Students Can Now Fly Drones At School, FAA Says (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader writes: It will now be easier for students to pilot drones as part of their schoolwork, thanks to new Federal Aviation Administration rules that exempt high schools and colleges from the more stringent aircraft regulations placed on businesses. In a memo released Wednesday outlining the new guidelines, federal regulators have designated drone schoolwork as a hobby or recreational -- as opposed to commercial -- activity, allowing students for the first time to fly unmanned aircraft without a pilot's license or special authorization from the government. "Schools and universities are incubators for tomorrow's great ideas, and we think this is going to be a significant shot in the arm for innovation," said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta during a drone conference in New Orleans. But the agency's policy prohibits teachers from being the primary operators of unmanned aircraft, because they are paid for their work and therefore "would not be engaging in a hobby or recreational activity" while flying a drone. (They can, however, pilot drones in a limited way -- in case of emergency, for instance.)

Comments

Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need to fly drones at school? Why does anyone need to be flying a drone at school?

I suspect I'll get downmodded to -1 so people can avoid the question and pretend like it's not here. Can anyone actually answer the question rather than evading it through moderation? I don't think Slashdot is capable of giving a good answer.

Re:Simple question

[gurps_npc]

I can think of about 10 different reasons off the top of my head:

1) You are studying aerodynamics and shaped the rotor/drone.

2) You are studying robotics and built the drone.

3) You are studying programming.

4) You are part of a drone flying league - think robot soccer.

5) You are an artist and it's part of a performance piece.

6) You are a business major and have developed an idea for a business that uses drones for security/delivery/annoyance.

7) You are studying human psychology and need a way to observe people without being seen, over a large area.

8) You are studying advertising and having the drone pull an advertisement.

9) You are studying military science/playing a military game and are using the drones to simulate air battles. (Far better than the N.Koreans using plastic toys).

10) You are using dangerous chemicals in doors and do not want to be close to them when you they react.

Re:Simple question

[SecurityGuy]

Learning about aeronautics?

Learning about technology?

Inspiring interest in either of the above, or any related field?

Learning in general?

I learned how to shoot a bow and arrow in middle school. I learned how to paint and draw (badly). I learned about music I don't especially like written by dead people hundreds of years ago. I wrote reports about books written by dead Russians. None of it was useful to me, though archery was fun, but some people go on to be artists, musicians, writers, etc.

Part of the point of primary education is to show people a lot of doors so they'll see what options exist. This is far from the most useless subjects to be pursued in a school.

Re:Simple question

[PopeRatzo]

I can think of about 10 different reasons off the top of my head:

I'm studying nuclear physics, so I can build a nuke? Nothing big, just maybe 1 megaton.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC. I'm asking because I think the FAA's logic is bullshit.

The goal is for education and innovation. See this quote from TFS:

"Schools and universities are incubators for tomorrow's great ideas, and we think this is going to be a significant shot in the arm for innovation."

It seems like if the students are flying drones for a class, it's recreational and permitted. If a teacher is flying a drone in a class to teach students about how to operate a drone, the teacher is a paid employee, so it's commercial and banned. If it's university research sponsored by an outside entity, it's commercial and banned.

Can anyone explain the FAA's logic to me? This is needlessly complicated and incredibly stupid.

Re:Simple question

[Locke2005]

How else are you going to capture that awesome video though the 3rd floor window of the woman's dorm?

Re:Simple question

[ganjadude]

for the same reason we needed to drop eggs off our school roof and try to get them not to break using ,minimal materials. because there is a lot to be learned, and its a fun way to do so

Re: Simple question

[SecurityGuy]

Can anyone explain the FAA's logic to me? This is needlessly complicated and incredibly stupid.

Oh, that's a totally different question. No. It is needlessly complicated and incredibly stupid.

Re:Simple question

[gurps_npc]

The question was why, not whether you could do so legally. The legality was answered by the very ruling this article was discussing.

So, if you can get a ruling from the Nuclear regulatory committee saying that students can do it, AND then you get permission from your school, AND then get funding, yes, you could build a nuke.

Re:Simple question

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Why do you need to fly drones at school? Why does anyone need to be flying a drone at school?

You don't. Unless you do.

See, the thing is, not everybody agrees on what school is for, just like not everybody agrees what prison is for, just like not everyone agrees what welfare or the army or the library is for. Everybody's got their own agenda. All of these institutions serve or hinder these agendas in various ways. Two people who support a given institution may support it for different reasons. For example, some people support building prisons to rehabilitate felons, while some support building prisons because they want to punish those same felons. Some support building prisons because they just want the streets to be safer and quieter for a little while. Some people build prisons for a living. And so on.

School is much the same way. Some people want kids to learn a trade, so they can not be unemployed and so we can compete with China. Some believe universal schooling contributes to an increase in society's level of technological advancement. Some people want our youth to learn critical thinking skills, so that they won't be tricked by politicians and other scoundrels. Some people just want their kids to have similar experiences to their own, so that they can have something to talk about at dinner. Again, some people just want the streets to be quieter during the day.

You obviously don't think that piloting a drone is what school is for. Well, you're not exactly wrong. But some people disagree. And they're not exactly wrong either.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you'll get downmodded because you post the same question about the premise of every article. Good job on getting first post this much though. 10/10 for commitment.

Re:Simple question

[pr0fessor]

Just because they can doesn't mean they will. I was disappointed when my youngest son got to junior high because they had stopped doing all the interesting experiments that inspired me when I was kid. They blamed cost and liability.

Re:Simple question

[awkScooby]

I'm studying nuclear physics, so I can build a nuke? Nothing big, just maybe 1 megaton.

Based on a quick perusal of Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 1102, Chapter 40. Importation, Manufacture, Distribution and Storage of Explosive Materials, no you can't. Pretty sure you can't build that nuke without explosives. The nuclear material is also likely highly regulated, but I didn't bother to continue looking as I already found a showstopper for you legally building that nuke.

Re:Simple question

[spacepimp]

Some people have courses in Drones, aeronautics, electrical engineering, coding. Others work on larger g4roup projects such as developing autonomy systems for things like CV, Deep Learning etc.

Better question is: Why do you think that there is no reason in a university to fly a drone that is appropriate?
People had the same insipid questions and comments about computing/computers when it was a new field.

Re:Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

I help coach an after school enrichment program at my kids' elementary school. We have been using drones, with cameras and Raspberry Pis. I had no idea it was illegal up till now. We do it for several of the reasons you listed, but mainly because it is fun, and it keeps the kids engaged.

Re:Simple question

[kheldan]

Given the current record of jackasses and their drones, they'll probably use them to cheat on tests and spy on girls' locker rooms, and generally be obnoxious with them.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

I am studying programming, can I write a program?

Do you see the problem with your reasoning here?
We shouldn't forbid students from using things just because we can. It should be an exception for cases where it is likely (Not just possible.) that they injure or kill other people.

Pretty much the same reasoning should apply to all laws. Allow as much as possible. Forbid those things that causes irreversible damage.

Re:Simple question

[thinkwaitfast]

How about controls research (the same field that brought yo driverless cars) like this?

Re:Simple question

[thinkwaitfast]

I studied nuclear physics and would say no without a lot of extra curricular study. Beyond that, you need the materials, so unless you are in contact with some Libyan terrorists, no.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Model Rocketry Club in Middle School spawned a few engineers from my hometown.

Re: Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

It is needlessly complicated and incredibly stupid.

Indeed. The distinction between "hobby" and "commercial" use is vague and mostly meaningless. If a drone hits you in the head, does it matter if the operator was a hobbyist? The licensing requirements should be based on weight, capabilities (camera, out-of-line-of-sight flying, etc), and flight envelope, not on whether the operator is trying to earn a living and feed his family.

The FAA originally put the "commercial use" restrictions in place to prevent drones from competing with piloted planes for services in photography, surveillance, etc. Although that battle has mostly been lost, the anti-business distinction lives on in the regulations mostly out of bureaucratic inertia.

Re:Simple question

[ColdWetDog]

Model Rocketry Club in Middle School spawned a few engineers from my hometown.

The model rocketry club in my high school spawned a few brush fires....

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

This past year in one of my classes a group strapped an Arduino+Geiger counter to one for a project to try detecting radiation sources around campus—ended up having accuracy issues due to the detector size/drone stability. This was for a nuclear security class.

I've seen film/art students using them to film scenes from different angles, or get crane shots.

Re:Simple question

[fred911]

It was never against regulations. The FAA is simply clarifying that using a drone as a student isn't considered commercial use. Additionally, they state that if that drone is being used by a teacher, it is commercial use and would require additional licensing.

Fairly cut and dry.

Re:Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

Fairly cut and dry.

Doesn't seem cut and dry to me, since I am neither a student nor a teacher. I am a parent, coaching other people's kids as well as my own. So am I a criminal? I don't know.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a club at school called R.C. club. I teach the other kids in the club about the mechanics engineering and physics behind the quads, and most of the members build their own quad and fly it outside on the soccer field. We had done it before with the dean's permission but this law does help. As well as this i fly a quadcopter i built for videography as part of my video production class to get cool overhead shots. If you're still unsure why, things donnot have to be nessecary for school in order for students to be allowed to have them. Phones, mp3 players, and laptops are all examples of this.

Re:Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

are you getting paid, either in cash or in kind? If no, then it's not commercial. Very cut and dried.

Re:Simple question

[ShanghaiBill]

are you getting paid, either in cash or in kind? If no, then it's not commercial. Very cut and dried.

I am not paid to coach, but my employer lets me leave early on the days that I coach. So not so cut and dried.

Re: Simple question

[Anonymous Coward]

Because at our school we use it to teach kids about technology that's advancing more each day, to give them a new perspection of where they are (Iowa is pretty flat), give kids creativity for videos, and short films, and showcase special locations like the football field or a game.

Re:Simple question

[Hognoxious]

I'm surprised someone hasn't challenged that on the basis of the second amendment.

Re:Simple question

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Additionally, they state that if that drone is being used by a teacher, it is commercial use and would require additional licensing.

I'm puzzled. Does the FAA regulate what Americans can or cannot do indoors? If yes, is nobody bothered by the overreach?

Re:Simple question

[Keybounce]

What if I wanted to do something even simpler? Say, 1.5 times the critical mass, using only off-the-shelf parts, and commercially available explosives? I'm a D student in physics, and I've got this design that I think will work, but my teacher doesn't believe me ...

(Side note: If you don't understand the reference, a D student in a physics class *did* design an atom bomb using publicly available material. His design got classified, some publicly available information was classified, and I don't know what happened to his grade.)

Um, what?

[Shoten]

While I absolutely agree that there's value to students being able to use/learn about drones...and I absolutely support this ruling...this raises an interesting question. Is the FAA now saying that drones are dangerous and need to be restricted for broad areas, except in cases where there's a school nearby? Are they saying that the school makes the drones somehow safer, even though they're being controlled by people who haven't had to register them?

The FAA's logic around drones and safety has been getting more and more twisted around, and this is just the latest example of why their restrictions are WAY too tight and need a bit of common sense inserted.

Re:Um, what?

[njhunter]

The Donald needs to fix the FAA on this as soon as he gets in. We need a list.

Re:Um, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA is just saying that students fall into these rules:
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/
Basically, it says do not be dumb, dangerous, or otherwise abusive to those around you.

If the teacher (a paid professional) is the primary pilot, however, then the teacher falls under these rules:
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-business-users/
That teacher will need to get FAA permission and may need a license, depending upon the details of what is being done with the drone. The teacher researching autonomous transcontinental flight will probably have more hoops to jump through compared to the teacher who is trying to take a short-range aerial shot for filmatography school.

Re:Um, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The list is pretty short.

1. Start WWIII

Everything else pretty much sorts itself out.

Re: Um, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

But a teacher operating the drone to show students how to safely operate it is a paid commercial activity and is prohibited.

The FAA is incredibly stupid.

Re: Um, what?

[Deadstick]

Paid != commercial.

Re:Um, what?

[Maltheus]

It's never been about logic or safety, it's about power and control.

Re:Um, what?

[MacTO]

I'd support such a move if it more closely modelled amateur radio: test and license operators. Break the licenses up into different classes. An entry level class would require a knowledge of the relevant laws and safe operating practice. A fully licensed operator may be able to design and build their own aircraft, as well as have additional privileges for the type of aircraft and airspace that they can operate in. Most of all, have the aircraft identified by the operator's license rather than licensing each aircraft to reduce the bureaucratic nonsense that people have to deal with.

The point of such a scheme is to provide a legal avenue through which people can operate drones, while acknowledging that there has to be some form of regulation to ensure safety. Licensing is simply a means of ensuring that people have enough knowledge to operate the drones safely. Identification is a means of tracking down operators who are not respecting the regulations. While operating without a license does not imply unsafe operations, it raises enough red flags that the FAA should be able to slap the operator with a fine and demand that the operator can prove that they are capable of operating a drone safely (by obtaining a license).

Re:Um, what?

[ColdWetDog]

The FAA has managed to bobble the entry of UAVs into the real world. The underlying problem is this: The FAA controls a concept called the National Airspace System (NAS). This has evolved since around the 1930's and has managed a phenomenal degree of success in terms of aviation safety. In terms of efficiency, organization and ability to adjust to new technologies - not so much.

Up until UAVs wandered into the radar, the FAA mostly worked with manufacturers and commercial entities that understood lawyers, meetings, minutia and 1000 page densely typed technical documents. The hoi polli of general aviation was ignored in as much as was possible, they only represented a few thousand people. Now, the likelihood of millions of annoying little things running around in the Sacred Airspace became more and more real as DJI kept pumping out thousands and thousands of Phantoms. A few of which managed not to crash into the ground in the first 15 minutes.

The media got into the act and now everything that used to be a UFO (including plastic bags) is now a drone. Instant terror. Instant headlines. Instant advertising dollars. Add a Congress member who got a complaint that their second cousin saw a drone looking at a 15 year old girl from 1000 feet away last night and you are getting close to the Perfect Storm.

Coupled with the FAA being hobbled by a previous congressional mandate not to mess with hobby aircraft (which, by and large, managed to organize and control themselves much like amateur radio) and some of the traditional aircraft manufacturers seeing another market to get into (and keep others out of)

and you have the mess that we are currently going through.

It will probably get cleaned up to some extent fairly soon.

In the FAA's defense, they are overseeing a paradigm shift from thousands of aircraft of known provenance piloted by persons with demonstrated skills to a playing field consisting of millions of little tiny things (who can, nonetheless, fly several miles around and several thousand feet high) piloted by someone whose technical prowess may be limited to tying their shoes. It's not a pretty sight.

Re: Um, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFS:

But the agency's policy prohibits teachers from being the primary operators of unmanned aircraft, because they are paid for their work and therefore "would not be engaging in a hobby or recreational activity" while flying a drone.

That certainly places significant limits on what teachers can do. Is there any justifiable reason to make such a distinction?

Re: Um, what?

[Lije Baley]

The AMA (model airplane lobby) LOVES the current bogus rules, particularly LOS requirement, because FPV pilots don't fly at clubs, most of which require $$$ AMA membership.

Re:Um, what?

[Nethead]

The classic lament; "Where are my mod points when I need them!"

The FCC is also having fun with software defined radio (SDR) and very cheap but good radios from China. Another major paradigm shift.

Google "baofeng uv-5r" and see what they are being flooded with. At a tenth of the price of "standard" ham radios that one would have to open up and solder something to get to work outside the ham bands. Check the pictures from the Oregon wildlife preserve standoff, lots of those puppies around.

Re:Um, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they saying that the school makes the drones somehow safer, even though they're being controlled by people who haven't had to register them?

It is the same brain dead government logic that says putting safety features like adaptive headlights (available in the rest of the world) on automobiles in the US makes them more dangerous. Remember, US government policy is largely based on who pays the most "campaign contributions".

Re:Um, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the ruling, not all students are allowed to fly drones, only those in classes in "aviation-related education at an accredited educational institution" Seems very restricted to me. Same with their exemptikon for research, it is only for aeronautical research, not agriculture, environmental studies, architecture, or a hundred other disciplines that could use a flying camera platform in research.

Why does it matter if the drone is commercial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the speed, size, range, altitude, and ability of the pilot to operate the drone matter far more than whether it's commercial or recreational? Besides, commercial flights are probably less dangerous than recreational ones.

Re:Why does it matter if the drone is commercial?

[spacepimp]

Commercial flights can also get permissions to fly in places outside of designated areas. Places such as: near an airport, along a rail corridor, at a constructions site, in a class B airspace. etc.
I agree with most of what you are saying though.

They are beginning to take safety into consideration and not just weight. Things like a parachute, or redundant GPS/Compass etc.will make a difference then, where a lighter vehicle was considered safe because it had less weight vs safety systems built into the unit.

Re:Why does it matter if the drone is commercial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should monsanto be regulated. They're clearly a lot bigger and better than home gardeners.

?Yes, the profit motive, well, motivates people. In particular, it motivates them to to stupid, shortsighted and dangerous things.

Drone Pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

But didn't the 9/11 hijackers study at a Florida Flight School?

Re:Drone Pilots

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Hitler breathe air?

Gee, thanks for the permission

[erapert]

Gee whiz, I'm so glad our lords and masters at the federal government have decided to allow us the privilege.
Y'know I'm so glad to live in the land of the free where we need the permission of the federal government to so much as flush our toilets, buy light bulbs, and fly drones that we paid for with our own money.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[Shortguy881]

Bureaucracy at its finest. My favorite part is that teachers are not included, except in an emergency. Whats worse, most of the user comments I read here on Slashdot want to give these f*ing morons more responsibilities.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are two things here that make sense with regulation:
- Flying over other people's property (I don't care wht you do in your own airspace)
- Flying heavy things that might end up falling on others. Drones are, after all, getting bigger and bigger. Not all of them land like feathers anymore.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[ScentCone]

My favorite part is that teachers are not included, except in an emergency.

Except, of course, if the teacher reaches over and picks up the exact same drone, and flies it with exactly the same care in exactly the same way in exactly the same place, but does it five minutes later. Because then he's off the clock, and he's doing it for fun, which the FAA says is just fine.

Thanks, Obama administration.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[sociocapitalist]

Gee whiz, I'm so glad our lords and masters at the federal government have decided to allow us the privilege.

Y'know I'm so glad to live in the land of the free where we need the permission of the federal government to so much as flush our toilets, buy light bulbs, and fly drones that we paid for with our own money.

You could buy a big old airplane too but you'd still need to get it maintained according to regulations and have a license to fly it and I want it that way because I don't want just anyone who can afford to buy something to be able to crash it into my house because they have no clue of what they're doing.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[thegarbz]

You're still in the land of the free.

Land of the free to not be affected by other people's bad decisions, such as wasting water, electricity, or attempting to knock a plane out of the sky with a toy.

Okay these are extremes but the point is the same, this isn't the government overstepping due to their desire to control us. It's just an example of our inability to control ourselves.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[Shortguy881]

But don't let common sense step in. Why set up another whole set of rules and regulations for fining those who have done nothing wrong? Our current legal system handles those who break personal property or hurt people just fine by holding them legally and financially responsible.

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Obama administration.

HA! That's what you get for putting up such pathetic opposition. You neo-liberals are all alike!

Re:Gee, thanks for the permission

[ScentCone]

HA! That's what you get for putting up such pathetic opposition. You neo-liberals are all alike!

Uh ... what? I'm sure that made sense inside your own head, though.

America needs to man up

[Anonymous Coward]

And stop asking it's national government permission to do any damn old thing.

Of course students can fly RC aircraft at school and the national government should have absolutely no say in the matter.

Just keep voting democrat, fools.

Now that's ironic

[mark-t]

So, they classify flying drones while at school or at an event sponsored by a school as a "hobby" or "recreational activity", allowing them to fly drones without any authorization, while actually flying drones as a hobby or for personal recreation itself still *DOES* require such authorization.

Re: Now that's ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Recreational activity does not require a COA in most instances. Your post is factually incorrect.

Re: Now that's ironic

[mark-t]

Ahem

Re: Now that's ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Registering the drone is not the same as obtaining permission for a specific activity. That link has nothing to do with COAs.

Re: Now that's ironic

[mark-t]

Well that's what *I* was talking about.... so what am I supposedly factually incorrect about, exactly?

Re: Now that's ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

A COA grants authorization to operate a UAS in ways not generally permitted by the FAA. If you want to fly a drone for commercial purposes or above the ceiling of 400 feet, you'll need a COA. That's not the same as drone registration.

Re: Now that's ironic

[mark-t]

I never suggested it was. I only suggested that what they are considering "hobbyist" usage when it happens as part of an academic course does not appear to require said registration, while if you are actually just a hobbyist, you *DO* need to have a registration that must be renewed every three years.

Most schools have big sports facilities

[Hentes]

Most schools have big sports facilities. Why can't the students fly the drones indoors?

Re:Most schools have big sports facilities

[spacepimp]

A lack of GPS is a big deal on a drone for many purposes.

Re:Most schools have big sports facilities

[Hentes]

Since the drones can't leave the school territory anyway, you could hardcode the location in software.

Re:Most schools have big sports facilities

[ScentCone]

Since the drones can't leave the school territory anyway, you could hardcode the location in software.

What? We're talking about GPS location features that allow students to work with automation that places the drone in precise positions only a meter or so apart along the route. The whole point is to encourage students to understand technology as it's actually being used. Hard-wiring a piece of navigational technology to think it's in exactly one place doesn't help with that mission.

And, incidentally, there's nothing saying the drone can't leave school property. They might very well be using it to do thermal mapping of a nearby wetland, or to spot changes in foliage, or to experiment with tracking things moving on the ground. Students do all SORTS of things away from the classroom. Hopefully you got to, when you were a student.

Re:Most schools have big sports facilities

[Anonymous Coward]

If the damn thing is GPS dependent, it shouldn't be in the air. Yes, that includes Global Hawk which shouldn't be flying near anybody it can hit.

Since when do you need FUCKING PERMISSION!?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is wrong?

I thought we lived where you're free to do what you damn well please as long as it hasn't been outlawed.

But now we need explicit permission for ANYTHING?

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

Thank you, dear government!

[mi]

thanks to new Federal Aviation Administration rules

Many thanks to the FAA (Peace be upon it) indeed for its kind permission.

Re:Thank you, dear government!

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's a mindset that believes that less government is the highest good no matter what. It's a mindset that says environmental rules designed to keep your water clean or your air clean are optional, or not that important, or unnecessarily burden businesses or taxpayers. It's an ideology that undervalues the common good, says we're all on our own and what's in it for me, and how do I do well, but I'm not going to invest in what we need as a community. And, as a consequence, you end up seeing an underinvestment in the things that we all share that make us safe, that make us whole, that give us the ability to pursue our own individual dreams. So we underinvest in pipes underground. We underinvest in bridges that we drive on, and the roads that connect us, and the schools that move us forward. And this is part of the attitude, this is part of the mindset.

We especially underinvest when the communities that are put at risk are poor, or don't have a lot of political clout and so are not as often heard in the corridors of power. And this kind of thinking—this myth that government is always the enemy; that forgets that our government is us—it's us; that it's an extension of us, ourselves—that attitude is as corrosive to our democracy as the stuff that resulted in lead in your water. Because what happens is it leads to systematic neglect. It leads to carelessness and callousness. It leads to a lot of hidden disasters that you don't always read about and aren't as flashy, but that over time diminish the life of a community and make it harder for our young people to succeed.

So it doesn't matter how hard you work, how responsible you are, or how well you raise your kids—you can't set up a whole water system for a city. That's not something you do by yourself. You do it with other people. You can't hire your own fire department, or your own police force, or your own army. There are things we have to do together—basic things that we all benefit from. And that's how we invested in a rail system and a highway system. That's how we invested in public schools. That's how we invested in science and research. These how we invested in community colleges and land grant colleges like Michigan State.

But volunteers don't build county water systems and keep lead from leaching into our drinking glasses. We can't rely on faith groups to reinforce bridges and repave runways at the airport. We can't ask second-graders, even ones as patriotic as Isiah Britt who raised all that money, to raise enough money to keep our kids healthy. You hear a lot about government overreach, how Obama—he's for big government. Listen, it's not government overreach to say that our government is responsible for making sure you can wash your hands in your own sink, or shower in your own home, or cook for your family. These are the most basic services. There is no more basic element sustaining human life than water. It's not too much to expect for all Americans that their water is going to be safe.

Re:Since when do you need FUCKING PERMISSION!?!?!?

[Deadstick]

Since the Air Commerce Act of 1926 and ninety years of amendments.

Fuck Buzzfeed, The Verge etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit SJW feminist sites.

Stupid ruling is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Teachers get paid, therefore commercial" doesn't fly, FAA. This is why "teaching" is usually a separate category. It doesn't fit with the rest, so it gets its own category. If you can't deal with that... what business do you have running the air-rules?!?

The Real Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did the FAA declare dominion over all "drones" in the first place and then magnanimously carve out exceptions for those who adequately begged for one.

The entire "drone", whatever the fuck that is, issue is a law in search of a problem.

   

Re: The Real Point

[WarJolt]

Uncertificated individuals get to be private pilots and private pilots get to be commercial pilots in the drone world. I don't thing either of these classifications are good. One has far too much training and the other has none.

Everyone should just be required to take a 1 day course explaining the rules.

Most FAA rules shouldn't apply to drones. Federal air regulations are not design for an aircraft that can crash and no one gives a fuck. Everything else should be obvious, but you need to cover those dumb fucks who fly right next to the airport.

Because the air force can't get drone pilots ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no glamour, no career prospects and burnout rate is at least as high as real pilots ?

So they need kids to get some experience at school to be able to recruit them.

Yes, that's cynical, probably correct though.

Re:Since when do you need FUCKING PERMISSION!?!?!?

[BlueStrat]

What the hell is wrong?

I thought we lived where you're free to do what you damn well please as long as it hasn't been outlawed.

But now we need explicit permission for ANYTHING?

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

If we accept that by and large more rules means less freedom, and that governments by and large govern (which means creates & enforces rules which are limits on freedom), then it follows that more government means less individual freedom.

Once the US Federal government began blatantly violating the US Constitution in deeper and more fundamental ways beginning in modern times in the early 1900s, the US Federal government has grown immeasurably in size, power, and scope.

Power and control are a zero-sum game in that in order to increase one individual's or group's power and control, others must surrender (or have forcibly taken away) their power and control in roughly equal measure. When we speak of government versus citizens, governments only grow in domestic power and control by taking it away from the citizens.

To be honest, as much as the US Federal government has grown and comparing it to the paths and timelines of other nations through history, I'm surprised we have as much freedom, or even the illusion of it, left to us as we seem to enjoy currently.

We either put our big-boy pants on as Americans and handle our lives, responsibilities, and duties ourselves for the most part, or lose more and more rights, power, and control of our own lives as the government takes responsibility for more and more of peoples' lives and finally devolves into total corruption and collapse. Then the war(s) come At least, that's been the typical path if history is any guide. The US seems to be at the "devolving into total corruption" stage currently. Not many places left to hit an exit ramp before the big movie-cliff drop, and even those are now more like emergency dirt impact berms than a highway-style "exit ramp"

Better wake up and stop letting them divide us. I'd bet most everyday regular people, Democrat, Republican, Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, black, white, whatever, etc etc, agree on *far* more principles than they disagree. And it's *principles* which matter most! It's just in how we go about doing things we all agree are good, like feeding the hungry, where we differ in how best that should be done.

Stop allowing them to play Emperor Palpatine and tell you to let the hate flow through you for $GROUP/IDEOLOGY/RELIGION/RACE/CLASS/ETC, for it is true that a "dark side" will surely follow. We saw a glimpse in WW2 of how that sort of thing goes.

Strat

Terrific news!

[golgotha007]

Now I can fly my drone on any school campus without the fear of being molested (by police, haters, etc.)

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about graduate research assistants who fly UAVs for their own research. If they are also paid by the university as research assistants, wouldn't they fall under the same category as faculty? What about a student whose UAV activities lead to receiving a competitive scholarship?

Although art is considered, nowhere in any of this is research outside of aerodynamics or UAV engineering considered. The narrow view expressed by this memo does not seem to have any root in public safety or the public good. Although masked as a memo granting students permission to fly UAVs, this is actually a memo which clarifies the absurdity of current FAA guidelines - not to change these guidelines, but to increase compliance with them.