FAA Eases Drone Restrictions Around Washington, DC (roboticstrends.com)

An anonymous reader writes with a link to Robotics Trends, which reports that: After doubling the radius of the "no-drone zone" from 15 miles to 30 miles outside of Washington, D.C. in 2015, the FAA announced drones can now fly in the "outer ring" of the Special Flight Rules Area. This means drones can operate between a 15- to 30-mile radius outside of the nation's capitol. Drones that fly between the 15- to 30-mile radius still have to operate under specific conditions: drones must weigh less than 55 pounds, be registered and marked, fly under 400 feet, stay in the operator's line of sight, only fly in clear conditions, and avoid other aircraft.

Comments

FAA doing it right

[hypergreatthing]

I always liked making up the rules as you go along. Always the most appropriate thing to do.

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

Other than that, they have no reason to exist and should be shot down, no mater where they are.

So you're thinking that these machines, which people have been flying for decades - an activity enjoyed by millions of people over multiple generations, should all be shot down? Really?

If I find your car annoying or your mobile phone to be an intrusive image-capturing device, can I shoot at them? No? Why not?

Re:FAA doing it right

[publiclurker]

The same may be said of many anonymous cowards.

Re:FAA doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, just flying by the wing!

The FAA has been one of the most accountable agencies and because of that we have one of the most safe air transport systems in the world. they were one of the first to embrace repercussion free full disclosure of incidents.

Bitch at big bureaucracy as much as you want, but this one works, no i am not a FAA shill nor have i ever worked for the FAA but most of the FAA workers that I have worked with have a passion and drive for safe and efficient air travel.

Re:FAA doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

that explains the TSA, Safe and efficient all the way! you definitely feel safe going to TSA checkpoint because they only have a 90% detection failure rate, thank goodness they are protecting you from small amounts of liquids and tin foil for solar powered bombs.

Or the new air marshals policy that sees the marshal board first wearing a suit, the marshals call it the kill me first policy.

Re:FAA doing it right

[davester666]

But now everybody is a terrorist. Before 9/11 we were all just regular Americans.

Re:FAA doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA has no authority over the TSA. Generally the FAA has a pretty good idea of what it's doing.

Re:FAA doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Like how they allowed airlines 18-24 months to add doublers to the hatches, that caused the United Airlines flight 811, directly leading to that tragedy? Because they were in the pockets of the airlines...

Re: FAA doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the FAA is forbidden by law from regulating model aircraft, if memory serves. Try arguing a drone isn't a "model aircraft".

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

That's how everyone has always done it. The progressive Founding Fathers of the USA were making it up as they went along as well. Taking bits of what worked, making sure to leave out what didn't and seeing what happens, we can always amend it later if it doesn't work. The first US constitution failed miserably. How are those Articles of Confederation working out?

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

After OKC bombings (and a lesser extent car bombings in the middle east), government agencies created no-drive zones around federal buildings. There were some complaints, but little resistance.

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy. We shouldn't try to identify security flaws and patch them until after someone has exploited them with public results. Only then should the government be allowed to patch a security flaw.

Re: FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

The octo copters are a model of what aircraft? One could argue that http://www.rc-airplanes-simpli... is a model aircraft. As it's literally a model of an aircraft, and RC. But an octo-copter is not a model of any actual aircraft, therefore it isn't a "model aircraft".

If you RC plane is a historically accurate P1 Mustang, feel free to fly it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... and see what happens. Your court case will be enlightening, if your assertion that it's illegal for the FCC to regulate "model aircraft" is correct.

I think the general thought (here and at the FCC) is that an octocopter is not a model of an existing actual aircraft, nor designed to be.

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.

No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're pretty sure that someone looking to do harm will step up and register their name with the feds, and then write their identifying information on the RC airplane they're going to use to deliberately hurt people? Are you really thinking this through?

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

That 9 oz pink copter won't fly outside anyway. Once you get to the tree-tops, the wind will blow faster than the copter can go, and it'll blow out of the park, to be lost forever. Also, the law won't be enforced against her.

You are presuming 100% enforcement. Not even homicides get that level of enforcement. Why would you presume this law would?

Such insane claims make you look like the luantic, not the governemnt.

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

There are all sorts of small foam park fliers and silly little quad toys that weigh far too little to be any security threat whatsoever, but which have owners who have now been swept up into this new public-facing database scheme. People flying inconsequential balsa-wood RC models they built 30 years ago will be breaking the law a week from now. The FAA's Huerta says that enforcement will include visits to flying clubs and encouragement for neighbors to contact law enforcement (they've provided local LEOs with cheat sheets explaining how to report unregistered hobbyists and how to get that info to the DoT for enforcement). Huerta said, in one of the related press conferences that they intend to go after "anything that flies."

If you are presuming that - despite what they are coming right out and saying repeatedly - they don't intend to enforce the 250g end of the spectrum of toys, why do you suppose they sat around for weeks in meetings with regulators, manufacturers, pilots associations, etc., and issued a rule that includes those toys, along with language saying how they did so because of the critical, life-threatening safety issues that they represent? If you think that's all nonsense that shouldn't be enforced, then why are you defending the administration for putting a kid with a 9-ounce RC toy in federal legal jeopardy?

100% of homicides SHOULD be dealt with. 100% of kids flying 9-ounce toys should NOT be dealt with. You understand this isn't about a rules governing what happens when someone causes an injury or property damage ... this is about making the act of using that 9-ounce toy illegal (subject to both civil and federal criminal penalities) the moment you hover the toy one inch off of your back yard grass. You think the FAA won't bother themselves with grandpa's unregistered use of a 1-pound model he's been flying in circles at an AMA field for years ... so why aren't you calling for the new executive order that criminalizes his hobby to be undone? Are you really a fan of wasting millions of dollars to set up an entire new registration and enforcement regime to address things that you think don't need to be enforced? Why?

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

You are presuming an enforcement that's not only insane, but impossible. When you come off you LSD trip and want to talk reality, let us know.

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

You are presuming an enforcement that's not only insane, but impossible.

So you are in favor of passing new rules that you consider to be impossible to enforce? Why do you support that? Please be specific.

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

Now you are just lying. Explaining the why to someone who claims not to understand doesn't mean I agree or support it. Stop lying, you lying little liar.

Re:FAA doing it right

[slimjim8094]

You're right. It would be much better if they came up with the perfect rules to start with and then never ever changed them.

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

So, I'm right, and you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Resorting to ad hominem, just like so many people who are confronting internal hypocrisy do in order to avoid reconciling their contradictory premises.

So, you're calling me all sorts of things for pointing out that the FAA is outside of its legal bounds on this, that the entire effort is pointless, etc. So, you are implying that you feel differently about that, in some way. Which way? Be specific. And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case), with your assertion that what the administration has done is "impossible" to actually enforce. If you think it's impossible to enforce but still think federally registering 9-ounce toy operators is a good idea, reconcile that, in detail. If you think it shouldn't have been put into place, then explain why you're bitching at me for saying the same thing. Try to avoid the lazy ad hominem, though, since it just makes you look juvenile.

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

No. Me pointing out that you lied isn't ad hominem. Me calling you a liar isn't ad hominem. Before you use the big words, you should learn what the mean.

"You are wrong in your opinion about the FAA because you incorrectly declared that I support the FAA decision" would be an ad hominem, and doesn't include any insults.

Someone to stupid to know what an ad hominem is obviously can't understand the nuance of government regulation.

There, for your pleasure, you may now correctly say I used an ad hominem. Do you feel better now?

It doesn't change the fact that you lied about my position to make a strawman, and non sequitured the discussion with your ad hominem of me.

You lied. You were the first in the discussion to use ad hominem.

You kept lying about me after I corrected you. That makes you stupid and unteachable, continuing with your lies about me to push your incorrect opinion as fact.

And reconcile your preference for some situation in keeping with what the FAA has done (which, since you're complaining about my opposition to it, must be the case),

Your lying assumption isn't fact. You complained about the FAA doing it. I merely implied that you are a hypocrite because when the "no park zone" was created around federal buildings, you didn't assert the government didn't have the power to do that. A no fly zone around sensitie government installations is the same thing. So, now that we know you are a lying hypocritical liar and hypocrite, are you going to actually address the question of logic I posed, or keep lying about what I said to invent strawmen to make sure you win an argument on the Internet?

Fine, you win. Your smarter than everyone else, including knowing the law better than law makers, and air regulations better than the FAA. Some idiot on the Internet asserting the FAA can't do it, vs the FAA actually doing it, seems to indicate a dangerous delusions. I bet it was the Cubans who killed JFK, right?

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do). You're calling me names for saying that it is NOT a sensible program, even as you yourself say it's impossible to enforce. And you won't address your own hypocrisy on the matter. Do you really still support an "impossible to enforce" regulatory burden, along with its associated costs and loss of privacy, forcing people flying half-pound RC toys to expose their names and contact information for no useful reason? If you do support it, why aren't you actually addressing the substance of the matter?

As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up). The administration KNOWS it's illegal if done by the FAA, which is why they went for what they hope will be a hard-to-contest loophole, and decided to make the Department of Transportation force toy owners to pay to register their use of 9-ounce toys. You know, because 13 year olds flying 9 ounce foam toys in their back yard are definitely right up there with interstate trucking and commercial passenger jets when it comes to matters that should be in front of the DoT.

Re:FAA doing it right

[AK Marc]

We're not talking about what the government CAN do, we're talking about whether or not their absurd toy owner registration system is a valid program (what government SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do).

So if they shouldn't do it, it's invalid, even if they have the power (and some argue, mandate) to do it?

Then again, it comes down to you using words with unique definitions to win an argument, rather than discuss a point.

As for the new rule being illegal: yes, it's being challenged in court on exactly the grounds that it's not (because it directly violates section 336 in the 2012 FMRA, which you'd know if you bothered to keep up).

So now you are talking about what the government CAN do, not what they SHOULD do. Again, you are a lying hypocrite.

Re:FAA doing it right

[ScentCone]

Really? You don't have room in your head for two concepts?

The FAA can't do it (because of section 336, which is why the administration has tried to weasel it in through the DoT instead) AND the FAA shouldn't do it (because it's not only utterly pointless, it also wastes money and provides a glaring breach of privacy for hobbyists that will become fishing targets for every neighborhood crank and axe-grinding reporter looking for "drone" operators in their ZIP code, much like those that have published interactive maps of where the gun owners are on a given street).

CAN'T is a legal thing, plainly stated in the 2012 FMRA. SHOULDN'T is a common sense thing that is of course being ignored by those who simply like to expand intrusive government into your personal life for the purpose of ... expanding government into your life, period. The only political support for this comes from those pandering to low-information idiots stoked by deliberately misleading media entities and witless social media mavens looking for clicks.

And ... using words with unique definitions? What will I stoop to next? That is really intolerable, isn't it? I presume you'd rather try to praise this DoT action and wish away plain exempting language in an existing law by using ... what, deliberately vague words that have enough different meanings to let off the hook of having to mean what you say and say what you mean? Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.

Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[Harlequin80]

See the title. But there seems to be a lot of news about drones and lots of actions by the government. Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

I mean lots of people own drones here in Aus but I rarely actually see many flying around.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[OverlordQ]

A lot? No.

The ones that are, caught doing stupid shit? Yes.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[Coren22]

I live in this zone, I was concerned enough about this $20k fine that my son's drone has been grounded since it was announced. I don't know frankly what they were thinking, it isn't like many drones would be able to fly the original 15 miles to the white house/pentagon/cia headquarters, let alone an additional 15 miles. I never particularly understood this reg, but it is not worth risking the fine.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[ScentCone]

Are there really that many drones kicking around that they are this much of an issue?

The rule (and its change) wasn't about "drones" - it was about any and all RC-controlled flying things. Balsa-wood models that grandpa has been flying around in circles in his back field for 40 years, for example. Hundreds of thousands of people have been flying RC aircraft for many decades. And no, it's never been an issue and still isn't. The FAA's random rule-generating system has nothing to do with reality.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[pixelpusher220]

There aren't many terrorists in the US....but we still spend BILLIONS in fear of them. The driver on his phone driving next to you is FAR more of a threat to more people than drones or terrorists are - and kills more people every year.

The conflicting info is that my drones do not have to be registered being the toys that they are...yet to fly them in my own damned back yard (inside this 'outer circle') I need to register them AND notify the FAA an hour ahead of time and of course notify Dulles airport?

I can imagine the hilarity if every hobbyist starting calling the airports multiple times a day.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[mark-t]

The driver on his phone driving next to you is FAR more of a threat to more people than drones or terrorists are

Given that you are phrasing this in the present tense, and apparently a non-hypothetical sense, I imagine that the person who is reading your post at the same time while they also trying to drive is *FAR* more of a thread to more people than even a driver beside them who might be using the cell phone.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[Harlequin80]

That seems extreme. Here you aren't allowed to exceed 500ft without permission in anywhere that counts as controlled airspace. Which essentially is everywhere anyone lives or fly over heavily populated public spots. So you can fly in a park for example but not if it's full of people.

CASA is looking into the regulations around drones, but have actually been loosening them, in particular for low altitude commercial stuff like taking a video for a realestate site. That said I expect they will require licensing for exceeding 500ft and have talked about requiring transponders on drones that exceed that height.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[ColdWetDog]

Apparently there are more drone registrations than 'normal' aircraft. (Actually this represents more drone operators since the new FAA UAV registration registers the human, not the aircraft - unlike the traditional registry.)

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[pixelpusher220]

part of my point is these regulations don't mention *any* height restriction (if I'm wrong on this, good...and bad on the reporter). Any height in my own backyard has to be reported an hour prior.

That is absolutely absurd.

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[pixelpusher220]

You're assuming I meant the driver and not the passenger ;-)

Re:Are there that many drone in the air in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't many passenger aircraft accidents in the US....but we still spend BILLIONS in fear of them.
There aren't many nuclear meltdowns in the US....but we still spend BILLIONS in fear of them.
There aren't many epidemics in the US....but we still spend BILLIONS in fear of them.
There aren't many bridge collapses in the US....but we still spend BILLIONS in fear of them.

See a pattern here?

Damn you FAA

[flopsquad]

...and avoid other aircraft.

Will the oppressive over-regulation never stop!?

Re:Damn you FAA

[dcw3]

...and avoid other aircraft.

Will the oppressive over-regulation never stop!?

So, does this prohibit a "Battle Bots" style drone contest?

Sounds more like a challenge to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you figure out a weapon that can fly on something with the power/weight ratio of a commercially available 55lb. drone, reach 400 feet, and fly 15 miles?

Unpopular opinion

[Sowelu]

Those restrictions sound 100% reasonable for all outdoor flight, period, without specific commercial licenses. The golden days of drones, where most users were hobbyists who cared about safety and were few in number, are over. As much as I'd like to keep flying a craft with totally automatic gps guidance outside of my line of sight--it's irresponsible these days. It only takes one collision between a couple of heavy craft over a crowd of people to cause a crackdown much worse than this.

Re:Unpopular opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. So the solution is to punish those who are not putting anyone in danger by curbing their activities?

Why not just use the already existent laws to punish those who are acting in an unsafe manor?

Re:Unpopular opinion

[pixelpusher220]

where most users were hobbyists who cared about safety

So you're banning cars then? FAR more people are using actual cars to commit acts of terrorism (tm) than flying drones...

Re:Unpopular opinion

[Sowelu]

Who said anything about banning? This doesn't ban drones. This regulates where and how you can fly them and mandates registration...just like we have traffic laws and mandate car registration. I doubt the first cars had license plates either; now they do.

It's not like they're mandating drone pilot licenses, either.

Re:Unpopular opinion

[pixelpusher220]

Actually it was contemplated that, yes, you'd need a pilots license to fly your drone. linky

didn't come to pass but it WAS on the table.

Re:Unpopular opinion

[JoeMerchant]

Those restrictions sound 100% reasonable for all outdoor flight, period

Until you start talking about tiny stuff like this...

http://www.onagofly.com/

Re:Unpopular opinion

[AK Marc]

Yes. The federal government has already banned cars around federal buildings (after OKC). This is the same thing. They are banning the drones in one specific area around federal buildings.

Re: Unpopular opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, cited for "acting in an unsafe manor."

Re:Unpopular opinion

[pixelpusher220]

Around buildings is fine. I'm 35 MILES from DC.

Re:Unpopular opinion

[AK Marc]

So because you are near DC, logic doesn't apply? I didn't realize the no-logic zone extended that far from Congress.

Re: Unpopular opinion

[pixelpusher220]

Apparently it extends to just past your chair :)I have a drone that can't lift more than a few ounces and can't fly longer than 7 minutes. There is no logic at all in banning that 15 miles away from DC or requiring notification of airports for a 'flight' that doesn't go above tree tops.

Re: Unpopular opinion

[AK Marc]

There is no one rule that will be considered reasonable by *all* people. So they picked one arbitrary rule that at least one person thought reasonable. That's how reality works. That you are unaware of that indicates that the reality distortion field is on your end.

Drone Loophole

[BrookHarty]

So if you used a tethered control cable its not a drone by definition, its not unmanned. Loophole!

Re:Drone Loophole

[bobbutts]

Good try, but no loophole to be found there
https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/

Q20. What about tethered drones?
A. Both tethered and untethered UAS must be registered.

Re:Drone Loophole

[mark-t]

So would that include children holding a model plane over their head and pretending it is flying under its own power? Technically, it's "tethered"... via the child's arm.

These restrictions are so outlandishly vague that they are absurd. At the very least, a minimum flying height should be mentioned, but it is nowhere to be found.

I have seen a childrens toy that has a tethered helicopter which cannot roam anywhere further than a couple of feet from the base of the tether Should those also be covered by the law?

Re:Drone Loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

The method is to write regulations with as broad a net as possible and they stand until revoked via lawsuit.

So, by your example yes, A child running with a plane above their head must be registered first. Ghu help you if the child lets go or even throws it!

Of course that would never be prosecuted unless you piss of the wrong person.

Re:Drone Loophole

[mark-t]

I'm suggesting that it would have made much more sense if they had made more explicit regulations that would leave toys and casual hobbyists that are not and have not ever posed any threats to anyone alone. For example, if they had said registration is only required for anything that flies more than a certain distance above the ground, or can be reasonably navigated while out of eyeshot of the operator, or possesses any autonomous flying capabilities beyond perhaps the ability to simply not immediately crash if connectivity to the controller does happen to get lost, or if the operator is not stationary, but is inside a moving vehicle themselves while controlling the UAV.

Such limitations would drastically reduce the opportunity for using UAV's in the socially irresponsible manner that has even prompted this kind of legislation, while also increasing the chance that given the proximity between it and the person controlling it who was complying with these requirements, the operator would thus be more easily identifiable.

Re:Drone Loophole

[Aristos Mazer]

I can't believe you'd let a child handle dangerous munitions so casually! The child might be mistaken for a target and taken out by government hunter drones! Your child could trigger DefCon Ultimate! Won't someone think of the children?!

Re:Drone Loophole

[toddestan]

Supposedly the aircraft must be powered by some kind of engine or motor. So paper airplanes, kites, model airplanes, helium-filled balloons, nerf guns, and rubber-band planes are not subject to this. Still, the rules seem ridiculous when applied to things like the toy quadcopters you can buy that pose no threat to actual aircraft or the Whitehouse.

because no one can be allowed to impinge on our

[Anonymous Coward]

masters right to privacy or heaven forbid security, Heaven forbid you piss one your 'clients' off enough they become mentally unhinged and kill you . Even if it is your fault mental health care is underfunded or none existant.

Not exactly true..

[fred911]

"drones must weigh less than 55 pounds, be registered and marked, fly under 400 feet, stay in the operator's line of sight,"

First off, remote controlled aircraft less than 55 lbs don't have to be registered or marked until Feb 20 (for the grandfathered owners) and flying under 400 feet is a suggestion.

Dear Timothy

[koan]

You stupid, useless fuck, they aren't "drones", that's a negative connotation and RC modellers have been out flying planes and helis since the 1930's.
Long before the real "drones" took to the air to kill children and vaporize wedding parties.

I am so tired of you fucking sheep that believe what you're told, that live in some fucking mirror World that has 0 connection to the real World.
People like you swallow hook, line and sinker every turd the gov drops down your throat.

Go fuck yourself, and in the process please sterilize yourself, the World doesn't need yet another millennial waste of space.

Re:Dear Timothy

[ColdWetDog]

Have a nice day.

Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US

[WarJolt]

The rules are clear, but you have to practically be a pilot to know them. That's because the regulations require you to know what class G airspace is. It's also why commercially you need a pilots certificates to qualify for an exemption. Private pilots are required to know and follow all those same rules without any oversight because they are "hobbiests". That will probably change.

Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Being fundamentally stupid, you fail to recognize the difference between people who are organized and deliberately trying to destroy our culture, and selfish fucks who occasionally ally unintentionally kill someone.

They're just hedging their bets

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea is if Trump gets elected, it'll be somewhat easier for someone to take him out by drone. This is the probably the first time the gov has been so forward looking.

What is wrong

[terminal.dk]

What is wrong with those rules ? They are still more relaxed than what we have everywhere outside city areas here in Denmark.
Max 7 kg = 15.4 pounds vs US 55 lbs
Max 100 meters = 328 ft vs US 400 ft.
We have LoS only - But can use spotter that can take over.
We must move away from other aircraft (which normally have to stay above 150 meters / 500 ft)
We don't have the clear conditions requirement, but still Line of sight

Re:What is wrong

[dcw3]

What is wrong with those rules ?

Only that it means that ~9.5 million people are unable to fly a drone in their own back yards. Pure bullshit.

Re:What is wrong

[toddestan]

It's more than that. The rules are no UAS anywhere within 5 miles of an airport. The rules aren't clear as to what qualifies as an "airport", but assuming that any general aviation airport qualifies, that means a lot of people fall under that rule. I live within 2 miles of an airport, so it's technically illegal to fly a quadcopter in my yard*. Luckily the FAA doesn't care about what you do indoors, so I can fly around my living room all I want.

*You can supposedly fly if you get permission from the tower. I'm almost tempted to call them to see what they say about my ~150g quadcopter. The general aviation airport I live close is one of the larger ones that does have a tower, but I don't know what you're supposed to do about the smaller uncontrolled ones, or if those even fall under the rule. As I say, it's not very clear.

Re:What is wrong

[dcw3]

I get ya, but I was responding specifically to the metro DC area and it's ~9.5 million population, of which I'm one. I'm also near the glidepath to Dulles airport, but more than 5 miles, so the change from 30 down to 15 miles helps me since I'm ~20 mi. from DC

Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.

Re: Are there that many drone in the air in the US

[ScentCone]

The FAA is banned from regulating model aircraft if I recall.

Which is why the Obama administration just instituted their new RC aircraft owner registration system (you have to sign up by the 19th of this month, or face up to $20,000 in fines ... and that includes operating any toy RC machine as small as just under 9 ounces/250g) through the Department Of Transportation instead of through the FAA. It's a sleazy maneuver that directly goes against the spirit of the law congress passed to prevent exactly such things from happening.

Hopefully you're not surprised that an administration that has been found repeatedly by federal courts to have overstepped separation of powers by issuing unconstitutional executive orders would be trying to once again work around the law?

Doesn't matter. Most people who fly RC planes for fun can't afford to fight the administration in court or risk that $20,000 fine. There are a couple of groups trying to take the matter to court, but that will drag out years. In the meantime, we have to play along with the illegal action by the administration.

between the lines

[Anonymous Coward]

... Obama doesn't care what happens to Donald when he takes the oath in Jan