Slashdot Mirror
Near Misses Lead To More Consumer Drone Legislation
stowie writes: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced the Consumer Drone Safety Act that looks to shore up safety features on consumer drones and the federal laws that govern them. This bill has nothing to do with the FAA's proposed rules on small commercial drones, this is all about hobbyist drones. It's looking to regulate the maximum height for flight, the weather and time-of-day conditions for flight, and any areas where flights may be prohibited. If passed, the act would require manufacturers to update existing consumer drones to meet these requirements, potentially through an automatic software update. The bill would require safety features for new consumer drones such as Geo-fencing to govern the altitude and location of flights, collision-avoidance software, and more.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
We need a consumer protection bill consumer protection bill.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yeah, fuck Feinstein. But at the same time.. Fuck stupid fucking idiots who think flying their remote controlled aircraft into the flight paths of airliners, helicopters, whatever for the goddamned lulz.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Can we regulate the usage of stupid "share" buttons on slashdot?
What's the difference between a near miss and a near hit?
Telling the police that you intend to break the law does not mean you won't be punished appropriately when you do so. In fact, it will increase the punishment because your premeditation is demonstrable.
Here's an idea. If you get caught, you get Attempted Murder, assault and all the other charges that should apply. We already have enough laws on the books. We don't need "using a __________ " tack-on charges.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Cause Merica!!! ?
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
Sigh .... Unfortunately that won't solve the problem.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
We have to have laws because some people just can't help being dicks.
Say good bye to affordable drones for hobbyists. Now all drones will have to have a gps module, an altimeter, a microcontroller, and a microprocessor capable of processing all this, extensive software to handle all of this data, .... .
Instead of safety legislation, lets just hold individuals who misuse drones accountable when they do something stupid.
If I'm the shooter, it was nearly a hit.
If I'm the target, "Whew, just missed me."
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Extinction.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
But at the same time.. Fuck stupid fucking idiots who think flying their remote controlled aircraft into the flight paths of airliners, helicopters, whatever for the goddamned lulz.
This is why these laws happen, morons who can't grasp the concept that just because you have a drone that can fly anywhere doesn't mean you have the right to fly that drone anywhere, they actually need to be told that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is why the Flight Controller I use is Open Source. Control mongers like Diane Feinstein have no say in the software. This is the same lady pushing for back doored encryption. There is nothing in the interest of citizens that runs through her veins. One day she will attack open source as an enemy of the state.
What's the difference between a near miss and a near hit?
A near miss is a young unmarried woman living next door.
A near hit is what happens when you ask her out.
Jesus some of the comments here are so fucking stupid, read the bill.
That's some kind of joke, right? Your UID is low enough for you to realize that this is /. You're lucky if anyone gets past the title. You might have even less of an understanding if you actually read the summary these days. And there's no way in hell anyone would actually RTFA before commenting. That being said, congressmen don't even read the bills before voting on them. It's pretty damn obvious that in some cases congressmen don't even read the bills they supposedly wrote. Do you really expect us to? When we don't even read a summary? My post is long enough at this point that I could start typing gibberish and no one would even notice, except for the grammar Nazi types.
>"Near Misses Lead To More Consumer Drone Legislation"
They are not "near misses" they are "near hits". Near misses means something hit but nearly missed hitting. I don't understand why this is side widely misunderstood. I suppose "just missed" or "just misses" would be an appropriate alternative if one simply must use the word "miss" in the phrase.
The FAA is already doing this. What part of Diane Feinstein needs to put input about what the updates to the software will be? I trust her lying Surveillance State pushing anti liberty perspective in no way whatsoever. The software and hardware I use is open source so people like her cannot control yet another aspect of my life.
If I drink and drone, and do something illegal I deserve the punishment. People like her would mandate we cannot drive our own cars, because what if we do something that endangers the children.
A law is different beast altogether, than preventing your liberty to break those laws. This is a software limit enforced by the state. Put a law in place, don't put statist controls in place.
>The bill would require safety features for new consumer drones such as Geo-fencing to govern the altitude and location of flights, collision-avoidance software, and more.
Way to suck the fun out of everything, sheesh.
No kiiding. We should go find the irresponsible drone pilots that made this bill necessary and beat the crap out of them.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yes, but liberty and constitutional republics.democracies have always come with a known cost/risk. It is a signifier of respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon. It is a citizens right to operate within a law or not. (Civil Disobedience). What she is asking for is akin to statist control. We don't need controls when we already have a fully functional judicial system of laws and penalties.
Being a dick isn't against the law.
Assholes and Dicks always skirt around the edges. Yelling at the top of your lungs, hate filled slogans laced with profanity shouldn't be against the law. On the other hand, punching that asshole in the face also shouldn't be against the law ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
A glaring example of a logical regulation to apply to drones, no exposed blades because this http://www.theguardian.com/mus.... Simple legal requirement that will substantially reduce the potential for harm. Then there is flying over other people's properties without their permission.
The more drones in the hands of idiots the more accidents that will happen, Reasonable regulations are required to limit drones and strictly regulate their use. Want to play with one, keep it within the bounds of your own property, end of story.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Here's a novel idea. How about instead of creating laws for drone manufacturers to try and protect everyone from stupid people how about we create laws to deal with the stupid people. Here's how it works, clean slate everyone can buy a drone if they wish. Once someone does something stupid like fly your drone too close to planes/helicopters, of fly your drone in a crowded area and so forth then that person has their drone taken away, they are charged accordingly and are put on a permanent banned list and never allowed to buy another drone again. Even better let's make a stupid people list so we can stop or help stupid people from continuing to make stupid decisions.
Do you really expect us to?
Yes, because someone has to be better than congress.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Umm, so why does Dice think we need a "share" button in place of a simple link to read the articles and comments? I realize I can click on the title of the article, and I found out while hovering the mouse cursor that I can click on the little comment bubble. But neither of those actions is obvious or discoverable. Please bring back the "read more" link! Come on guys. Thought you'd learned your lesson with the beta site fiasco. For a while I thought slashdot had leveled out, but now it's going downhill again.
ive already told the local fbi and police, if i find any of their drones flying near my house i will knock them out of the sky, they arent pulling that big brother shit on me.
Yes, I'm sure that they just pulled up your file, checked off another box and forgot all about it until you call again with some oddball concern or if they see that you've written another 'Letter to the Editor'.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
She thought somebody was being a peeping-tom with a drone one time at her house. When the guy with the camera saw her through the window, he lost control of his bowels and also the drone. She has been trying to get rid of them ever since... except the ones that kill brown people over seas of course. True story. Look it up for yourself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/senator-dianne-feinstein-encounter-with-drone-technology-privacy-surveillance-102233.html
I'd like Diane Feinstein to be geo-fenced to keep her grubby little NSA-sucking
encryption-hating lying hands off of issues that are over her altitude or too far
for her eyesight to comprehend.
Geo-fencing for worthless corrupt senators. Now there's an answer.
Leave the drones alone. They are innocent of any wrongdoing.
E
Can you explain how the FEDERAL Aviation Administration has any Constitutional power to regulate a drone with a range of a couple of hundred feet?
So only multirotors are in the sights. What about Fixed Wing [airplanes/jets/etc], they can do pretty much the exact same thing as Multirotors [I REFUSE to call MRs Drones as drone kill people, no multirotor has so far killed anyone!] And what about Helicopters. Again can do the same as pretty much any Multirotor except they HAVE killed people and yet no mention of them.
The problem is not the technology, it's the idiots who go buy a DJI with 0 idea of what they are doing and lose control and fly in places they should not.
The media then plays on the fears of the average joe who doesn't know the difference between a "Drone" after seeing images like this
preditor drone and this Multirotor
I build multirotors for people all the time, I fly them all the time, and I have yet to hurt anyone or anything other than the multirotor itself.
Have you had a look at your fellow citizens? Have you seen how they behave? We've got the most violent developed country in the world, and you expect "respect for the citizens and their capacity to reason what is right/wrong and act thereupon"?
Half of Americans believe in ghosts. 38% believe in UFOs and 80% believe the government is covering up evidence of UFOs. Half believe climate change is a conspiracy by liberal scientists. Twenty percent of all Americans are on some kind of psychiatric drug.
OK, that leaves about half the people that can (theoretically) reason. I don't want the other half to be flying drones. Or driving cars or having firearms (but those are arguments for another day).
You are welcome on my lawn.
As almost nobody (excluding the president himself) is as popular of a boogeyman here on slashdot as Feinstein, I know just from the first sentence that slashdot wants me to hate this bill! Thank you, now I don't have to worry about its content or intent, as you've already told me it is pure evil. I can go back to reading the other drudge report now instead of reading further into the summaries on the front page of this one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It's a shame that I somehow landed myself on the never-get-mod-points-again-ever-period list some time ago, because your comment deserves at least a +1, Insightful.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What's needed is *education* -- not regulation.
Most people don't deliberately endanger the lives of others just for fun -- most do it out of ignorance of the risks and potential outcomes.
Just as the rates of smoking have dropped enormously since we began educating folks as to the dangers -- so we need to educate the neophyte and ignorant drone operators as to their responsibilities and obligations in respect to the public's safety.
The situation regarding "near misses" is a *lot* more complex than most of the public realize.
For example, the various pilots groups around the world are acting *very* politically to try and get drones virtually regulated out of existence. Why? Because they know full-well that these craft represent a direct threat to their livelihoods -- more so than the threat to their lives. To this end, virtually *any* sighting of an unidentified flying object is now called a "near miss with a drone". I recall when they were once all depicted as flying saucer incidents -- but now "drone" is the scapegoat de jour.
The media has also enjoyed depicting these craft as evil and likely to bring down airliners all over the world. This kind of sensationalist sizzle attracts eyeballs and that's what the media is after. Forget objectivity, research and facts -- anything goes in the quest for $$$$.
So let's look at the facts...
These craft have been around for quite a few years now and are being flown all over the world. So how many times *have* they crashed into full-sized aircraft?
None. Zero. Zilch, not a single actual collision between an aircraft and a drone.
Compare this to the number of bird-strikes encountered every year. Birdstrike accounts for about $1.4 billion of damage ($900M in the USA alone) inflicted on full-sized aircraft each year and have caused over 250 deaths since 1988.
Remember the numbers for drones: zero, none, zilch -- and not a red cent.
Over 11,000 bird-strike incidents (with full-sized aircraft) were reported in 2013. During that same period the number for drone-strikes was... ZERO!
We all remember the United flight that crashed into the Hundson river as a result of bird-strike. Not a recreational drone to be seen at the time.
The bottom line is that yes, there is a small degree of risk associated with the use of recreational drones but it is very, very clear that those who fear for their jobs and those who want to sell the sensational have both worked to grossly over-state the magnitude of this problem.
Of course there will always be idiots who act in a way that endangers the safety of others. However, even under existing laws, the act of reckless endangerment covers that type of activity -- whether it's done with a drone, a car or an axe.
Once drones are made illegal, only the criminals will have them. Now is that a situation we really want?
Never underestimate the stupidity of a politician -- history is filled with evidence as to the risks associated with doing so.
Cite for some of the stats used above
An airliner on approach or in the patter is not going to see a typical consumer drone unless it hits the cockpit. They are doing 200MPH in the pattern and at least 100 - 120 when landing. Drones are too small and you are not going to see just one. Hell, it's hard enough to spot light aviation aircraft.
The control freaks just want a reason to restrict these things for whatever reason...knee jerk reaction to people being able to do what the Government does...watch others from the sky.
Then there's Diane F. That bitch would ban butter knives if she could.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Possibly because the drone would be in FEDERAL airspace. I'm pretty sure the constitutionality of the FAA has been established for quite some time.
Except, of course, if you're a big corporation and the FAA gives you license to fly wherever you want. And that's going to happen with FAA regulation of drones.
And don't forget almost every complaint that the "anti-drone" evangelists bring to the table could also apply to kites, balloons, and Frisbees.
I haven't heard any complaints from people that the neighbor is violating his property lines because some kid is flying a kite over his yard.
~~
I think the POINT here is to add a; "Don't let the Citizen be able to do what we do, and don't let the citizen EVER have an opportunity to do something back."
We are ruled by mutual consent. NOT asymmetrically ability of CorpGov to crush us.
I'm not a fan of private citizens having arsenals and what chaos might ensue when an idiot adds a rocket launcher on a repurposed drone. But that idiot can also just use the stupid rocket launcher.
But I'm going to say; "I want that fool with a rocket launcher on my team if and when you guys in charge get out of hand."
Banning what people do with drones while having NO LIMITS to what those in power get to do with data, drones, genetic modification of monster carrots (for example) is not something I'm in favor of.
Feinstein is a crass, self-serving politician and it's embarrassing she's happens to be a Democrat -- or that I once defended her election (but hey, there was another crass, self-serving politico on the other team).
I'm sure her thought process was; "I'm not sure what a drone is, nor if these people are lying to me, but there are some really nice Zeros on this check they sent me."
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Whereas your name speaks accurately of you.
Every day, thousands of unlicensed people operate machines that amount to no more than whirling blades of death. These machines are powered by the distilled essence of the dead no less. They have a long history of maiming and killing the innocent, even children. You can buy these infernal machines with no background check, no license, not even an ID. The sellers of these contraptions aren't even required to be licensed.
We need to control these so-called "lawn mowers" NOW, before they kill us all!
When some sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to fine me for flying my UAV that finds a missing child alive and well.
"Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the child I just located. Now YOU explain to them why what I just did is a problem."
Or better yet, I can't wait for the day when said sh*t-for-brains regulator tries to stop me from using my UAV to locate a missing child.
"Allow me to introduce you to the parents of the missing child. Now YOU explain to them why we can't use every method to locate their kid,"
How will this keep my craft within spec? I have several that don't have GPS nor do they have onboard flight controllers, technically they are drones as defined in a dictionary.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
yup, being the grownup that stops self-important idiots from flying their toys into other peoples areas and endangering many of them.
there are more rules and regulation regarding where planes can fly than you could probably read with the help of all of your teachers sounding out the big words for you.
but I like to whine like any other petulant child.
just so self-important idiots like you don't have to behave in a responsible fashion. I know that you think that you feel that are so special that the lives of others are a small price to pay for your childish self-gratification, but the grownups do not agree with your delusion.
And drones have shiny things and are viewed as intruders.
Think about that.
It's illegal to fly drones in much of my state, so be advised.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Simple legal requirement that will substantially reduce the potential for harm.
And something that also impacts both the aerodynamics and weight of the device.
No. It is unlikely to kill anyone, and we allow far more dangerous devices. Quit trying to legislate to protect stupidity, as it only creates every more stupid people.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
and do not let self -important idiots like you drive it. that way I don't have to worry about having to clean up any messes that occur when you feel that you are too important to follow the rules.
Because the US Congress, presumably with their interstate commerce powers, passed a law establishing the FAA:
The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
-- 49 USC 40.103a1
You could attempt to have that law declared unconstitutional, but it would be a hard row to hoe.
True, this applies to "navigable airspace", which the FAA interprets to mean:
- any altitude an emergency landing won't endanger people on the ground (general rule)
- any altitude if near an airport ("except when necessary for takeoff or landing")
- any altitude if a helicopter or powered-parachute or weight-shift control aircraft
- above 1000 feet over "congested areas"
- above 500 feet over "other than congested areas" but not "sparsely populated areas" or open water
- for these, anywhere other than within 500 feet "to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure".
Ignoring the existence proof that they're not, do you think the drone operators are really going to keep these rules in mind? A great place for flying a drone (large open fields and such) will often be classifiable as a "sparsely populated area" and if there's 500 feet between you and the plane, it is perfectly legal for them to be flying 50 feet above the ground. So your "couple hundred feet" is completely irrelevant - the FAA regulates all airspace in the country.
There's a long history of the FAA guidelines for model aircraft operators. The AM(odel)A has worked productively with the FAA and has - for decades - had an agreement ("advisory circular") that is fairly low-maintenance and non-onerous for both sides. But building and learning to fly a model airplane is much harder and much more community oriented than going to Walmart and buying a Phantom and taking it out back, so they kept each other pretty reasonable (not to mention there were far fewer of them). But the drone idiots are screwing it up by going to check out the jets landing at Newark or the police helicopter, and forcing the FAA to make actual rules now. The federal rulemaking process is a pain in the ass, and again we have an existence proof that they were very happy to not have to do that when they didn't feel like they had to - they've been just fine with the not-strictly-binding advisory circular until the drones showed up.
Before you say it, there's no such thing as "air rights". In general you are allowed to use the air above your property to the extent that it can be reasonably used in connection with the property underneath - including things like tall antennas, at least in most places away from airports (but you have to put a light on them and tell them so they can chart it, which seems reasonable). IIRC there is jurisprudence that says that you can't just build a tall "spite pole" to keep planes away since it's not reasonably connected to the use of the land underneath.
Look, I'm a nerd and I think drones are cool. Really cool. But I'm also a pilot and the thought of something metal coming through my windshield at 140MPH scares the bejeezus out of me. Birds are bad enough. And there are tons of stories and videos of people flying drones deliberately near planes. It's hard for me to see them as different from the idiot kids throwing rocks off the overpass.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.