take a picture of you own [hobby only] garden to see where it needs watering, OK. Take a picture of your neighbor's garden and show him where it needs watering, commercial use. Take a picture of any commercial enterprise and post it online, commercial use.
Many of these changes are being published now because in March a federal judge ruled that the FAA has never published its restrictions of commercial use of hobby aircraft. [See FAA vs Pirker]. The FAA had previously issued "policy guidelines", but that was not enough to fine Pirker the $10,000 they wanted for commercial use of a hobby aircraft. http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
~~
It's worse than that. The regulation is totally ass-backwards. Flying anything small without FPV is hard and inaccurate, and, presumably, also less safe. I've personally looked through an FPV system installed in a plane that was flown line-of-sight by an experienced pilot doing it the old fashioned way. And all I have to say is that it was some very shitty flying. Sure, if you look at it from a distance, it looks "great". Yet when you see the VSI and the artificial horizon, you can't be but all "the fuck is the pilot on drugs or something?". Understandably, the accuracy of flying decreases with the distance, as gain in the pilot's visual feedback loop decreases with the decreasing size of the plane on the retina. It may be that the video is not quite necessary, but remote VSI and artificial horizon is a must, and those are, in one form or another, the mainstay of FPV.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.