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.
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.
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...
Really? You're going to get in the way of emergency responders, then complain that something is being put in place to dissuade that?
Woah there hold up, *I* never got in the way of any emergency responders. But *I* am now expected to register and pay of fee, so yea I am going to complain. Also the registration process does not collect any serial numbers or any other details so there is still no way to actually tie a drone to a responsible owner. Which means that people who do register are really just being added to another special government list.
As the TFA states this action by the FAA is probably not even legal, like so much of the other stuff this Administration does. So if they in fact breaking the law themselves that is another VERY VALID reason to complain.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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.
Maybe if all of these idiotic drone owners didn't ruin it for everyone, we wouldn't need these at all.
This is it in a nutshell.
Quadcopters are a disruptive technology in the sense that the old paradigm, of expensive, difficult-to-fly, easy-to-destroy RC aircraft has shifted to cheap, somewhat-easy-to-fly "drone" RC aircraft. Additionally, the scale-model-of-real mentality has been replaced with a whatever-works mentality. This shift is helped by the reduction in weight of batteries and the reduction in size of high quality video camera and storage technology.
When one couldn't take high quality video for extended periods of time, when one had a lot of money tied up in an RC aircraft, and when that aircraft was difficult to fly, people who engaged in the hobby generally had a bit of etiquette, even if pragmatically due to flying over someone else's property was a good way to lose the expensive toy. It appears that quadcopter enthusiasts are less inhibited by this.
As to the language of the law as described in the article summary, the word "model" was used. The implication in the past has meant "scale model", ie, a reduced-size version approximating a real machine. Since quadcopters don't have full-scale human-pilotable equivalents, these are not "model aircraft" by the strictest definition of the terminology. They are a new thing, and even if the new laws do not apply to scale-model fixed-wing or scale-model helicopters, the argument can be made they apply perfectly well to quadcopters and other small RC aircraft.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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 when I write somebody else's number on my drone and then go crash it into the White House, who gets in trouble?
Guns are an ENUMERATED RIGHT. What part of 'shall not infringe' is unclear to you?
Good-bye
"all because drone owners wanted to get video of the destruction."
In the past we called this sort of thing LIBERTY, and handled it like adults, not name calling like petty children. You make curiosity out to be a vice. Yes people do stupid stuff, that doesnt mean you should go around shitting on everyone's Liberty because its an activity you dont like.
Good-bye
More like the AMA rules I was thinking... Make membership $4:
Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code
Effective January 1, 2014
A. GENERAL: A model aircraft is a non-human-carrying aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere. It may not exceed limitations of this code and is
intended exclusively for sport, recreation, education and/or competition. All model flights must be conducted in accordance with this safety code and any
additional rules specific to the flying site.
1. Model aircraft will not be flown:
(a) In a careless or reckless manner.
(b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited.
2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.
(e) Not exceed a takeoff weight, including fuel, of 55 pounds unless in compliance with the AMA Large Model Airplane program. (AMA Document 520-A.)
(f) Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This
does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)
(g) Not operate aircraft with metal-blade propellers or with gaseous boosts except for helicopters operated under the provisions of AMA Document #555.
(h) Not operate model aircraft while under the influence of alcohol or while using any drug that could adversely affect the pilot’s ability to safely control the
model.
(i) Not operate model aircraft carrying pyrotechnic devices that explode or burn, or any device which propels a projectile or drops any object that creates a
hazard to persons or property.
Exceptions:
Free Flight fuses or devices that burn producing smoke and are securely attached to the model aircraft during flight.
Rocket motors (using solid propellant) up to a G-series size may be used provided they remain attached to the model during flight. Model rockets may
be flown in accordance with the National Model Rocketry Safety Code but may not be launched from model aircraft.
Officially designated AMA Air Show Teams (AST) are authorized to use devices and practices as defined within the Team AMA Program Document.
(AMA Document #718.)
(j) Not operate a turbine-powered aircraft, unless in compliance with the AMA turbine regulations. (AMA Document #510-A.)
3. Model aircraft will not be flown in AMA sanctioned events, air shows or model demonstrations unless:
(a) The aircraft, control system and pilot skills have successfully demonstrated all maneuvers intended or anticipated prior to the specific event.
(b) An inexperienced pilot is assisted by an experienced pilot.
4. When and where required by rule, helmets must be properly worn and fastened. They must be OSHA, DOT, ANSI, SNELL or NOCSAE approved or comply
with comparable standards.
B. RADIO CONTROL (RC)
1. All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.
2. A successful radio equipment ground-range check in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations will be completed before the first flight of a new or
repaired model aircraft.
3. At all flying sites a safety line(s) must be established in front of which all flying takes place. (AMA Document #706.)
(a) Only personnel associated with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the safety line.
(b) At air shows or demonstrations, a straight safety line must be established.
(c) An area away from the safety line must be maintained for spectators.
(d) Intentional flying b
Driving a car on private property does not require registration......What other gems of crappy logic do you have?
Good-bye
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?"
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.
"Shall not be infringed" is a big part of no national gun database...
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.
But they are by the actual definition of the terminology. Because the meaning of the terminology was specifically defined for the purposes of this exclusion:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED. -- In this section, the term "model
aircraft" means an unmanned aircraft that is --
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
This is even mentioned in the article. This "disruptive technology" could be a helium-filled model of the battleship Yamamoto decked out to look like the original Star Blazers wave-motion-gun bearing "spaceship" and it would still be a "model aircraft" for the purposes of the exclusion.
No idea what you're trying to say here. Whether the rules apply to these devices is irrelevant if the FAA lacks authority to make the rule in the first place.
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.
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.
Memory error: confusing the admiral's name with a similar ship name. It was Yamato. Now I will have to hide from military enthusiasts and anime fans alike until the apocalypse obliterates the internet.
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
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.)