Meet the Drone Registration Task Force (roboticstrends.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The FAA has named the 25-member task force that will make recommendations for drone registration. Amazon has 2 members in the group, joining Google, Walmart, DJI, 3D Robotics and others. The group will meet formally from Nov. 3-5 before developing recommendations on a streamlined registration process and minimum requirements on which drones should be registered. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Anthony Foxx has set a deadline of Nov. 20 for the task force to complete its recommendations and work is already underway.

Comments

"Only large companies get to use them"

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious what's going to happen? A bunch of heads from huge companies are going to meet and decide what's best to control their monopoly. No small company is going to be allowed to compete with their drone services.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, something as simple as having to keep a certified pilot on staff for emergencies would do it. It'd play right into the FAAs existing domain, is easily spun as a safety issue and adds considerable expense to any small scale use.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[kuhnto]

...Or a hefty "Administrative Fee" of $10,000 per vehicle

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[budgenator]

Richard Hanson – Academy of Model Aeronautics, Government and Regulatory Affairs Director
Jim Coon – Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs & Advocacy
Gregory McNeal – Small UAV Coalition, Co-founder of AirMap

There are 3 names that are in no way "Huge Business" and are with advocacy groups for us regular Joes.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[0123456]

Well, duh. You didn't really think government regulations were meant to protect the little guy, did you?

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[buck-yar]

Honest question here, is it 3/25 are for the hobbyist and 22/25 are for the govt/corporations?

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[budgenator]

Actually closer inspection makes that 2/25. Corps have a big interest here because they are completely locked out of any kind of UAV operation by FAA regulations; UAVs are recreational use only currently.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

The AMA only cares that old retired guys can fly fixed-wing aircraft in a circle at AMA club fields. Those of us who fly rotary-wing aircraft on our own don't matter.

The AOPA wants all UAS out of the sky because they compete with General Aviation.

McNeal cares only about commercial use and would be fine with a licensing and registration system that would keep casual users out.

The FAA has been told by Congress not to promulgate any rules or regulations regarding model aircraft (Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). They think they've found a loophole (they claim model aircraft are already required to register, they just haven't been enforcing that requirement. For over 50 years), so they're completely ignoring this restriction. And ignoring it some more by proposing point-of-sale registration, which even that loophole wouldn't get them. The only thing that will stop the FAA is a judge slapping them down, and you've got to exhaust all administrative remedies before getting to that point, which takes many years and serious money, so it's probably not going to happen.
 

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[tlhIngan]

The AOPA wants all UAS out of the sky because they compete with General Aviation.

Incorrect. AOPA wants UAS to follow all the same rules if they want to integrate into the National Airspace System. So if your drone is big enough to fly with regular aircraft, then it should follow the same rules as regular aircraft. Which means if has all the same equipment (radios/transponders/etc) necessary to communicate with ATC and everything.

Drones covers the spectrum from toys to Predator-sized vehicles (which are huge planes - much bigger than your typical Cessna). Even man-carried drones are often quite large and well capably of flying a few thousand feet in the air... right into where airplanes fly.

Your typical DJI like drone will probably not even have to deal with this unless you fly it close to an airport where you have planes at low altitudes. But something like the Google or Amazon drone quite likely has the power and the size to be disruptive.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

Incorrect. AOPA wants UAS to follow all the same rules if they want to integrate into the National Airspace System. So if your drone is big enough to fly with regular aircraft, then it should follow the same rules as regular aircraft. Which means if has all the same equipment (radios/transponders/etc) necessary to communicate with ATC and everything.

So a several thousand dollar (and > 1 pound) ATS-B transponder, registration, a pilot's license to fly them, a certificate of airworthiness, etc. Get real; you and AOPA know that's impractical, it's just proposed so you don't sound obviously unreasonable.

Your typical DJI like drone will probably not even have to deal with this unless you fly it close to an airport where you have planes at low altitudes.

I fly within the NYC area mode C veil (and not far from class C airspace, which extends 5 nautical miles from almost every dinky airport in the country). Putting an FCC-approved transponder on my models would bankrupt me and they'd not be able to fly due to the weight and power requirements anyway. Also I have no pilot's license and am unlikely to get one. And I can't imagine how I'd get a certificate of airworthiness for these things.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

I fly within the NYC area mode C veil (and not far from class C airspace, which extends 5 nautical miles from almost every dinky airport in the country). Putting an FCC-approved transponder on my models would bankrupt me and they'd not be able to fly due to the weight and power requirements anyway. Also I have no pilot's license and am unlikely to get one. And I can't imagine how I'd get a certificate of airworthiness for these things.

The Mode C veil goes all the way to the surface around the airport itself (out to various distances depending on the area).

You're not exempt from that rule just because you're not physically in the aircraft.

Now, does this really apply to $50 toys that you fly to 50 feet in your backyard? No.

Does it apply to $1,000 toys that fly to 500 feet? Yes it does.

Guess what, want to fly more than a bit above the tree line? Want to go a few hundred feet up? Want to do it in a congested area? You'll need a transponder.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

You're not exempt from that rule just because you're not physically in the aircraft.

No, I'm exempt from that rule because I'm flying a model aircraft. Actually the regs say if you don't have an engine-driven electrical system you're exempt (the engine is electric; it doesn't drive the electrical system)

Guess what, want to fly more than a bit above the tree line? Want to go a few hundred feet up? Want to do it in a congested area? You'll need a transponder.

Not according to current rules. And the FAA can't add new rules to my models legally, because of section 336.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[Obfuscant]

You're not exempt from that rule just because you're not physically in the aircraft.

No, I'm exempt from that rule because I'm flying a model aircraft. Actually the regs say if you don't have an engine-driven electrical system you're exempt (the engine is electric; it doesn't drive the electrical system)

You are flying an aircraft. 14CFR91.130 contains no exemptions for aircraft without electrical systems. You need to be in two-way communications with ATC -- unless you get an ATC authorization.

14CFR91.215 does not completely exempt aircraft without electrical systems from the transponder requirement. "This requirement applies-- (1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;"

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

We're talking about the Mode C veil, here, not class A,B, or C airspace. No engine-driven electrical system, no transponder requirement for the Mode C veil, from 91.215.

As for the rest, that depends on if "model aircraft" are intended to observe all the restrictions on "aircraft". This hasn't been the case for over 50 years, and Section 336 of FMRA 2012 was certainly intended to preserve that. The FAA and NTSB insist that all these restrictions do apply, which would make all model aircraft operation for the past 50 years illegal. This is going to end up in court, almost certainly.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[KGIII]

This is going to make the second time, where drones are concerned, that I get to say, "I told you so." The first was in the Kentucky drone shooting. This one will be where I've continually suggested that you organize or you'll get draconian legislation. The, "I can do it anyways, fuck you!" Is actually part of the problem. Yet I see that reply nearly every time I bring this up.

What you could have done is contact the vendors, setup a site, have all sorts of free training material, and get vendors to put your URL inside of every package, packaged part, etc... Make them want to join, encourage best use guidelines, and actively seek to educate. (Also, punch the bad actors in the nuts.) By now, had I been listened to, you might have a powerhouse with a huge following that would be actually representative of the hobbyists needs.

On top of that, you might have created a few jobs as I'm sure you'd get vendor tie-in and be able to place ads (not even tracking ads) on the site and manufactures would want to be known as blessed by this group of users. Something similar to the ARRL related radio/ham sites...

But no... It didn't happen. You want shitty regulation and lack of liberty? 'Cause this is how you get that. Should you need to? Probably not. You probably don't need to shower either but it's a good idea if you do, if you're wanting to be socially acceptable. It's probably too late but you could take the idea, improve on it, and run with it and it might help.

Alas, nobody listens to David. Good luck with that. It's going to suck. Personally, I hate to see anyone lose rights - even though I don't really give a shit about RC aircraft.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

The issue hasn't been addressed in the past because it hasn't happened often enough to get attention.

It is getting attention now, the situation as it currently stands won't last.

Mode C veils didn't exist once, Class A airspace didn't exist once either. Both exist today for good reasons. As the price of drones (RC aircraft, whatever) drops and the number rises, this will have to be addressed.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

While it likely will end up in court sooner or later, at the end of the day, that is probably a waste of time and money.

Why? Because it is clear that the government has the right to regulate the national airspace system. Both Congress and the FAA have the right to control access to the NAS.

As such, while there may be some give and take on the specifics, you're not going to win in the long run by saying, "I get to keep doing what I've been doing for years, just because I've been doing it".

They may come up with a specific rule in the regs that says "you may fly line-of-sight RC aircraft up to 200ft AGL in congested areas and up to 400ft AGL in uncongested areas without prior ATC approval, or something like that.

---

Frankly I fully expect a FAA requirement for a "drone pilot certificate" at some point, for anything over a given size or ability, regardless of where you fly it.

Note that this likely won't have anything to do with the little microhelicopters that you buy on eBay or at the local mall, but it would apply to this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...

Don't expect to be able to continue to fly such things without specific regulations in a few years.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

Why? Because it is clear that the government has the right to regulate the national airspace system. Both Congress and the FAA have the right to control access to the NAS.

They do, however, have to pass laws and regulatons to do so. Not just do it by fiat in an arbitrary and capricious manner contrary to the laws which have actually been passed.

They may come up with a specific rule in the regs that says "you may fly line-of-sight RC aircraft up to 200ft AGL in congested areas and up to 400ft AGL in uncongested areas without prior ATC approval, or something like that.

They _already have_. The law says the FAA may not make rules or regulations related to model aircraft under 55 pounds flown for noncommercial purposes, line-of-sight, at a distance of more than 5 miles from an airport, or less than 5 miles of an airport with tower _notification_ (not approval). Now the FAA wants to ignore all that and set up a point of sale registration system for all model aircraft, without even going through the normal rulemaking process, let along getting the statutory authorization to make such rules.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[greg5317]

AirMap will be there. I'm our representative on the Task Force and co-founder of our company. We are committed to an open system in which innovation can thrive and we're definitely not a huge company or a monopoly. We are hiring, join us: https://www.airmap.io/careers/

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

AirMap will be there. I'm our representative on the Task Force and co-founder of our company. We are committed to an open system in which innovation can thrive and we're definitely not a huge company or a monopoly.

The FAA appears to lack your commitment. They forbid all operation beyond the visual line of site in their proposed sUAS rules, which would seem to make your products unnecessary. The only thing this task force appears to be charged with is figuring out a way to make it harder to buy a UAS, and to somehow make it illegal to fly a UAS without registration (even if the UAS is a model aircraft under section 336 of the NPRM)... even though all commercial UAS already require registration under current rules. I'm not sure what good anyone can do on this task force; it is charged only with doing wrong.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

Not just do it by fiat in an arbitrary and capricious manner contrary to the laws which have actually been passed.

You must be new here... :) Have you not met our government?

I've worked with the FAA, there is what the book says, then there is what they do. You're welcome to fight them, but I'd rather not.

Now the FAA wants to ignore all that and set up a point of sale registration system for all model aircraft, without even going through the normal rulemaking process, let along getting the statutory authorization to make such rules.

You're welcome to protest, it may even work for a bit... the process might be messy, it may not even be correct...

My primary point however is that in some years time (might be 5, might be more or less), there will be new rules and restrictions on where you can fly an RC anything.

Of that, I'm 100% sure of...

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

I've worked with the FAA, there is what the book says, then there is what they do. You're welcome to fight them, but I'd rather not.

You presumably have a pilot's license, so they've got you by the short-and-curlies. You buck them, they pull your license while you fight, you go broke. I have no such restriction.

My primary point however is that in some years time (might be 5, might be more or less), there will be new rules and restrictions on where you can fly an RC anything.

To paraphrase Andrew Jackson: "Mr. Huerta has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it." The FAA is specifically denied the authority to regulate RC model aircraft. I'll ignore any rules they make contrary to that. If they are not operating according to the law, they have no authority aside from naked force, and they don't have an enforcement arm large enough to control people flying model aircraft.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

You presumably have a pilot's license, so they've got you by the short-and-curlies. You buck them, they pull your license while you fight, you go broke. I have no such restriction.

:) You keep thinking that... not having a pilot certificate (it isn't a license, it is a certificate, it never expires) does not exempt you from the FAA's area of enforcement.

I'll ignore any rules they make contrary to that.

Sure, and plenty of people use drugs, and drive over the speed limit, and a thousand other things... and get away with it much of the time... but don't kid yourself, enforcement always comes down to "naked force" as you put it.

As I said, flying a small $50 RC quad copter in your back yard is not going to be an issue. Flying a $1,500 remote drone 2,000ft in the air 2 miles from your home, will be. There will end up being a line somewhere in-between the two that gets drawn, enforcement will depend largely on where you live of course. I doubt the government cares much if you live in Montana, more so in NYC.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

:) You keep thinking that... not having a pilot certificate (it isn't a license, it is a certificate, it never expires) does not exempt you from the FAA's area of enforcement.

It means that the FAA can't pull my "certificate" first and ask questions later while I go broke.

Sure, and plenty of people use drugs, and drive over the speed limit, and a thousand other things... and get away with it much of the time... but don't kid yourself, enforcement always comes down to "naked force" as you put it.

Flying a model without registering it is like "speeding" through a town which has posted a speed limit not in accordance with an overriding state law. It's not illegal.

As I said, flying a small $50 RC quad copter in your back yard is not going to be an issue. Flying a $1,500 remote drone 2,000ft in the air 2 miles from your home, will be. There will end up being a line somewhere in-between the two that gets drawn, enforcement will depend largely on where you live of course. I doubt the government cares much if you live in Montana, more so in NYC.

My current machines cost between $100 and about $1000 all-up. The larger machines are 425mm blade model helicopters, they weigh over 2 pounds, though they're still small as helis go. And I live near NYC; within 30 miles of EWR, as it happens. Despite all that, once the FAA passes its new rules, it'll still be legal for me to fly my unregistered helis, still legal for me to buy or build new models without registering them, and still legal for me to fly them.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

It means that the FAA can't pull my "certificate" first and ask questions later while I go broke.

A pilot certificate is actually the least of your concerns.

What happens if the FAA fines you $500 per day until you comply with their orders?

Yes, the FAA can fine you, and when you refuse to pay it, you end up in administrative court where you aren't innocent until proven guilty, and your refusal ultimately ends up with the sheriff showing up.

Despite all that, once the FAA passes its new rules, it'll still be legal for me to fly my unregistered helis, still legal for me to buy or build new models without registering them, and still legal for me to fly them.

It can be really expensive to prove that your actions are legal, but you're welcome to try. Someone gets to be the test case.

At the end of the day, neither you nor I are the person who actually decides if it is legal or not, a judge is.

You're probably familiar with this case:

http://www.outsideonline.com/1...

Are you aware it was overturned?

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Here is the final outcome of that case:

http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

---

Look, I'm not the FAA, I'm not here to tell you that you're right or wrong, I honestly don't care. What I am telling you is that your "tough guy attitude" doesn't work against an agency like the FAA who ultimately will get some type of drone regulations into place and if they decide to come after you, they'll almost always win.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[russotto]

What happens if the FAA fines you $500 per day until you comply with their orders?

I continue to not comply, and the fines rack up. What else can I do? It's either not fly (in which case the case ends and I have no further ability to challenge) or continue to disobey.

Yes, the FAA can fine you, and when you refuse to pay it, you end up in administrative court where you aren't innocent until proven guilty, and your refusal ultimately ends up with the sheriff showing up.

Fortunately, I could be dead of old age by the time "ultimately" happens.

I'm aware of the Pirker case. It never made it out of administrative courts. This is going to be decided in a judicial court ultimately; there already are pending challenges in the DC circuit. But if I obey the FCC's arbitrary rule until those challenges go through, it's me who is on the wrong side of time; I could be dead of old age before those cases are resolved, even if they're resolved in my favor.

Re:"Only large companies get to use them"

[FlyHelicopters]

I continue to not comply, and the fines rack up. What else can I do?

Do you honestly not know what happens when people don't pay the government what the government says they owe? :)

Lets just say that prison would be in your future... yes, the government ultimately would put you in jail over refusing to comply.

Fortunately, I could be dead of old age by the time "ultimately" happens.

The government isn't THAT slow... Pirker gave up when the rules were changed (by the FAA), when he correctly pointed out that even if he won, it wouldn't matter since the goal posts had been moved...

I can't wait for the government to help me here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo hoo!

Our wonderful government is going to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM for all time!

Don't you feel great about that!

Yep, I can't wait for ten thousand pages of rules that effectively only allow the government and big corporations to use drones!

Droning on and on

[pr0t0]

I know this is probably being pedantic at this point, but can their first recommendation be to stop calling them "drones"? I feel like words matter, and what we say imparts connotations. Shouldn't we have a lexicon that in some way distinguishes recreational R/C hobby aircraft from mission-specific autonomous or semi-autonomous aircraft. The media absolutely refuses to make this distinction, and I have to wonder if the reason for that was initially to demonize the recreational variety and now it's just a simple matter of inertia.

Since I'm not an enthusiast myself, I wouldn't mind hearing from people who are to find out what their take on the current vocabulary is.

Re:Droning on and on

[PvtVoid]

I know this is probably being pedantic at this point, but can their first recommendation be to stop calling them "drones"? I feel like words matter, and what we say imparts connotations. Shouldn't we have a lexicon that in some way distinguishes recreational R/C hobby aircraft from mission-specific autonomous or semi-autonomous aircraft.

These things are semi-autonomous. Even the most basic DJI drones, for example, have automated return-to-base functionality in the event of a lost control signal. It's pretty fucking cool: turn off the transmitter (under properly controlled and safe circumstances blah blah blah) and they climb to 60 feet, cruise back to their starting point, and execute a perfect landing. All by themselves.

Re:Droning on and on

[drinkypoo]

Even the most basic DJI drones, for example, have automated return-to-base functionality in the event of a lost control signal.

Sure, but there's lots of them that don't. Nothing without a GPS can pull that off, for example, so nothing without a GPS should probably be called a drone. But even assuming you fold all craft which can be operated without LoS into the definition, that means any quad would have to have either GPS or FPV to be considered a drone. It looks like they're also talking about some kind of size requirement, so that your itsy-bitsy handheld drones won't have to be registered. That, of course, will just drive a privacy-destroying arms race. We'll get ever-smaller, ever-more-efficient drones with fancy cellphone-based guts, just a single- or dual-core ARM SoC (hopefully less the GPU) with a 10MP cellphone camera and the WiFi and cellular capabilities. Then you can operate them from literally anywhere in the world. If they had a flexible solar cover, perhaps they could trickle-charge while sitting in someone's tree, looking in their window. Give them a nice coating of something that birds and bugs alike find offensive.

Re:Droning on and on

[Technician]

This should be covered by the AMA instead. www.modelaircraft.org/

Re:Droning on and on

[khallow]

I rather use the word, "drones". But by all means, fair or dirty, let's detour this group into something more productive than limiting drones to government organizations and big businesses.

Re:Droning on and on

[Alypius]

I have several quadcopters and one hexacopter. The quads are tablet-sized toys and only the hexacopter could be considered a "drone" because of it's RTB feature (while cool, it isn't as great as it sounds due to lack of any terrain avoidance. 60 feet is not that high.) I could bolt on a $200 box that would let me program waypoints and altitudes, but I just don't fly as often as I would like. I don't terribly mind "drone", but I do try to stick to the "-copter" terms. I think the only demonizing going on is by asshat pilots who hotdog where they shouldn't and I certain there's a lot of personal history and personality conflict behind the few drone-shooting incidents we've heard about. I seriously doubt it's as simple as "Ma, there's a UFO after the girls! Fetch th' shotgun!"

Re:Droning on and on

[thinkwaitfast]

Free flight do come back to home, or are supposed to, and many have failsafes to keep them from wandering to far. Lites and model rockets meet the definition of drones.

Re:Droning on and on

[drinkypoo]

Free flight do come back to home, or are supposed to

Without a GPS? I wouldn't trust a cheap-ass inertial tracking system to get a drone home, not for one second.

and many have failsafes to keep them from wandering to far

They do? A few have GPS-based area lockout, but that's only a subset of GPS-enabled copters, which is a subset of all copters.

Lites and model rockets meet the definition of drones.

What's a lite? Bud Lite? And model rockets sure don't meet the definition of drones. They're just rockets. You could make a rocket-based drone, but most of them just fire a recovery device and fall out of the sky.

If you buy a GPS-based off-the-shelf drone, yes I would expect it to have RTH. But if you buy most drone kits, they don't even come with a GPS by default, and therefore they don't RTH, PH, waypoint, etc. Most of them can be "hacked" (reflashed with different firmware, really) to support GPS; I added GPS to a HK-sourced KK, which normally doesn't support it but someone called e_lm_70 has got Multiwii running on it with a GUI for the onboard LCD.

I'd argue that without GPS it's not a drone, because it can't do anything fancier than trying to self-right. It doesn't even have a baro sensor stock, so it can't reasonably even do an altitude hold. With the addition of a GPS module and reflashing to Multiwii, it's now a drone. It can fly waypoints, it can return to home. But this is all just arguing about semantics because a quad (or whatever) copter doesn't have to be a drone to be a hazard to aviation.

Re:Droning on and on

[thegarbz]

I feel like words matter too. Just because because we were using one word that fitted the definition at one point doesn't mean that we shouldn't use a different word which still fits the definition according to every dictionary out there as well as the common understanding of people who speak the language.

I have so far been unable to find any evidence of the word being used improperly. If anything people's attribution of the word to the military, and the budget and capability requirements the military had for their devices gave it an unofficial extra definition.

And that is without even considering the capabilities of many off the shelf R/C craft, even many toy ones actually fit the military definition too. I know mine does and I bought it for around $350 and it's far from "high end".

Re:Droning on and on

[thegarbz]

either GPS or FPV

And now you can say most flying devices fit that definition. If you exclude the toys flown indoors nearly all devices fit that description. Heck my little indoor toy has FPV and it's no bigger than the size of my hand.

Re:Droning on and on

[thegarbz]

The quads are tablet-sized toys and only the hexacopter could be considered a "drone" because of it's RTB feature

By who's definition?

Re:Droning on and on

[thinkwaitfast]

Sounds like you know very little about this subject. Why are you commenting?

Re:Droning on and on

[Alypius]

How about mine? My largest quadcopter is the Hubsan X4 (and, honestly, my favorite one to fly) and has no BVR or GPS capability; hardly a drone by anyone's definition. My hexacopter is equipped with the Naza-V2 flight controller; the only autonomous capability it has is RTB. The question was if there was a better way to distinguish RC toys from more advanced drones. I suggested that anything with BVR or autopilot (including RTB) would qualify as a drone. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on; I fully understand that anything other than fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are "drones" in popular media, but since we're talking about regulating anything that doesn't stay on the ground, it might be useful to have a set of working definitions.

Re:Droning on and on

[drinkypoo]

Sounds like you know very little about this subject.

To who? On what basis?

Re:Droning on and on

[HornWumpus]

A model rocket with any kind of active control system is a fucking missile and is a ten year federal crime, same as a home made machine gun.

Sounds like you know very little about this subject. Why are you commenting?

Re:Droning on and on

[rallytales]

pr0t0 said:

I know this is probably being pedantic at this point, but can their first recommendation be to stop calling them "drones"?

Not going to happen I'm afraid: the mass media is like a dog with a bone and the word "drone" gets them slavering every time.

Re:Droning on and on

[thegarbz]

That's fine, that's the way the English language works. You're free to play with the language to your heart's content. The problem is one of commonality. You have your definition of drone that excludes the device, but the common definition (despite your assertion of "anyone's") in circulation still classes your toy as a drone as no autonomy is required for the classification according to various dictionaries. You're going to have one heck of an uphill battle to convince people your way is the right way. But you're welcome to try.

The question was if there was a better way to distinguish RC toys from more advanced drones.

The Germans make words for everything often stringing together other words in a descriptive way. In English we use adjectives, like the words "autonomous".

Re:Droning on and on

[KGIII]

I once wrote out a definition that was fairly well received but I didn't save it. It'd be in my post history somewhere but I'm too lazy to look for it. I basically used a similar taxonomy as we use for classification of species.

So... Using your example, one of them, and from a layman's view...

UAV (vs. Manned)
Remote Controlled (allowing inputs via remote)
Semi-Autonomous (vs. complete autonomy)
Limited to X Range (not sure where you qualify here - not a hobbyist)
Multi-Rotor (vs. single)
Helicopter (vs. plane or model rocket)
RTB, FPV, etc (sub-species, so to speak)

There's room for further refinement. There are obviously different classes, orders, etc... One can abbreviate or whatnot, or just include the 'species-subspecies' if they want. The purpose is simply to give full information in universal format and to facilitate the coming regulation as it's easier to exempt certain classes than it is to exempt non-specific classes.

There's loads of room to improve it but that's the gist of it. If y'all had listened then you'd have a nice site to go to where this sort of thing can be proposed, acted on, and formalized as a standard. It might even collect voluntary duties and lobby on behalf of the members. It might even get vendor tie-in and support. I'm not a hobbyist so I'm disregarded, insulted, and generally (oddly) assumed to have some sort of ulterior motives. (Really, I just don't want you guys to get fucked over. Really... I have no financial motivations at all nor a care in the world except not wanting to see an otherwise group of nice people be ruined by a few bad actors and then be subjected to draconian legislation that makes you all scofflaws or outlaws.)
 

Anyway

[sociocapitalist]

This is just stupid anyway.

If you make unregistered drones a crime...only criminals will have unregistered drones.

Re:Anyway

[Yetihehe]

Then you can just shoot or intercept any unregistered drone. Time to get my drone hunting license...

Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[rmdingler]

Registering the millions of drones as aircraft with the FAA means a reinvention of the aircraft numbering system is in order.

In the US, aircraft begin with an N, while other nations also have unique letter identifiers.

It has been suggested that adding letter combinations will be necessary to keep up with the demand.

Re:Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[drinkypoo]

Registering the millions of drones as aircraft with the FAA means a reinvention of the aircraft numbering system is in order.
In the US, aircraft begin with an N, while other nations also have unique letter identifiers.

No, they're not being registered as aircraft. They're just being registered. You're not going to need a pilot's license. Yet. Though if you think about it though, arguably you should need a pilot's license to operate FPV in any conditions other than at low altitude over private property, and there will be requirements to do visual checks like anyone else. Then, some 20 years after it's been implemented, you'll be allowed to use sensors to detect incoming aircraft.

Re:Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[budgenator]

In Model Rocketry, there are active Associations like the National Association of Rocketry that has educational and mentorship programs and they even operate a High Power Rocketry certification program.

Re:Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[thinkwaitfast]

Kites are unmanned aerial aircraft and have been used in warfare for centuries. Not only kites, but balloons. The only deaths on US soil in WWII were caused by a Japanese balloon bomb.

Re:Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[Obfuscant]

No, they're not being registered as aircraft. They're just being registered.

They're aircraft, and they're being registered. What are they being registered as? Pixie dust, or unicorns?

Perhaps you aren't aware but commercial use already requires registration AS AIRCRAFT, in the existing registration system. I know someone who is having to do that, including getting airworthiness certs and statements from the manufacturer that his aircraft has not been registered in another country before.

The current N-number registration system is not cast in stone, and it is trivial to create an extended version with registrations that start with N and have 10 digits. Or 15.

Re:Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[russotto]

The current N-number registration system is not cast in stone, and it is trivial to create an extended version with registrations that start with N and have 10 digits. Or 15.

It's not trivial; it would literally take an act of Congress.

Re:Going to be an IPv6 problem soon

[Obfuscant]

It's not trivial; it would literally take an act of Congress.

Maybe someone could appoint a group to study the problem and come up with a way of implementing it? Oh wait ... they already have.

Re:Home made

[drinkypoo]

I doubt it, but they might start asking eBay and Amazon for information on flight controller and outrunner motor sales. Of course, you can "build" your own FC out of modules readily available on eBay, but most won't. The goal here is to catch the majority of casual offenders. You're never going to stop the clever, deliberate criminal since as you say, you can build a quad. If you have a tiny lathe, a drill press, hopefully a dremel tool, and some files, you can reasonably make a quad from scratch as long as you have a clever place to find sensors. Motionplus, eh.

Re:Slippery Slope

[buck-yar]

And for typing this, you are now on a list of "right wing terrorists" that is more concerning to the govt than Islamic terrorists.

By posting under AC, you are aware of how treasonous you have become.

But fear not, fellow slashdotters. This terrorist will be monitored as the cybersecurity bill will allow govt to view the Dice server contents and determine the real identity behind this terrorism post.

Private property?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for registration/requirements for drone/model aircraft flying over other peoples property without permission, but flight over private property should be up the the property owner. The most important question yet to be answered is how do you define "public airspace"? The FAA designates the beginning of "navigable airspace" as beginning at 500 ft, no aircraft is supposed to fly below that unless coming in for a landing or on private property (I think some ultra-lite testing takes place in this fashion). People actually own the air somewhere 83 ft and above feet from their land, court cases haven't narrowed it in anymore than that. Flights of model aircraft/drones on private land shouldn't require ANY controls/registrations/regulations as long as it remains on said land. The second it crosses that land you can throw the book at them but people shouldn't be told what to do on their own property. Easiest thing to do would be to try to set a smaller "drone airspace" of somewhere between 200 & 500 feet and hopefully the inevitable court battles would give us a better idea of the limits of private ownership. Prospective delivery services would of course have a legal rider attached to the purchase requiring the homeowner give permission to the company to enter their property (wherever that begins) for purposes of delivery. Of course all of this hinges on this being an above board process, which is not very likely. Various commercial interests will want to sabotage their competition (pilots, airlines, aerial photography, etc), various "privacy" (see zealots) advocates will push for a complete ban/mass of red tape over meaningful requirements, and government officials will be salivating over a new industry to hook into and bleed for all they can

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby

Re:Private property?

[Obfuscant]

The FAA designates the beginning of "navigable airspace" as beginning at 500 ft, no aircraft is supposed to fly below that unless coming in for a landing or on private property

The FAA regulates airspace to the ground. And there are aircraft that can fly below 500 feet. Your Causby reference claims it was the congress that defined it as "500 feet", not the FAA.

People actually own the air somewhere 83 ft and above feet from their land, court cases haven't narrowed it in anymore than that.

The court case you are thinking of did not say that. It was a case where the plaintive claimed damages from an aircraft at 83 feet above his chickens when that aircraft was causing significant disruption to that use. It didn't even begin to define "ownership" of airspace, and would have had a hard time getting past the fact that the FAA has regulatory authority to the surface.

Prospective delivery services would of course have a legal rider attached to the purchase requiring the homeowner give permission to the company to enter their property (wherever that begins) for purposes of delivery.

There are very few cities where one person's property is more than 500 feet away from a "person, vessel, vehicle or structure" on someone else's property. You don't get to give permission for an aircraft to operate within that distance from my property, sir. If you are going to use 47CFR91.119 as justification for a "500 foot floor to navigable airspace" claim, then I will use it to keep you from getting drone deliveries of whatever Amazon toy you just bought.

Re:Home made

[thinkwaitfast]

Who needs a 3d printer? I have been building drones since the second grade out of wood and glue.

How odd!

[edibobb]

I didn't get an invitation to join the task force. Must be in my spam folder.

Drone definition definitely needs to be redifined

[0x537461746943]

Drones should be defined as devices that can act autonomously or be guided remotely through a live video stream all of which done without line of sight flying. I can certainly see the risks with these devices. Model aircraft should be defined as radio control aircraft that does not have autonomous or first person view features and is flown line of sight. The risks with "model aircraft" are much lower than "Drones" as defined above. The model aircraft hobbyist that have been flying for many decades safely should not be clumped in with drones when it comes to regulations. There are already regulations for "Model aircraft" defined by the FAA which AMA helps to define for hobbyists. With that said there still should be a minimum drone size that would not be regulated. A $15 drone that you can buy at walmwart and only fly within about 100 feet before going out of range and not have GPS should not be burdened with registration or any such restrictions. LA county just passed a low restricting flying to 400 feet in that city for all unmanned aircraft clumping in "model aircraft" that the RC hobbyist use including sailplanes that do not have motors. That pretty much kills the sailplane hobby where you fly a non motorized aircraft and try to find thermals to climb up higher. The launch heights are around 500 to 600 feet when launched by a winch from the ground. They wouldn't even be able to launch their model aircraft. I mainly fly Discus Hand Launch Gilders (DLG) that do not have motors to propel them. You spin around while grabbing the wing and release it like a discus which launches the aircraft to around 130 to 280 feet. Once gravity kicks in you flatten out and then search for thermals to take you higher. The thermals are just forming around that height and require flying to around 500 to 800 feet to get to the best air for thermals. Keep in mind DLGs do not have motors so we completely depend on the air heating up and going up taking our glider with it. We always have line of sight when flying and there are no special electronics on them. No GPS, etc. There are dozens of competitions every year in the US (f3k) and it would be very sad for us to lose the hobby because of these new "Drones" that are becoming popular that have GPS and autonomous features. My fear is that by clumping all the hobby aircraft like sailplanes into the "Drone" definition they will be restricted too and ruin this great hobby.

Definition of DRONE.

[Viewsonic]

I hope the first thing they do is define what a drone is and isn't.

Drones as we know them today are generally car-size, and can be fully automated on demand.

I'm tired of seeing a quadrocopter, which is no different than an RC helicopter or RC airplane being called a drone.

If someone wants to fly a 1 ton automated aircraft, then by all means, make them register them.

If they want to fly a small RC toy, or even something as large as a golden retriever, then no. It's just considered a remote controlled craft that has been legal to fly since ... decades and decades and decades.

Re:Slippery Slope

[KGIII]

Never, ever, take advice from someone who doesn't know the difference between freedoms and rights. If you live most anywhere other than a prison, you have all the freedoms you want. Freedoms are taken by force. What you're wanting are rights, or liberties.

I am free to kill you. I do not have the right to do so.
You're free to try hijack a plane and crash it into a building. You do not have the liberty to do so.
You're free to build a nuclear bomb. You do not have the right do do so.
You're free to do heroin. You do not have the liberty to do so.

Until we get past this, well, there's not a whole lot of use in going forward.

This is from a small government proponent.

Stupid

[RalphOstrander]

Can we grow the government anymore. Soon I might have to vote for the party that crashed America with trickle down and wants me to believe the way to fix it is to cut what little the old and sick have by calling it entitlements.

Re:How about?

[KGIII]

Then they take your drone and, without any corroborating evidence, they simply destroy it and consider the matter settled.

Ruin the RC industry

[p51d007]

Great, a bunch of idiots, fly quadcopter without any regard for anything, and what will they do? Completely wreck a hobby enjoyed by thousands of people who have been SAFELY flying RC planes & helicopters for decades. Thanks a lot you idiots!

Re:How about?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's only step 2. Step 3 is load it with dynamite and fly it into the White House.

Dick Cheney, is that you?

[r-diddly]

This "task force" reminds me a lot of Dick Cheney setting US energy policy in closed-door meetings with oil industry execs. Prepare to be sold out again, America.