Slashdot Mirror
FAA Drone Rules May Already Be Outlawed By Congress (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: New FAA rules about drone registration and operation are now in effect. So far the talk has centered around registering your aircraft, and about the weight restriction. But all of this may be moot since the US Congress made a law in 2012 prohibiting these types of rules: "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." Even if the rules hold up under this law, it is not all doom and gloom for drones. The FAA rules could have been much more stringent, and in general they do make sense. Brian Benchoff walks through the regulation, comparing the new rules to the FAA's existing pilot rules, and juxtaposing the threat drones make to full-size aircraft in flight with those risks associated with bird strikes.
Waiting for the FAA to ban birds from flying around helos and airplanes...
I can remember when the Feds wanted everyone with a CB radio to have a license, too.
If the FAA model aircraft database is public, then what's to stop someone local from looking up your name, address and registration number and sticking that on their model aircraft instead of their own name ?
That way, they can fly in a reckless manner and if their aircraft crashes, it's an innocent person the authorities are going to be looking for.
I'm honestly glad that they're putting these rules into effect. Just after seeing the recent wildfire fighting efforts impeded by drone owners, and even structural firefighting efforts held up, all because drone owners wanted to get video of the destruction. Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that? Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all. But I'm not only glad to see that these rules are being put in place, I hope that emergency response is authorized to SHOOT DOWN drones that get in the way and fine the hell out of the owners of them.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
So, it is only about model aircraft, you know, scaled models of actual aircraft that essentially operate the same. The most prominent quadricopter design is not a model aircraft, but a real aircraft in a class of its own. All the DJIs, and similar sized quads have a well defined purpose and are pretty fit for that purpose - a self-propelled airborne camera platform. If you get a 1:10 working replica of the Phantom, then the replica is the model aircraft.
The FAA doesn't have the authority to pass laws, in the same way that the president doesn't have the authority to create executive orders. So much of what is done today in government is illegal. Just say no to socialism, progressivism and liberalism.
Many of the people against one are also against the other. How is it hypocritical to oppose both registries?
That 2002 law saying they can't create regulations on model aircraft also have this stipulation:
Considering the whole reason these new regs were passed were because idiots weren't following safety guidelines, makes it a moot point. If the aircraft aren't being operated in accordance w/ safety guidelines the FAA is free to regulate the hell out of model aircraft.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Drones are just like guns: you sit here, something happens over there. Let's just get a law that defines drones to be guns. Registration problem solved!
Do you have to register a model dirigible? A dirigible could weigh nothing. Weight is not the same as mass.
I already got a letter from my flying club saying to hold off on registration. Here's the AMA website report: http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...
A short while ago a drone backed out a few city blocks in California after touching power lines. Unlike fixed wing remote controlled aircraft, drones can take off anywhere including street corners. This, of course means they can come down nearby
-- Into traffic
-- Powerlines
-- Descend vertically into telephony/power equipment, thus bypassing fences.
No one is saying that these are deliberate but accidents do happen and like your driver's licence helps pay for public education regarding the rules of the road, the potential for error, mistakes and oversight means that there's a public good in ensuring safe navigation of the skies. Someone above said that people could therefore could fake your ID at an accident -- well I think the odds of that happening are small relative to the amount of regular accidents that will happen.
Of course people will stomp and yell about 'muh freedumbs' but these things will eventually -- by accident -- cause traffic accidents by uncontrolled descents and so having the infrastructure ready to ensure that people get a modicum of training is hardly the end of the world.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
So if you put a fly by wire camera on it, you should still have to register it.
Because, guns only operate on line of sight, but drones can be operated remotely?
Because the danger of drones is a superset of the danger of guns as one could mount a gun on a sufficiently advanced drone?
Because the right to own guns is protected in the Constitution but the right to own (non weaponized) drones isn't?
So we go into court. FAA gets their registration for 3-4 years to curb drones. Congress gets to shift accountability in rule making to the courts, and vendors get to sell anything they want with no accountability as well. And DoD gets to catch up with the chinese vendors. All winners.
Basically everyone pushed accountability of this new tech to the consumer... the loser in this situation.
And as we go to the court for the next 3-4 years (look how long it took the Pirker case... 2 yrs, this is bigger) the overall winners are: the lawyers of course!
Those treasonous cocksuckers just sold us out again on the SOPA - who gives a flying fuck what they think?
There's plenty of people saying it's not OK to have a national database of drone users.
The Nationwide Not Car Insurance Company By The Same Name Community Safety Guidelines:
1) Don't be a dick
2) Do not through inaction allow your remote craft to be a dick.
3) Make sure there is nothing on your craft that can be linked back to you in case of accident.
Oh, did you mean safety for OTHERS and not your own legal safety? Should have said so explicitly then!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Drones have cameras, models do not.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Newer legislation required the FAA to create these rules. But then, this isn't the first time that Slashtards read a lie and get up in arms.
Guns are an ENUMERATED RIGHT. What part of 'shall not infringe' is unclear to you?
Good-bye
Pro-tip, property-disrespecting cunts: the air is not your property. It either belongs to a private individual, or it belongs to the government (a corporation with one share per citizen). Property owners get to set rules on how their property is used. In particular, you don't get to treat the world like it belongs to you - certainly not while enjoying the privileges of a civilised country full of infrastructure, rule of law, etc.
The constitution doesn't say "guns"
that the current administration does not care about the plain text of laws; this President has a phone and a pen and a congress so frightened of the mass media that they will not stop him no matter how illegal his actions. Remember that the FAA is a part of the executive branch which normally means it executes the laws as written by congress, but under President Obama it only upholds the laws Obama likes, ignores the ones he dislikes, and writes thousands of new rules per month that are never even voted upon by any representatives of the people.
You only THINK you have rights.
The FAA could have written a simple rule: no operation within 5 miles of an airport or above, say 500 ft AGL that would apply to all unmanned aircraft which are not operated as model airplanes (for which other rules already apply). Simple..... and therefore not what's in the best interests of federal bureaucrats intent on growing their bureaucracy, power, and budgets. The simple fact is that any drone not operating near an airport and not up in the airspace used by the military or by interstate commercial carriers should not be the business of the federal government which is so bloated and incompetent that the FAA has been unable to get the far more important air traffic control system properly upgraded after many billions of dollars and a few decades of effort. The FAA should look at regulating drones AFTER they finally replace all the 1950's era tube-based systems still in use controlling airliners full of civilians.
Gun owners have amendment number two of the original founding document of the nation to protect the liberty of citizens to keep and bear arms from infringement. Gun owners also have millions of dues paying members of lobbying organizations to protect their liberty to keep and bear arms. Gun owners also have many elected representatives that support their liberty to keep and bear arms.
"Drone" operators have jack shit. Operating a drone is a privilege, just as driving car is a privilege. So "drone" operators bend over for whatever daddy government says they will and won't.
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government.
So, you're only allowed to own guns when you're a member of an organized revolt fighting against a tyrannical government. You're literally saying that it's only legal to own a gun during an insurrection. And that makes perfect sense to you? You're honestly sitting here trying to get us to believe that WE'RE the ones incapable of understanding English?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Sounds like a perfect time to register all birds.
Because of course, making broad-based laws because of incredibly rare events is always a good idea! /sarc off
It says guns exactly 0 times. What it says is Arms.
Yes, you are correct.
during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
And then you say all this other stuff that is not in the document at all.
You know what else was under "arms"? Cannons. Lots of shippers owned them, too. Make no mistake, any pro-gun-control interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is, no matter how well-meaning, historical revisionism and rationalization.
Not my liberties!
"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
Drones will be redefined as anything but model aircraft.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You don't understand what the militia was at the time of writing was , do you? Based on that alone, you should re-think your argument.
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
And not for any other reason.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The official definition of weight is that it excludes buoyancy- the weight of an object does not change when the tide comes in. So while weight and mass are slightly different concepts, they are defined such that on earth at msl, an object of 1 gram mass is also 1 gram weight. Obviously on the moon the weight would be lower.
We evil drone operators have known about Section 336 for a long time. It's not actually the only thing wrong with the current rules, but its a major one. The FAA asserts that "model aircraft" are included in the category of "aircraft" covered by pre-2012 regulations, and therefore they can regulate according to them and 336 doesn't apply. This is dubious already. But it's even more dubious when you find that
1) All "aircraft" must be registered, by statute and by regulation, already.
2) All "aircraft" require a airman's certificate to operate or to repair, again by statute and regulation.
3) All "aircraft" except helicopters, by regulation, are required to stay above 500 feet except on takeoff and landing.
Which means that model aircraft have been flown completely illegally for the entire time the FAA has been in existence. This interpretation seems absurd, hence the FAAs claim about "model aircraft" being covered under "aircraft" must be wrong. Either that or it's time to paint a little Jolly Roger on all the models.
That's an interesting definition. Here's the definition in the law, of what the FAA may not regulate:
A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition
And models can't fly. You want to fly? You are not longer a model.
wrong! this is what it says.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Any ideas how FAA's own interpretation of the "special rule" for model aircraft would allow them to continue with drone registration?
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
The only out they seem to grant to themselves is general regulation non specific to model aircraft.
It's a real aircraft with a real utility and purpose. I don't see how the rules would apply in most situations.
which is what I said.
Perhaps the 'ie' part threw you off. I used one case as an example of why you would need a militia, and thus a constitutional reason to have weapons.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
Not a reasonable part, since your right to own a gun isn't affected by said ownership being documented. You're better off talking about privacy when arguing against an owner database.
More literally it says we have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia. ie guns to shoot at an overzealous government/military.
No IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!
The founders used the Second Amendment to say that despite their grudging recognition that a standing army (at least at the militia level) was going to be necessary, nobody should use the fact of the existence of that standing military to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. They just went through that with the British, and they didn't want to see it happen again.
They knew that some people would say, "Why should the local inn keeper or livery owner or farmer need to keep or bear arms if we're going to have a well regulated militia anyway?" It was EXACTLY to head off those people that they put the Second Amendment in place, just like they put the First Amendment in place to prevent the inevitable attempt to use the power of government to influence the dominance of a particular religion, prevent people from assembling into like-minded groups, etc.
Those amendments don't establish ANYTHING. They prevent the government from interfering with things.
Yes, they were concerned about tyranny. But they weren't proposing a "well regulated militia" as a counter to tyrrany. They were concerned that the well-regulated militia might end up being part OF tyranny, and insisted that the existence of such had no bearing on an individual's right to their own arms.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You have the right to bear arms - during an organized revolt, while part of a militia, while fighting against a tyrannical government
It says no such thing. Your reading comprehension and understanding of the constitution is completely childish.
Those are the terms that must be met according to the documents.
No, they're not. The point is that THERE ARE NO TERMS. The government shall not infringe - as in, not place conditions on, not interfere with, not limit - on that basic right. The Second Amendment is saying that despite the inevitable need for a standing military (even at the militia level), the existence of such is not an excuse for the government to prevent individual citizens from keeping and bearing their own arms.
I guess I am the only sane person capable of correctly parsing the english language?
No, you're just making stuff up. You are parsing it exactly 100% backwards.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Or to put it in a more entertaining way, it's only legal when you're attempting to overthrow the very document that makes it legal.
You don't understand what the militia was at the time of writing was , do you? Based on that alone, you should re-think your argument.
It doesn't MATTER what a militia was at the time. Because the amendment isn't ABOUT the militia, other than indirectly. What the amendment does is recognize that there's likely always going to BE something like a militia (a standing army of some scale), but that fact doesn't give the government the authority to deny individuals their own keeping and bearing of arms. It's that simple. Essentially, "Just because we'll have an army doesn't mean that the government has a monopoly on the ownership of arms." Period.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No matter. The gun grabbers have shifted gears.
They lost the Constitutional argument and now they are trying to work the Terrorist angle. Gun owners = terrorists, etc.
Just witness that effort to restrict rights based on the No Flty List
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'll go with the people with the law degrees and huge research staffs....the Supreme Court.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
wrong! this is what it says.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Say that with a Yoda voice and it sort of makes sense
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It means "come and take it". Good luck gripping those star systems tighter, dumbasses.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
When guns are "accidentally" left on the Whitehouse lawn, or find their way into airplane engines (i.e. are the cause of numerous "near miss" reports), we can discuss it.
So this guy I knew, rolled up to Canadian Customs on the way to a Civil War Re-enactment in New York, the Customs agent asked him if he was bringing any firearms into Canada. He Answered,"well I have a canon, with canon balls, black powder and fuse on the trailer I'm towing (which was in plain sight), the Agent ask "but no pistols, shotguns or rifles?" "No just the canon", "Okay Sir, Welcome to Canada"
Most violent crime committed with a weapon in the US is committed with a baseball bat.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
How's about some full text for reference? FAA can still legally regulate quadcopters in certain situations, i.e. you are within 5 miles of an airport (I am) and don't notify the controller (who would?)
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...
Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower with prior notice of the operation.
Not a reasonable part, since your right to own a gun isn't affected by said ownership being documented.
The Second Amendment doesn't just say you must be allowed to "keep and bear" arms, but that that specific inalienable right "shall not be infringed." Not "shall not be prohibited", but "shall not be infringed." As in "shall not be encroached upon". Yes, keeping a national database of gun owners is infringing upon that right because it has an affect upon those who wish to exercise it. It would be a special hoop that you must jump through before being able to use a right that the government didn't grant you but has documented as something that existed and exists outside the scope of the government.
Imagine if you were required to register your encryption keys with the government before you were allowed to use encryption as a way of exercising your fourth amendment rights. Or you had to register your printer before you could use the first. How about a government requirement that you provide a documented real name on every published exercise of your right to free speech? My goodness, that's not a prohibition on the speech, it's a simple registration requirement! How could that be a problem? (Hint: it's only a problem if you are saying something that might be unpopular. Oh, wait, that is the reason the first amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.)
Given that the workforce is shrinking because birth rates didn't match the retiring population numbers, any profession which keeps its numbers is increasing in percentage of the workforce.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
F* the FAA! Their rules are overridden by FEDERAL LAW! I LOVE IT!
F* YOU FAA!!!!!! I'm flying MY drones without your F*ing rules!
But since you missed on that mark:
1. in Judalang v. Holder The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Obama made an “arbitrary and capricious” attempt to rewrite the rules governing who is eligible for relief from deportation, in violation of the law.
2. in Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki The US Supreme Court ruled that Obama illegally ignored the appeals of vets seeking VA care they were owed
3. in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning The US Supreme Court ruled that Obama illegally declared the Senate in recess and then made illegal appointments to the NLRB.
4. in U.S. v. Jones The US Supreme Court told Obama to stop illegally tracking people without warrants by hiding GPS beacons on their cars.
5. Of course, Obama's transfer of Gitmo prisoners for deserter Bergdahl was illegal by admission of the Obama administration itself - the law clearly states that the President must give congress written notice in advance before such releases, which he deliberately did not do.
I could go on and on, this guy is the most illegal dirtbag to hold the office since Nixon. You Obamabots make this too easy.
You shouldn't have to. The law should be accessible to every man who is expected to abide it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Since their aircraft are technically "unmanned"...
if we only extend the concept of man to refer to being flown by someone or something that is considered intelligent, then we only end up having to further refine the issue when we make a computer that is at least as smart as a person.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So I just need to put a gun on my quadcopter?
Yet according to the Constitution, it's PERFECTLY OK for individual states to ban weapons. That's the part about the "well organized militia". Moreover, states are entirely within their rights to impose a death penalty for even transporting a gun across their territory. And any reinterpretation of the Second Amendment that makes it an absolute right is nothing but a historical revisionism.
You're just going to have to repeat it a week from now. It will probably be the same exact poster. They've had it explained, they know better, and they repeat it. If they repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth - they hope. I guess I don't blame them too much. Humans do irrational things when they're scared. It's why we shouldn't let cowards write and enact legislation.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Or uphold/restore said document to force, buy removing the entities trying to ignore/destroy it. An insurrection will not necessarily seek to remove the Constitution. Most likely it would result in the restoration of the Constitution to power, and a few modifications like altering the 14th and 17th amendments to restore power to the states.
Wait, if I put a gun on a drone, do I still have to register it, or can I claim my second amendment rights?
Just another day in Paradise
Or to put it in a more entertaining way, it's only legal when you're attempting to overthrow the people who subverted the very document that makes it legal.
Fixed that for you.
Just another day in Paradise
Gonna call bullshit on both paragraphs. Any evidence to the contrary?
Consider the following:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/021515_sUAS_Summary.pdf
This most useful part may be the following:
Proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the
criteria specified in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95.
The problem is that the ease of uav flying is making it like the wild west.
Congress understands this, but also understands that the AMA knows how to do it.
Making a complex reg Easter egg hunt (see above) is not the answer.
The FCC proved this with CB registration in the 70's.
What the FAA needs to do is to get the public to focus on the AMA regs.
The emphasis on the above doc is pretty much the reverse of this.
The registration process could ask the applicant which community based org he intends to exercise is rule 336 rights under.
The reg process could permit the use of the AMA registration data base as an alternative.
False. The 2nd applies to the states as well.
Weapon Use and Violent Crime
Firearms w/serious injury 13%, w/minor injury 4%;
Blunt Object w/serious injury 20%, w/minor injury 14%;
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Just mount a gun on your 'copter and the NRA will have your back...
Yet according to the Constitution, it's PERFECTLY OK for individual states to ban weapons.
Uhhh, no. Those rights enumerated in the Constitution are limits on the government at all levels.
That's the part about the "well organized militia".
Uhhh, no, again. The part about the "well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the states, and it is not a proscriptive statement of any kind. It does not define the only reason the right exists, nor can it do so. Otherwise, the right would not be inalienable.
Moreover, states are entirely within their rights to impose a death penalty for even transporting a gun across their territory.
Now I know you are clueless.
You have missed the words "well regulated militia". This part is also in the Constitution, you know. And it's not just a couple of random words.
The modern interpretation would restrict guns only to the US Army. But if you _insist_ on interpreting Constitution in its contemporary context, then you should know that the authors of the Second Amendment all agreed that individual states should have the right to regulate the militia.
Moreover, the Second Amendment protects the use of guns only for armed resistance against external or internal threats. The use of weapons for personal defense or hunting is NOT in any way protected. Indeed, a Supreme Court decision upholds bans of weapons that are not useful in military combat ( https://www.oyez.org/cases/190... ).