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 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"
You can apply the same reasoning to cars that auto-brake in the event of an imminent crash. You own it but it doesn't do what you want all the time. Waah - they're taking ownership away from you!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Had to "eat your words" again vs. apk you twisted transsexual psycho http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ? Yes.
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.
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 !!
Get off my lawn!!!
that's fine but don't crash the drone into the ground have it seek back home or avoid the zone.
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.
When the end came, people submitted meekly, because they had been taught to.
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.
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/...
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
"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
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).