Slashdot Mirror
The FAA Has Missed Its Congressionally Mandated Deadline To Regulate Drones
derekmead writes: When Congress passed the FAA Modernization Act in 2012, it gave the agency until September 30, 2015 to fully regulate commercial drones for use in the United States. Well, it's October 1, and we're left with a patchwork of regulatory band-aids, quasi-legal "guidelines," and a small drone rule that still hasn't gone into effect yet. This news shouldn't surprise anyone. The agency has missed most every milestone—both internal and lawmaker mandated—that has been set for it. The last two years have been fraught with lawsuits, confusion on enforcement within its own local offices (some FAA agents have told pilots they can't post videos on YouTube, for example), and various conflicting guidelines as to who can fly a drone where, and for what purposes.
If there is no congressionally mandated penalty, it's not really a law.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The majority of drone operators are not pilots. They're not trained in see-and-avoid procedures. Many are very ignorant of FAA rules. That is why many drones are flown for commercial purposes, above 400 feet (the limit for recreational use), and close to airports. They're not trained on what to do if a mechanical part fails on a drone and it has to be landed in an emergency. There are good reasons why there are prohibitions on flying drones close to people and structures, yet these are frequently neglected. This doesn't even address the people who will act out of malice toward other aircraft, which is the same thing that prompts people to shine green laser pointers at planes. I understand the benefits of drones, but they shouldn't be flown without a COA, which is special authorization from the FAA. The terms of the COA should require the drone operator be a licensed pilot. I don't see any other way to protect the national airspace because the current approach allows for reckless ignorance of safety rules that will lead to serious accidents if not corrected.
At least not without their expressed consent. That should be rule number one.
Why?
A one-ounce drone crashing into you will hurt a heck of a lot less than a cricket ball. Probably less than a football or tennis ball.
The only thing such nonsensical 'rules' will do is ensure the drone industry takes off in sane countries, while American companies are left behind.
No we aren't. We're talking about keeping the government out of over-regulating something that only needs minimal intervention. The FAA is not "giving" anything by failing to act except a little more freedom. I can assure you that you are not special enough for anyone to want to "violate your rights".
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
"From heaven to hell" is not a thing in modern law. Please do more reading.
I have no interest in 'violating your rights' or 'invade your privacy'. It's your insistence that simply flying a quadcopter is inherently out to get you that we're arguing against.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
...what the hell are you going on about? Flying in public airspace is not equivalent to a bathroom inside my house. How you got from one to the other is absolutely baffling to me.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Uh, what? That's kind of ridiculous - that's like 20 times the average liability for car insurance. Far more damage is done by a car than a 4-lb quad, and far more frequently.
Actually, it isn't that far off the mark. Any RC hobbyist that joins the AMA does have an impressive insurance coverage.
Member Insurance Benefit
$2.5 Million Liability Umbrella
$25,000 Medical Coverage
$1,000 Fire and Theft Coverage