Slashdot Mirror
Hundreds Apply For FAA Drone Licenses
itwbennett writes: The Federal Aviation Administration has issued eight more commercial drone licenses, the latest approvals for several hundred applications it has received. The newest licenses went to companies planning to use drones for video and TV production, aerial photography and surveying and inspecting flare stacks in the oil, natural gas and petro-chemical industry.
Other readers sent in followups to last week's stories about an enthusiast's drone that crashed onto the White House grounds, and the subsequent firmware update from the drone's manufacturer to enforce a no-fly zone in that area. The EFF argues that this is a shortsighted solution and only serves to highlight how the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands. Meanwhile, such "no-fly zone" updates give rise to a host of liability issues for manufacturers and enthusiasts alike.
The issue is when manufacturers change the product you bought without your consent, after you've bought it. In the case of the self-braking car, that's not wrestling ownership away from anybody. That's a feature that existed when you bought the car, and one that you probably paid a premium for.
If they added this functionality without your permission after the purchase, then there's a big issue. It doesn't matter if they're adding or removing features at all. This is why I always disable autoupdates of connected devices when possible, otherwise I firewall them off or just don't connect them to the net, otherwise I don't buy them.
Are you high? One is for saving lives in an emergency with technology, and the other is an attempt to enforce the law with technology.
captcha: incest. I don't even
I think most people would prefer that it reduces the possibility of a visit from the men in the black suvs. As well as wasting taxpayers money dealing with repeat performances, or losing their toys to an anti-drone system. You simply don't have the right to fly drones just anywhere.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There are plenty of folks who buy a drone, don't have a clue how to fly one, and then abuse the usage (i.e. spy on apartment windows, fly over neighbor's yards, or fly them at national parks to annoy others).
Admittedly, I have a tiny quadcopter the size of my hand that I fly in my backyard. One time it took off to the neighbor's roof (a firmware glitch set the throttle to max). My neighbor laughed and we got a ladder to get it off his roof. It did not have a camera or anything like that. We have neighbors who fly the expensive quadcopters in our park (which is a big open area) and nobody seems to mind because they stay away from people, dogs, and homes.
I knew one day this was going to get regulated because of the few that abuse it. The law should be simple. If you fly more than a quarter mile in an open field you need a license that shows you know how to (expertly) fly one safely. Ditto if it is in a populated area or you got some camera recording thing on it then there are laws for filming like anywhere else. I don't want them flying these things in the national parks. It is an annoying sound. Maybe even categorize them by size/weight and have requirements what happens when it is out of range. The problem with these things is sooner or later it will lose control and crash to the ground regardless of "homing back to base". The question is who is going to get hurt?
This no-fly zone feature has been around for quite a while on their high-end models, to prevent users flying over an airport - see http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/ca...
Also, last time I checked the firmware update process involved connecting the quadcopter to a PC via a USB cable, so it's not like new rules are being applied without the user knowing.
And what is wrong with either of those? Caller ID reduced the number of crank phone calls, and any complaints from the crankers that their phone could no longer anonymously crank people would have fallen on deaf ears. Ditto spam filters. Ditto ad blockers. Photo radar. DNA analysis. Even fingerprinting was once a new technology.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
people were rightfully upset when sony removed linux from the PS3, this isnt any different.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the ol, "its for your own good" argument?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The issue is when manufacturers change the product you bought without your consent, after you've bought it.
Well don't use it to break the law then. I know you're going to go down the "but it's a slippery slope" path in an effort to validate this and take an all or nothing approach but in this instance the change is valid and was provoked by people breaking the law.
They get you to register so they can TAKE IT AWAY !! Don't do it !! It's a TRAP !! It's your constitutional RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment !!
Don't Treat On Me !!
Which ones of these are compulsory technologies built into goods you buy, please?
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you genuinely have difficulty forming analogies. You have to consider features relevant to the discussion - you can't just choose examples that have at least one similarity.
The issue is when manufacturers change the product you bought without your consent, after you've bought it.
No that isn't the issue here at all. In fact you need to connect the drone to a computer and explicitly apply an update that by definition changes the product.
Get off my lawn!!!
My truck has auto emergency braking...
I can also turn it off...
that's fine but don't crash the drone into the ground have it seek back home or avoid the zone.
Sure it's different. Nobody has to install this update on their drone. It's not like cell phones, with over-the-air updates.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
yep a no fly zone is just that. i dont think crashing the drown is the right move rater have it avoid the zone or seek home base when it gets to close.
option 1 have the drone avoid braking no fly laws. option 2 have drone shot down and face charges. ill take option 1. not even close to the ps3 linux.
Look, the EFF lately has been seeing boogey men everywhere - even when they don't exist.
This is such a case. Nobody is holding a gun to drone owners heads and forcing them to install this update. It's no different than refusing an update to your computer software. But the EFF needs to find ways to remain relevant in the face of growing competition and public indifference, so they write crap like this, and of course people go nuts.
The EFF is just as guilty of click bait as anyone else. Listen to them at your own peril.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
oh im not saying i find any thing wrong with it, i would love for a drone to protect me from my own ignorance of airspace regulations. but i can see why people would be concerned going forward. now its the whitehouse, what about when rich guy A pays the company to add his property to the no fly list?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Washington DC is not a no-fly zone. It is subject to special flight rules. Programming the drones firmware to not fly in that area would prevent the operator from being able to operate the drone as allowed by the rules established by the FAA.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Or like jury nullification - change the law itself. Flying an RC aircraft inside your own home, or maintaining sight of, under 400' and away from any flight paths of low-flying aircraft and away from congested areas or people is perfectly reasonable. In this case the guy was an idiot and should be fined. I do not however invite corporations pushing their interpretation of a nanny-state into my face or rendering my aircraft incapable of flight - even if it's indoors on my own property.
In such a case, DJI should compensate every owner in the DC area of their aircraft - especially if it was bought from them and shipped to the DC area.
If they're going to make the change to make it unflyable, they need to pony up the cash for their decision and buy them all back. Period.
Caller ID is on every cell phone I've owned, with no option to disable it. And automatic collision-avoidance systems that take control of your car will be mandated in the future
Nobody is forcing drone owners to download and install this update. And in case you weren't aware, the drone involved in this incident already has software to restrict access to no-fly zones. The only difference is now you can download an update that includes the White House no-fly zone.
The EFF is once again engaging in fear-mongering to try to get attention - and suckers are falling for it - again.
Please consider this - without manufacturing such "crisis", the EFF would not attract new members and funding to replace those leaving by various attrition methods. So, they are employing the same techniques as spammers and clickbait advertisers.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
That's bullshit, it's disabled on my phone. I have to specifically dial a special code to disable it. Anybody I call justs sees that it's an unknown caller and they may or may not answer it.
The drone involved in this incident already has a list of no-fly zones. All this update does is add the whitehouse to that list - and you have to download it and install it for it to take effect. And even then, there's a controller switch to turn no-fly zones off.
So how is the EFFs claim that "the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands" in this case anything more than their usual self-serving FUD? The EFF fell into the "boy who cried wolf too many times" category years ago.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
In such a case, DJI should compensate every owner in the DC area of their aircraft - especially if it was bought from them and shipped to the DC area.
For what? Dont like it, dont update it.
If they're going to make the change to make it unflyable, they need to pony up the cash for their decision and buy them all back. Period.
Then dont update the software.
When the end came, people submitted meekly, because they had been taught to.
You misunderstood - you can disable others seeing your phone number (which may or may not be honored by the various carriers), but there's no way to disable you seeing their phone number / name / whatever if they haven't blocked it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
when you're restricted to the 8 feet of air directly above your house, will it get boring?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Maybe they could require registration for commercially purchased drones. But what stops me from building a drone in my garage and zipping it around the neighborhood?
That update was after the dumbass user crashed it. After the dumbass user thought it was a good idea to fly his drone near the White House.
You disproved your own argument...
"if they haven't blocked it"
They *can* block it if they wish to... it's not being forced on anyone (albeit how to block it isn't always easy to find).
If you forgo this update, you don't get any further bug fixes, added features etc. Just like with the PS3... you could refuse the update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but that meant not getting any future updates, not being able to play future games, and not being able to watch future BluRay movies.
You still don't get it, do you? I cannot turn off the ability to see the unblocked numbers. That has NOTHING to do with blocking my own number.
Sure,I can block my outgoing number, but there is NO guarantee that the system will respect that setting - YMMV - because the caller info can pass through multiple carriers, and they ALL get your caller #. It's how they bill. Your number is only blocked (if it is) when the final connection is made to your phone.
Before they blocked that at the termination and introduced caller ID as an extra-cost feature, you could buy a pc card that would allow you to see who was calling, because none of the carriers blocked it at the last mile.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And your point is? The drone in question already has a list of no-fly zones. This just adds the white house (which IS restricted air space) and the area around it, to the list.
Plus, the controller has a switch to turn no-fly zones on or off.
The EFF flat-out lied when they used this as an example of "how the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands." This is just another example of how the EFF increasingly engages in FUD and clickbait, Probably because they're less and less relevant.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I think most people would prefer that it reduces the possibility of a visit from the men in the black suvs. As well as wasting taxpayers money dealing with repeat performances, or losing their toys to an anti-drone system. You simply don't have the right to fly drones just anywhere.
Does it reduce the possibility of a visit from men in black helicopters? Or visits from government drones (flying or other types)? Tim S.
advance the idea that it HAS this authority in the first place (which it arguably does not). Government agencies do this all the time (start issuing regulations over things congress never authorized them to regulate). In doing this, the agencies get to flex some muscle and get to let the idea that they DO have the power seep into the public conscience so that eventually they go to congress and seek more money and power because of their expanded "responsibilities" (which dumb career politicians then give-in to).
A toy helicopter hovering 50ft above your home or business is NOT in the "navigable airspace" and there is NO legitimate justification for claiming that it's perfectly safe as a hobby but requires fees and licenses and oversight if the exact same person operates the exact same toy in the exact same way and uses it to take the exact same photos for profit
Commercial aviation can be adequately protected from bot "professional" and amateur drone use by simply banning drones from operating within a fixed distance of any airport or above 10K feet MSL (or by any similarly easy simple basic method).
The community of droneusers/hobbyists/geeks/propellerheads/whatever NEED to get after their members of congress on this stuff NOW or the FAA will get in bed with big business and make sure that only big businesses will be able to make drones and operate them for profit. Our founding fathers would NEVER have tolerated this government regulatory overreach. The FAA does everything it does under the umberella-claim of the federal government's power to "regulate interstate commerce" which was completely perverted by the tag-team of bi-partisan progressive Roosevelt cousin Presidents (Teddy Roosevent [R] and Franklin Roosevent [D]). When our founders wrote that clause, the word "regulate" meant "to make regular" (which is why so many old pendulum-and-weight-driven clocks are called "Regulators"). Teddy started, and Franklin put on steroids, the idea that "to regulate" meant "have armies of unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats make up all sorts of rules and regulations and use government power to impose them onto the citizens for any reason that seems good enough to the government bureaucrats"
It's about getting code into code. Little dirty fingers in all code in the ether. Time to go analog!
There are some much more open platforms (hardware and software) available: http://3drobotics.com/2013/08/...
Nobody is forcing to update (yet), but when there's a bug fix or a new useful feature, you also have to take that crap limit also. EFF is right. this will lead to no good.
I figured that some key details would get quickly overlooked, but I didn't expect so many people to ignore the fact that it was a government employee who crashed his private drone at the Whitehouse.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Nobody is forcing to update (yet)
And how do you propose that they (meaning the manufacturer, because they are the ones who set the limit) "force" someone in the future? They can't.
As for "but when there's a bug fix or a new useful feature", I suggest that you lobby the manufacturer to reduce their limit if it concerns you so much, rather than listen to the EFF's fear-mongering, which WON'T result in any change whatsoever.
Of course, unlike the EFF, I have nothing to gain from FUD, so it's easier for me to suggest the logical course of action :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If it is a false threat, perhaps you can tell me where I can get a good cable box that supports 1080p unencrypted output that works with my cable company? It starts with a lot of small concessions which are 'voluntary', and eventually leads to manufacturer collusion and zero sources for supply.
"We should use the heavy hand of government to strongly regulate these dangerous devices.... because a drunken, government employee crashed one on government property."
http://gizmodo.com/guy-who-cra...
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
It seems like a pretty reasonable addition anyways. There is a legal no fly zone over most of DC (there are flight corridors to the two DC airports, and BWI is far enough away to not matter). This is not new, it has been in place for a long time. It makes sense to have the drone detect that it will break the law if it is flown. To me this is a good feature, as the drone is actively preventing me from having the FAA come knocking on my door and fining me large sums of money. For UFO people who want to fly a drone into area 51, it might not be a beneficial feature.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I have a cable card tuner manufactured by Silicon Dust, it has three tuners which my computer connects to to record with Windows Media Center. I then convert the files using a piece of software named MCE Buddy which I have selected to output MP4 files which are unencrypted. I then have a 1080P signal that is unencrypted from FiOS as a source. You could call the combination of the Silicon Dust box and my PC as "a cable box" as this could all be done in one box, I have it separated for upgrade path reasons.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The no fly zone is practically all of DC. The drones will stop at the border and refuse to cross it, and can be controlled to land whereever you want outside the zone. The drones will also refuse to take off from within the zone. This seems like a reasonable change to me. The drone will still work indoors where it is legal to fly them as the GPS can't get a lock inside a building.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
This is a pretty large no fly zone:
https://www.faasafety.gov/file...
That yellow in the upper right is labeled Baltimore, that is about 50-100 miles away, so i estimate the zone is around 20 miles radius. I believe the black lines are the approved flight paths for Reagan National Airport (which is bisected by the lines). There is good reason for the no fly zone, but it isn't around the white house so much as the whole of DC.
The manufacturer is preemptively forcing their drone to follow the law so that drones aren't further regulated (overregulated?) into having to all have these zones programmed in. Why it has other no fly zones, but was missing this one, I have no idea though, this zone is at least as old as 9/11, and may even predate that.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
And APK had to eat his words here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Your point is? Oh that you are an intolerant asshole, I see.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
that's faa controlled lol.
To keep it simple and safe, if you want to fly anything (UAV or manned aircraft) get a pilots license. This will keep (most) idiots grounded because of the cost and time involved. The education / training you receive on how to safely operate an aircraft is the key to everyone's safety. In the complicated National Airspace we operate within regardless if you are in a congested Class B or the less crowded class G that training and education you receive as a pilot will drastically reduce the possibility of accidents / incidents. As a FAA licensed pilot and a UAV pilot I would feel much safer knowing my fellow aviators (regardless of what they fly) have basically the same training, know the rules and will operate in a more predictable manner as opposed to someone that has not received formal training. Granted, there will always be those folks (idiots) that have the training and for what ever reason decide they are above the rules but those numbers would be minuscule in comparison. Aviators have spent a lot of time & money not to mention the sacrifices to obtain and maintain their privilege to fly and those I know do EVERYTHING possible to operate safely, I can't say the same for those that have not had the formal training.
I'll admit that I borrowed used the tem "navigable airspace", which both normal people and foil-hat-wearing loons use, but you seem to have latched-onto that as an excuse to swerve-off into idiot land. I get it... you're an onder young guy who thinks he's an "old hand" on this because youve been flying models since the 80's... I started flying RC long before YOU (back with a single-channel unit that just continually twitched the rudder and the control made it proportionally twitch more on the left, or right ... this was BEFORE RC servos existed). What you seem to entirely MISS is that EVERY ARGUMENT you made was the typical drivel that has been used for many decades to trample on more and more freedom and grow the government to INSANE proportions.
EVERYTHING can be painted as "too dangerous" and "made worse because people are making money doing it".
As for aviation safey, I fly and I work in the industry. Yeah, TECHNICALLY lots of aviation is below 10K (whether it's "most" or not depends on if you are counting flights, passenger miles, etc. it's just not cut-and-dried). At any given moment in time, however, there is NO aircraft in the airspace directly over, yet below 10K, the property of 99.99999% of any specific persons or businesses. We'd get more "bang for the buck" passing regulations banning golf in Florida (where people die every year from lightning strikes on golf courses) but I would oppose THAT too. Oh, and drones under a particular mass (would need some testing due to different materials and geometries) would be no more dangerous to planes that birdstrikes (which ARE a risk, but [1] nobody's banning or licensing birds, so [2] airframes, windscreens, and powerplants are required to survive them up to a certan bird size)
Keeping airliners safe from drones is EASY and does NOT require licenses, only simple very clear FAA-published online maps that indicate banned areas, and maimum altitudes in other areas, coupled with big fines for people who violate the rules. 30K people die in the US every year from drunk driving - that does NOT mean either [1] that the FEDS have the right to require federal licenses, or [2] that LICENSES (which the states already demand, test for, and bill for, and issue) wouls solve the problem (which they are already PROVEN not to).
Yes, the FAA, like MANY bureuacracies, loves to regulate business uses of things differently from private uses (often on the CLAIM that this is because: SAFETY!). The "safety" mantra has been the tool most-successfully used by government regulators for a century. Want a new rule? Tell America's moms that they and their kids will be "safer" and that rule will be quickly accepted. As a general rule, however, the reason is NOT "safety" but rather "money". If the EXACT SAME PERSON DOES THE EXACT SAME THING and the ONLY difference is in whether it's "for profit", then it is NOT a flipping matter of SAFETY!!!!!!! Grow a few brain cells, will you! State-issued driving licenses arguably ARE about safety, given that all car operators must have them whether operating privately or "for profit"... the state licenses that are more in-question are the ones that are being used against ride-sharers (the ones that pretend that charging more money to commercial operators makes those licenses "safer"). Your post reads like a hippie rant against the evil capitalists... everything's great, man, UNLESS SOMEBODY IS MAKING AN EVIL DOLLAR! Once a greenback is in the equation, you seem to think people devolve into crazed muppets lozing all control and discipline and they cannot be trusted not to accidentally kill everybody in their immediate vicinity (UNLESS they pay moey to government for a license ... then they will suddenly be "safe")
Oh, and you seem to be unaware that the recent push by the FAA to apply "aircraft" regulations to models is so recent and novel (in the lawyer sense) that it is in dispute in the courts right now, and the FAA recently settled a case rather that fight over that point
The "Federal Aviation Act of 1958" which CREATED the agency and from which it derives all of its regulatory authority (yeah, even in the age of Obama the actual TEXT of laws still matters to much of the county) not only defines "Navigable Airspace" but then goes on to define other terms-of-art based on it then then goes on to define all regulations in that context. Therefore: when people like you post drivel like what you posted: "At no point does the FAA ever refer to anything as 'navigable airspace'" One of two things MUST be true:
1. The FAA is operating completely illegitimately, by not operating in relation to the specific authority congress granted it when it was created (unlikely)
or:
2. People who make that claim are blithering ignorant goosestepping idiots who PRETEND to be authorities without knowing any actual FACTS (MY bet is on this one).
You still don't get it, do you? I cannot turn off the ability to see the unblocked numbers. That has NOTHING to do with blocking my own number.
Cover your eyes I guess? How is it in any way a problem to know who's calling? Does it spoil the surprise or something?
It doesn't just add the white house... it adds a 20 miles radius around the white house, which isn't all restricted airspace.
You keep mentioning a switch to turn off no-fly zones. Are you certain of that? Not a single article I've read on this subject mentions there being a switch, and having one completely defeats the purpose of having no-fly zones to begin with.
How did the EFF "lie"? They gave a few examples (and I'm sure you can find many, many others) of manufacturers removing or gimping features after purchase via firmware updates. Is DJI giving refunds to people who live within the new no-fly zone and now just own a very expensive paper weight? No.
The original bone of contention was whether it was possible to turn off caller ID on cell phones. I pointed out that the recipient cannot turn off caller id, as well as the fact that the system may not honor a request by the caller to block their number.
All calls to womens shelters show who called, even if you turned off caller id at the caller's end.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Go to the manufacturer's website - it's (the switch) is mentioned right on there. That nobody mentioned it just shows that everyone is a sucker who is ready to believe any and all fear-mongering by the EFF rather than take a minute to go to the source.
The EFF claimed that this was an example of "how the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands". Total BS. Total FUD.
Nobody has to install the update. They remain entirely in control of their property.
It's gotten to the point that Microsoft and Apple have more cred than the EFF.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, you ran after apk made you eat YOUR words again http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and you haven't validly disproven ANY of his points here either you little douchebag wannabe menial techie http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... Hahahahaha @ Coren22, bigtime
Yes... the EFF is responsible for how well (or poorly) every news site out there reports this story. /s
Like I said, refusing to update means you no longer get any bug fixes or useful feature additions. You could refuse the PS3 update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but you'd then be unable to play any future games or Blu-Ray movies, and would be unable to access PSN. That's exactly the kind of thing the EFF is talking about, you buy something because it has features X, Y, and Z, then the manufacturer pushes an update that removes feature X, and if you refuse the update, features Y and Z are gimped. If you can in fact disable the no-fly list, this argument is weak in DJI's case, but that doesn't change the fact that manufacturers in general can remove features after purchase.
I'm still at a loss as to why DJI 1) didn't have the White House grounds amongst it's no-fly zones in the first place, and 2) why they decided to use a ridiculous 20 mile radius when they added it.
Here's one lie pulled from the EFF's announcement:
As the White House reacted to the drone crash with a call for more regulation, the manufacturer of the downed quadcopter announced it would push a firmware update to all its units in the field, permanently preventing those drones from taking off or flying within 25km of downtown Washington DC.
It is physically impossible to do that. The drones can't me modded directly - you need to connect them to a PC.
And immediately, another two lies:
This announcement may have been an effort by the manufacturer DJI, whose Phantom model is one of the most popular consumer drone units, to avoid bad press and more regulation. But it also reinforced the notion that people who "own" these drones don't really own anything at all. The manufacturer can add or remove features without their agreement, or even their knowledge.
The owners still have complete control of their property. The manufacturer can NOT add or remove features without explicit action takent by the owner. They can choose not to update it. They can also use the "ignore no-fly zones" switch. They can also petition DJI to change the no-fly zone. Not very likely, since most of Washington is already a restricted zone, but that's another matter.
As to why it wasn't on the no-fly zone list, if anyone had bothered to look, they would have known this is just part of their regular process - they started with the bigger airports and are still working their way down to update the list.
The EFF is not credible any more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.