Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New FAA Rules Allow US Companies To Fly Drones Without a Pilot's License (faa.gov)

Posted by msmash on from the feel-free-to-take-your-drones-out dept.

On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced new rules for commercial drones. It states that drone pilots can now fly without waiting to get permission from the government. Previously, commercial operators were required to apply for a waiver from the FAA to operate small drones for commercial purposes. According to the new regulation, a drone must weigh less than 25kg, and it must fly under 400 feet (122m) and at a maximum speed of 161km per hour. DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said: This is a major development for the future of drones in America. It means that businesses and farmers and government agencies and academic researchers can put drones to work without having to get an airplane pilot's license or follow other onerous rules. Those were pretty high barriers to entry. Part 107 is a vote of confidence from the FAA that drones can be safely integrated into the national airspace, and that a wider adoption of drones for all sorts of non-recreational uses will bring real benefits to America.More coverage on The Verge, and Reuters.

124 comments

  1. Pilot still needs a UAS license? by bytestorm · · Score: 1

    http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/P...
    Is that not the point of the remote pilot airman certificate?

    1. Re:Pilot still needs a UAS license? by bytestorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nevermind, it's not clear from the summary, but all of the articles mention this. Yes there is still licensing, no the rules are not as strenuous as a full pilot's license (no medical, etc).
      FPV flight is still dead without a waiver. Interestingly, you can fly above 400' as long as you are within 400' of a structure (eg, for remote visual inspection of tall buildings).

    2. Re:Pilot still needs a UAS license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Some kind of licensing should be required, but more on the lines of a student pilot's license than a full fledged license. If nothing else, it ensures some minimum awareness of FAA regulations, etc. (A student pilot's license is like a driver's learning permit -- you need to pass a simple test on basic traffic regulations and important-to-know info, so that you can start practising. Since a drone pilot isn't going to be carrying passengers, and since today's mostly-automatic drones are easier to fly than planes, the distinction makes sense.)

      It also gives the FAA some leverage over rogue drone pilots, by threatening to pull their license. (Not that that's a major disincentive if someone is out to do harm, but it does have some inhibitory effect, especially if the drone pilot is doing it for money.)

      (NB, I generally dislike licensing/permits because they can become levers with which bureaucracies can exert power -- see e.g. liquor licenses, taxicab medallians, and the difficulty in getting a carry permit in some places -- but if the licenses are "shall issue" on demonstration of minium required knowledge, I don't have a problem with it.)

    3. Re:Pilot still needs a UAS license? by neilo_1701D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nevermind, it's not clear from the summary, but all of the articles mention this. Yes there is still licensing, no the rules are not as strenuous as a full pilot's license (no medical, etc).

      FPV flight is still dead without a waiver. Interestingly, you can fly above 400' as long as you are within 400' of a structure (eg, for remote visual inspection of tall buildings).

      Licensing is for commercial operations. Recreation / hobby use remains unchanged.

      FPV is fine provided some means of situational awareness (eg. a spotter) is maintained. The wavier is needed if you don't intend to use a spotter.

      The biggest disappointment is maintaining the Line Of Sight (LOS) requirement, although with the situational awareness requirement I do see the (gasp!) consistency in the regulations.

    4. Re: Pilot still needs a UAS license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have 60 hours PIC on a student pilot license and the only test required was an FAA medical exam.

    5. Re: Pilot still needs a UAS license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spotter is am AMA requirement for fpv. FAA prohibits fpv... non LOS and assisted LOS flight with the PIC.

    6. Re: Pilot still needs a UAS license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I learned to fly in Canada (about 30 years ago now) and am pretty sure there was some kind of regulations test to get the student pilot's license (certainly to solo, not necessarily for dual instruction where the instructor is always considered the PIC whoever actually has their hands on the controls). Also had to get a radiotelephone license to operate the aircraft radios, but that was just a pay the nominal fee type thing.

    7. Re: Pilot still needs a UAS license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN the US, the written test is not required until you take the check ride for part 61 schools. The part 141 (accelerated) schools have a syllabus that includes classroom instruction and stage checks before the solo, written test and check ride. Further, just because we did it before the ICAO rules, our radio licenses are issued to the aircraft with the registration, so we have to actually get our own license only to fly international.

  2. First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woohoo!

    1. Re:First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you failed, faggot

  3. Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel safer already knowing they can make these 50 pound objects only go 95 mph.....

  4. Until a bomb is strapped to one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they'll be banned almost immediately...at least for civilian use.

  5. No Pilot's License Required? by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    50 pound drones filling the skies flying to and fro. My, I am going to carry my umbrella more often...

    1. Re:No Pilot's License Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would very much like to see a picture of this umbrella you have that will protect you from a 50 pound object falling from 500 feet.

    2. Re:No Pilot's License Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the umbrella may be more to protect from surveillance than from falling drones.

    3. Re:No Pilot's License Required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not supposed to protect him - he just doesn't want to see it coming.

    4. Re: No Pilot's License Required? by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

      99.99% of these are less than 3 pounds. Cute exaggeration, though. Besides the 500 feet which is still illegal.

  6. Um, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual rules seem to say that you DO need a license to fly a drone commercially. TFS and TFA do not agree on this one.

    1. Re:Um, what? by tsqr · · Score: 3, Informative

      The actual rules seem to say that you DO need a license to fly a drone commercially. TFS and TFA do not agree on this one.

      TFS says you don't need an airplane pilot license. Under the old rules, a commercial UAS operator had to have an airplane pilot license. Under the new rules, the requirement is for an operator to "be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."

    2. Re:Um, what? by djsmiley · · Score: 1

      ... or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."

      Suddenly the scenes from TOYS with the kids 'playing' video game arcade consoles, controlling real life 'warplanes' is scarily possible.

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    3. Re:Um, what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Under the new rules, the requirement is for an operator to "be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate."

      This rule is more restrictive than the current COA that I am covered by at work. If you look at the requirements for a "remote pilot certificate" you'll see that they require more than just a 2nd class medical and an existing pilot certificate. For example, for an existing "Part 61" certificate holder, you have to prove you can fly a real aircraft carrying people (BFR) before you can fly an unmanned 5 pound drone in your backyard.

      And the summary isn't clear on who needs the RPC, it just outlines what it takes to get one. If it truly is only for commercial use, then fine.

    4. Re:Um, what? by tsqr · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you look at the requirements for a "remote pilot certificate"

      I did look. 16 hours of web-based in-home ground school, 10 hours of in-home UAV/Drone PC-based simulator, and 16 hours of hands-on flight training at a training facility. That doesn't sound to onerous to me. And you don't need any certification at all if all you're doing is flying in your back yard, as long as it's not for commercial purposes.

    5. Re:Um, what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I did look. 16 hours of web-based in-home ground school, 10 hours of in-home UAV/Drone PC-based simulator, and 16 hours of hands-on flight training at a training facility.

      I'm sorry, but which part of 107 specifies that? I see nothing in the list of requirements that is that specific. In fact, the only aeronautical part of the requirements as listed in 107.61 are passing a knowledge test (for non Part 61 certificate holders), or a BFR and a shorter test otherwise.

      That doesn't sound to onerous to me.

      I said it was more than what is required under the COA I work under. And yes, I think what you listed is pretty onerous compared to the truth.

      And having to get a BFR for a manned aircraft in order to prove you know how to fly a 5 pound drone is ridiculous.

    6. Re:Um, what? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      The requirements I cited were from an FAA-approved training center. If you have a Part 61 certificate, you've had a BFR within the last 24 months anyway, right? You have to do that to maintain your pilot's license anyway. it's not a _requirement_ for the small UAS certificate; it allows you to bypass the "initial aeronautical knowledge test" otherwise required for the small UAS certificate. As far as being more than what's required under a COA, that isn't exactly surprising. From Part 107:

      To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:
      o Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:
      -- Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or
      -- Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA.
      o Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
      o Be at least 16 years old

    7. Re:Um, what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The requirements I cited were from an FAA-approved training center.

      The rules don't talk about "FAA approved training centers", they say "knowledge test" and "FAA TESTING center". This training you're talking about is not a requirement for the RPC as you claimed it is, and it is irrelevant. It's a good money-maker for the drone manufacturers, however. "Come take our classes and buy our simulators...".

      If you have a Part 61 certificate, you've had a BFR within the last 24 months anyway, right? You have to do that to maintain your pilot's license anyway.

      Actually, no you don't. The "pilot's license" doesn't expire. Unless it is revoked for some reason, your "Part 61 certificate" is yours for life. You may not exercise the privileges under Part 91 without a demonstration of currency, but even then, it doesn't need to be a BFR.

      There still is no reason to require a demonstration of flight ability in a manned aircraft so someone can fly a drone. Two different skill sets.

      As far as being more than what's required under a COA, that isn't exactly surprising.

      I didn't say it was surprising. I said it was. I wouldn't expect the final requirements to be more stringent than any temporary ones, though, and these are. But if it isn't surprising, why are you arguing with me about it?

      To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:

      So you have at least located the requirements in the rules, but didn't notice that "10 hours of yada and 16 hours of yada" weren't part of them. Whatever those "FAA approved training centers" told you to try to sell you their services was a lie. Don't listen to them. Read the rules instead.

  7. Unit confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sincerely hope that the new regulations aren't such a ridiculous mix of measurement systems. I hope that it was just very poor reporting. But even that is disappointing. We jump from kg to feet to kph. Is it that hard to maintain consistency within the same sentence?

    Why would the FAA set such a strange speed limit as 161kph? 100mph makes a bit more sense.
    On the other hand, 25kg is a more round number than 55lbs.

    1. Re:Unit confusion by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      They did set it for 100 MPH, and use that in their press release. (For those of us who fly most manned aircraft, it throws things off a bit for us as the cap is 87 knots, which is a very non-round number.)

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  8. Look out below!! by evolutionary · · Score: 0

    Note the clause: "FAA is not requiring small UAS to comply with current agency airworthiness standards or aircraft certification". There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert which ironically, is being researched by MIT because groups of smaller drones working together may be more efficient than having a single larger drones, and this includes lifting medium to heayweight objects. Oh, and the job opportunities? What about the jobs that this new freedom allows drones to replace. This isn't about job opportunities, it's about corporates getting to make more money at the expense of their soon to be ex-employees as well as public safety. These aren't toys, but we seem to be handing out licenses for industrial use like candy in the name of corporate profit.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo! We have a winner. The FAA has been bullied into giving up on aviation safety so that Amazon and the like can fly poorly designed, unairworthy aircraft. Everything else flying has to have demonstrated airworthiness, but not things we plan to deliberately fly over people. This is stupidity on the part of congress, and arrogance on the part of people who bought them.

    2. Re:Look out below!! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, we currently have millions of people flying millions of drones with many, many millions of hours in the air. How many have you heard of actually hurting people ... compared to, say, wet restaurant floors, police vehicles in high speed chases, poison salad bars, suicidally crazy airline pilots, or medical errors in hospitals?

      And, handing out licenses in the name of "corporate profit?" Like, say, when a guy who runs a landscaping business wants to take some photos of his work? Or when a guy who does roofing for a living wants to check some gutters that are 40' off the ground? Eeeeevil corporations being all corporate and evil and trying to make money!

      How do you even function, from minute to minute, as furious as you are at all of the people around you who are trying to make some money? Also, how is it that you feed yourself without making money?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Look out below!! by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, the real problem is that you are unable to read. Is that also Amazon's fault? Are you unable to actually understand the phrase "line of sight?" Really? If not, why are commenting?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why people like him need a basic income, so he can sit around all day telling other people what they shouldn't be doing.

    5. Re:Look out below!! by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert

      I guess you missed the bit in the regulations about not flying over people:

      The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation.

    6. Re:Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having never, ever been a commercial pilot or UAV pilot, nor worked in aviation safety /s visual line of sight does not provide any protection against aircraft hardware or software malfunctions. While MACA is a big deal, it's not the biggest risk in aviation. And yes, Amazon has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against aviation safety rules for UAVs.

    7. Re:Look out below!! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about the jobs that this new freedom allows drones to replace.

      Yes, Mr. Ludd, what about the jobs this new freedom allows drones to replace?

      Oh, and while you're thinking about that, consider the jobs that were replaced when those new-fangled computers came on the scene. And cars. And refrigerators. And railroads. And the cotton gin. And sailing ships. And plows...the list goes on and on, eh?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's totally not fair. Whenever Amazon wants to fly a drone they're all like, "we'd be glad to work with you" and "we'll grant you a waiver", but whenever I want to fly a drone they're all like "how did you get in here?!" and "that's theft of air force property!" and stuff. And the guns, always with the guns...

    9. Re:Look out below!! by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, lobbying for it to be legal to delivery pizza while using a skateboard is somehow lobbying against existing safety rules for over the road tractor trailers? Do tell.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Look out below!! by djsmiley · · Score: 1

      A 'net' over the concert wouldn't be that odd, and could they then be classed as 'protected' ?

      Also, could they class them as part of the UAS Operation ;)

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    11. Re: Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you even function, from minute to minute, as furious as you are at all of the people around you who are trying to make some money?

      It's pretty hard. The last roofer I had was a total fag, hired a bunch of immigrants and you can bet they didn't have work permits.

      A drone to check the gutters? You must be smoking something. They won't be doing anything that bothersome. We need a roofing inspector with one.

      But for all the drone business, I haven't seen a single one flying, not even at the park. And I doubt there is anyone collecting data, it isn't like the UCR is mandated to collect them and I doubt there is an ICD for it but I don't know.

      Still, the real question is not how often it happens, but what you are going to expect done when it does. And I don't know about you, but if somebody crashes a drone into my property I expect them to be able to pay for the harm.

    12. Re:Look out below!! by evolutionary · · Score: 1

      In response to that, doing something is one thing. Doing it without proper precautions and oversight is another. There is plenty of discussion about how much regulation of drones is required. That is a separate debate. what is crucial to this is it's about industrial uses for these devices. Generally household drones only have a camera. Although...some very clever (and dangerous) people have mounted flamethrowers and firearms on homemade drones. Now technically this is not illegal, but it probably should be. To easy to do all sorts of things. Now we are talking about industrial use. And this could well go beyond carrying a book or two (which can be dangerous in itself actually even from 400 ft, which should have registered flight paths much like any plane), but these industrial drones (small with many working in concert), or larger ones, could eventually be dealing in more dangerous things. The crop dusters we used to use were hazardous enough, imagine hundreds of these, imagine the damage to organic areas/populations. Or other items. And yes, some of even the home drones have caused some damage: interference with airlines, invasion of privacy (the FBI/CIA is bad enough without public wannabes), people shooting drones out of the air as consequence. Even line of sight clauses. Oh, and what if one of these drones get hacked which most people don't even consider. Even industrial made drones may not be secure. there is a lot a business needs to be aware of before using these things large scale in business. and we don't seem to be treating drones and their potential with the respect they deserve. Potentially more dangerous than cars, but less regulation than on car drivers. Amazon or people who fear PR and lawsuits won't be the problem. but business who get too aggressive/ambitious will start making serious mistakes if we make it easy.

      --
      "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    13. Re: Look out below!! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And I don't know about you, but if somebody crashes a drone into my property I expect them to be able to pay for the harm.

      Do you feel that way about frisbees, or kids with bicycles?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re: Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >kids with bicycles

      If a kid causes significant damage to a house (or car), their parents are expected to pay for it.

      The FAA covers air space, but my personal space belongs to me.

    15. Re:Look out below!! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      In response to that, doing something is one thing. Doing it without proper precautions and oversight is another.

      People have been flying RC aircraft for many decades now, without the nanny state being involved. And the FAA is still allowing hobbyists to fly all they want without "oversight" and certification, etc. You do get that part, right?

      what is crucial to this is it's about industrial uses for these devices

      And the new small UAS rule they published will be of only moderate use to industrial users. Why? Because it limits the size, weight, and (please pay attention, here) requires that all operations are line of sight only. The operator can't be a computer, or someone sitting in an operation center, etc. It has to be someone standing outside with their eyes on the craft and able to see its orientation and function. It can't duck down behind trees, go around a building, go below a bridge, fly above a smokestack, or any other function that would separate it from the pilot's direct line of sight. You're thinking about industrial users that already have a way to get permission to operate, but are investing millions in the equipment and have to apply for special permission from the FAA - something the agency has only granted to a handful of operators. This new rules doesn't change any of that.

      Although...some very clever (and dangerous) people have mounted flamethrowers and firearms on homemade drones. Now technically this is not illegal, but it probably should be.

      I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Mounting projectile weapons and incindiaries on board any aircraft is VERY illegal. That's not new. Firing a gun from an aircraft is a federal felony.

      Now we are talking about industrial use. And this could well go beyond carrying a book or two (which can be dangerous in itself actually even from 400 ft, which should have registered flight paths much like any plane), but these industrial drones (small with many working in concert), or larger ones, could eventually be dealing in more dangerous things. The crop dusters we used to use were hazardous enough, imagine hundreds of these, imagine the damage to organic areas/populations.

      What's stopping a criminal from using ANY of the existing crop-dusting technologies for a bad purpose. Companies like Toyota have been selling remote control crop dusting aircraft for many years. A person in a simple crop dusting biplane has always had the ability to fly over crowds of people if they want to, and can carry vastly larger payloads than a 25kg RC model. You get that, right?

      And yes, some of even the home drones have caused some damage: interference with airlines, invasion of privacy (the FBI/CIA is bad enough without public wannabes), people shooting drones out of the air as consequence.

      Yes, yes, just like people with balloons and other craft have always had the ability to get in the way of aircraft. A recent AMA study showed that almost all of the reports of "drones" entering general aviation space and being a cause of alarm were, in fact, things like birds being seen by pilots going 200+ mph from a kilometer away. A recent high-profile "drone" sighting in the UK, by a pilot on approach to Heathrow, turned out to be a plastic bag floating on the wind. The FAA reported two weeks ago that even as millions more devices like this are being purchased, the number of reports of flights in restricted areas is going DOWN. And ... people shooting them out of the air? Also a federal felony.

      Oh, and what if one of these drones get hacked which most people don't even consider.

      What? There are articles about that all the time, and they generally involve very cheap toy-like devices that run on WiFi only over very short ranges and which have so little battery life that they can't make it more than a very short distance before

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re: Look out below!! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Actually, the FAA says it has authority over anything that flies, right down to one inch off the ground. Regardless, why do you think that a kid with a quadcopter (or a roofer who uses one to take pictures of chimneys, etc) is somehow more dangerous to you than a kid throwing a football (which weighs more than many of these copters) or a person trying to stand a ladder up on the side of your house? There are millions of "drones" in use now, operated by millions of people for years now. The number of incidents of property damage or injury are essentially non-existent compared to thousands of other everyday things that occur all the time. Why do you have any particularly special expectations about legal or financial requirements surround one object, and not another? If someone damages you or your stuff, why does it matter with what? They're liable for the damage, not liable for drone damage. Worrying about that is like worrying not at all about financial fraud, unless it's "on the computer," in which case... you'd use different standards?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:Look out below!! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      There is nothing pertaining about use of drones in concert

      I guess you missed the bit in the regulations about not flying over people:

      What does flying in concert have to do with flying over people? You're confusing "in concert", as in "multiple devices cooperating to accomplish a task", which is what the rest of that sentence clearly talked about, with "at a concert", which is something completely different.

    18. Re:Look out below!! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, not many because the vast majority of those people are flying toy quadcopters that weigh about 1-2 kg. Picture drones that are near the top of the spec range listed above -- 55 pounds traveling at 100 mph and 400 feet of altitude. There aren't many people flying drones like those -- yet. But if there were millions of them drone fatalities would be a commonplace event.

      Clearly there should be unlicensed (but still regulated for things like privacy) drones at the low end of the mass/energy scale, and then some kind of graduated licensing scheme that kicks in when you get to scales that pose a serious risk of injury or property damage.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    19. Re:Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we currently have millions of people flying millions of drones with many, many millions of hours in the air. How many have you heard of actually hurting people ...

      And we have millions of people flying in many thousands of (Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, etc.) airplanes, with a very small accident rate. Why do we need regulations on them given their low accident rates? Hint: the rates are low because of regulation. The UAS market is nascent, and if the rates are low now we want to keep them that way so that when (absolute) number of users goes up, the accidents do not.

      compared to, say, wet restaurant floors, police vehicles in high speed chases, poison salad bars, suicidally crazy airline pilots, or medical errors in hospitals?

      Then talk to Departments of Labor, Homeland Security, Health/FDA, etc. The FAA is taking care of their area of expertise to make sure things stay safe, perhaps the other regulators should do something too. And a lot of those problems are handled by state-level agencies.

    20. Re: Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the FAA says it has authority over anything that flies, right down to one inch off the ground. Regardless, why do you think that a kid with a quadcopter (or a roofer who uses one to take pictures of chimneys, etc) is somehow more dangerous to you than a kid throwing a football (which weighs more than many of these copters) or a person trying to stand a ladder up on the side of your house? There are millions of "drones" in use now, operated by millions of people for years now. The number of incidents of property damage or injury are essentially non-existent compared to thousands of other everyday things that occur all the time. Why do you have any particularly special expectations about legal or financial requirements surround one object, and not another? If someone damages you or your stuff, why does it matter with what? They're liable for the damage, not liable for drone damage. Worrying about that is like worrying not at all about financial fraud, unless it's "on the computer," in which case... you'd use different standards?

      Anything that flies? Come on now, you know that they don't have authority over birds and bees. Stop with the needless exaggerations.

      But yes, I've called the cops out on my neighbor's kids shooting airguns already (at each other and going towards my house, if I ever notice a broken window, I'm going to blame them for sure), so if I noticed a problem with footballs, yeah, I'd do the same. Hasn't been an issue for me though. I do know of many instances where people have broken windows, and yes, they were expected to pay for it. And anybody trying to stand a ladder against my house would either be a contractor hired by me, who I would expect to have proper insurance, myself, who is covered by my own insurance, or a fire-fighter or other emergency worker covered under their own insurance (and some related laws), or on the outside chance, a trespasser. There are limited circumstances where the latter can be lawful, so that's why I am prohibited from setting up traps. I may have obstacles, alarms, and such, but no traps.

      And yes, there are lots and lots of injuries and damages EVERY DAY, for a variety of causes. I do expect people to be held responsible for them, don't you?

      Don't you get annoyed when somebody breaks your stuff, then won't pay to fix it? I'm not sure why you think these expectations of mine, or even the FAA, are ESPECIALLY different, I don't know of any professional bike outfits that don't have insurance, I know cars have to have insurance, and I'd imagine the NFL to have insurance. Certainly the local school does.

      Do you have some specific articulation you can make with the particular facts that you can differentiate in some way or manner?

      PS, I do worry about financial fraud, thank you very much, and I would like some people who have engaged in it to be punished. Are you going to man up and support doing that? They have assets. They did me harm. The court agrees. It's proven. When are you going to say they should be made to pay? You can do it right now, just to me. I won't even expect you to write the judge, your congressman, or even form a posse with me.

    21. Re:Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rhetorical flourishing aside, are there actually any stats? For either drone ownership, use, or related damage and injuries?

      If there are, can someone please link them?

      If there aren't, then can we agree to stop talking as if we knew what they would be if they did exist?

    22. Re: Look out below!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no, Exxon is clearly more responsible than the RC hobbyists who have no profit motive, and have to pay for their toys from a small budget. There's no possible way that commercial users would ever have more pressure to cut corners and ignore safety.

    23. Re:Look out below!! by olof_the_viking · · Score: 1

      Heh, there should be a requirement to have a man walk in front with a red flag, and if a horse or skater comes near, it should be required to land and let them pass before continuing.

  9. So... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    It's ok to fly whatever drones you want if you're doing it commercially, but flying it for leisure is a nono.

    Glad we established that business is more important than having fun.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:So... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's ok to fly whatever drones you want if you're doing it commercially, but flying it for leisure is a nono.

      What makes you say that? It's been a no-no for commercial operators (without real pilots' certs and 333 waivers) to use them while the very same people, using them recreationally, have been perfectly legal all along. You have it exactly backwards, until this change, and now both groups can use them. Of course they're still subject to all sorts of rules related to where, how, over what, how high, etc., and all of the machines have to be registered with the DoT.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, you can continue to film your neighbour's daughters in his backyard as long as you give away the movies to pedophiles for free. Once you start selling them, you'll need a commercial license, though. Remember that, ScentCone!

    3. Re:So... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So, you're basically just making stuff up so you can feel smug? Well, that's one way to come across as credible to low-information fellow twats, I guess. You all have fun, now!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:So... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If these new speed limits apply to hobbiest the feds are about to be inundated with complaints.

      I spent good money on that pulse jet. Damned if it's grounded. Pulse on demand quad pulse jets will be here soon. That will sound really cool.

      You don't even want to know what a mini turbine costs.

      They're not even allowing 200mph? Pylon racers are hanging from the motor, building speed at 200mph.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  10. Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 years by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    when can i get a waiver for driving on the ground, and they let these people fly drones commercially, what happens when the Coca Cola bottling company uses drones to deliver cases of coke to the local stores and they drop them on top of people? there needs to be accountability and liability for commercial drones flying over populated areas

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  11. Good! by DogDude · · Score: 0, Troll

    We let any Tom, Dick, or Harry walk around with a high speed killing machine strapped to his hip. In terms of safety, drones aren't even remotely on my list of concerns.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment just proves you are horrible, like most people, at evaluating risk. In other words, you're a fool.

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a 50 pound Item moving at 100Mph being controled by someone who may be trained and may of properly maintained it is safe.
      Yes Someone can not evaluate Risk.
      Will they be required to carry Insurance?
      Insurance Companies have entire deparments devoted to calculating Risk.

    3. Re:Good! by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      This.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Good! by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      Ha your sig caught me off guard! I'm heading to the Chapel Hill one today to pick up some cat food. Great stores! The NC showing on /. is always higher than I think it should.

    5. Re:Good! by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

      We let any Tom, Dick, or Harry walk around with a high speed killing machine strapped to his hip.

      How DO you strap a pressure cooker or a minivan to your hip, anyway? Curious. Can you post some photos? Thx.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Good! by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've got a van strapped to my hip whenever I buckle up. Or is my hip strapped to the van?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:Good! by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      may of properly maintained it is safe

      May have. "May of" makes no grammatical sense in this situation.

    9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure whether original poster was talking about firearms or automobiles (which are also strapped to hips), but both of those kill civilians at a much higher rate than drones.

  12. Update your policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure hope Companies start updating their Insurance Policy. The moment one drops out of the sky and amputates a body part, permanently disfigures or blinds someone, the lawsuits will begin, and the money will need to start flowing!

    1. Re:Update your policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auto accident related injuries happen hundreds of times a day and no one bats an eye, why would a handful of drones hitting someone per year draw such attention?

    2. Re:Update your policy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the anti technology push.

  13. THIS IS A STUPID IDEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this does is provide for US spy agencies to slap Amazon stickers on their own drones. This is hello 1984 and Skynet.

  14. Re:Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still visual line of sight rules. Corporations have the ability to get a waiver if they demonstrate it can operate safely. However, there are no FAA rules that define what safe operation is and whom they need to demonstrate it to. Corporations must operate within existing rules until those rules are defined.

  15. WHY DOES THIS STORY CONNECT TO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    216.34.181.48 - Geo Information
    IP Address 216.34.181.48
    Host star.slashdot.org
    Location US US, United States
    City Chesterfield, MO 63017
    Organization Savvis
    ISP Savvis
    AS Number AS3561 Savvis
    Latitude 3865'00" North
    Longitude 9053'34" West
    Distance 8780.91 km (5456.20 miles)

    You aiding/abetting the CIA now Slashdot?

  16. Re:Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 ye by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    Coca Cola isn't going to be using line-of-sight drone operations to deliver cases of liquid drinks with an aircraft weighing under 25kg. Laws of physics and whatnot.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  17. Re:Give them enough rope to hang themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it pretty clearly said "commercial" and "non-recreational uses".

  18. Pennies from Heaven by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    There is a song for this, Pennies from Heaven.

    On the first day of Yuletide, Santa sent for me, a drone carrying a fancy camera ... Pull!
    On the second day of Yuletide, Santa sent for me, a drone carrying a fancy suit ... Pull!

    Pennies. From Heaven.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. Same as always, politics. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Think of it as a favor. OR crony corporatism, if you prefer. Same thing. Corporations can do this, but John Q. Citizen has different rules, because, business.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Same as always, politics. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      Think of it as a favor. OR crony corporatism, if you prefer. Same thing. Corporations can do this, but John Q. Citizen has different rules, because, business.

      You don't actually have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

      Recreational users have been allowed to fly the exact same stuff the whole time. It was only the commercial operators who were banned, unless they went through some seriously onerous and expensive steps, and had people with traditional pilots' certificates operating a machine that a hobby user could operate with no certificate at all. This doesn't impact hobby fliers in any way. They can just keep doing what they've been doing.

      Nice attempt to make businesses evil, though. Out of curiosity, is it safe to assume you've never actually owned or been involved in running a business? I didn't think so.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Same as always, politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now, be nice. He is too busy 'Feeling the Bern' to be doing something useful like operating a business.

    3. Re:Same as always, politics. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      0. "Out of curiosity, is it safe to assume you've never actually owned or been involved in running a business?" It is not. I have been both, though starting a business may not count, right?

      1. I feel the Bern, right in my back pocket. His brand of cronyism will destroy us all, even businesses. Hillary will try at least to save Wall Street, despite her protests. Trump will of course change little in this regard.

      So help me here. By relaxing the commercial operator restrictions to those similar to hobby restrictions, this is reasonable in you view? Why?

      ps - I'm not trying to make businesses appear evil. I'm trying to expose the government as so business-friendly when it's to their liking that it's indistinguishable from a bought-and-paid-for agency. I'm actually more in agreement with you than you think, but that's unclear without checking the list of items to satisfy our mutual distrusts.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Same as always, politics. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Well, for starters, the rules are not similar to hobby restrictions.

      A commercial operator must be 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate. A hobbyist is not under such restrictions.
      A commercial operator may not fly over people. A hobbyist is not under such restrictions.
      A commercial operator may only fly during daytime, or at twilight with proper lights. A hobbyist is not under such restrictions.
      A commercial operator must maintain line of sight. A hobbyist is not under such restrictions.

      In fact, the only things that look similar to the hobbyist rules are size and altitude restrictions, and the fact that you do not have to get specific permission to operate a drone if you follow the rules. I fail to see what is 'bought-and-paid-for' about that.

    5. Re:Same as always, politics. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So help me here. By relaxing the commercial operator restrictions to those similar to hobby restrictions, this is reasonable in you view? Why?

      Yes, it's very reasonable. Although that's not what they're actually doing, is it? Recreational users don't have to pay for and pass, every two years, an FAA certificate test, as the new rules require.

      Regardless: this is reasonable because right now millions of people are flying millions of "drones" and other RC aircraft (as they've been doing for decades), with untold millions of hours in the air. The number of injuries is statistically meaningless - essentially zero - especially compared to other routine hazards, such as spending time in a hospital, eating foot at a restaurant, or driving anywhere at all. Given that excellent safety record among casual hobby users, why is it not reasonable to allow the very same person, using the exact same equipment, in exactly the same safe way, to take exactly the same photograph in exactly the same place ... for for $25 instead of for fun? Which act by the person putting that image to commercial use (instead of hobby use) is the specific thing that you consider to be unreasonably dangerous at the hands of an FAA-certified operator with their professional reputation, business insurance, and revenue at risk if they screw up ... but which is safe and OK with you when a noob hobbyist does exactly the same thing?

      Why is not being unreasonable somehow a sign of corruption? Which part of the FAA's recognizing that literally billions of dollars in pent up economic activity, public safety use, science, education, and more was being kept illegal for no particular reason makes them "bought and paid for" when they just finally admit that flying around a small RC machine so you can take photos for your business or use an IR camera to check for heat loss on a roof isn't any more risky than flying around for fun, doing things like pylon racing or taking landscape art photos from the air ... stuff that people have been doing for decades. The only FAA behavior that would have been a sign of "bought and paid for" would have been them not doing this, so that the parties with an interest in suppressing all of these new opportunities (traditional aerial photography operators, crane rental businesses, and so much more) could have continued without new competition and innovation making them have to keep up.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Same as always, politics. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      A commercial operator must be 16 years old

      That's an annoyingly specific restriction.

      You've got one year to make it as a professional drone pilot, kid; then you're out.

      A commercial operator may not fly over people.

      I should hope not. But what about their dones?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Same as always, politics. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      You might want to recheck the rules for hobby flying, because VLOS certainly is a requirement for hobby flight, and the preceding two are also part of the "knowbeforeyoufly" list.

      The only major difference twixt hobby and 107 is the RPC, and the commercial authorization.

    8. Re:Same as always, politics. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      No speed limit on hobby.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Same as always, politics. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I believe that the rules that creates the limits of 0.55 to 55 pounds for hobby also include a maximum speed, but it won't matter for most people.

  20. Summary and Title are FLAT OUT WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    "Under the final rule, the person actually flying a drone must be at least 16 years old and have a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating, or be directly supervised by someone with such a certificate. To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, an individual must either pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center or have an existing non-student Part 61 pilot certificate. If qualifying under the latter provision, a pilot must have completed a flight review in the previous 24 months and must take a UAS online training course provided by the FAA. The TSA will conduct a security background check of all remote pilot applications prior to issuance of a certificate."

    1. Re:Summary and Title are FLAT OUT WRONG. by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      Exactly. All this is about commercial use. Hobby / recreation uss remains unchanged - although it's good to see the FAA formally acknowledge that.

  21. Foundation donation, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I wonder how large a donation to a "foundation" that cost.

  22. A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they can just get that stupid "line of sight" restriction removed drone use should begin to see its potential realized. I fully appreciate the requirement that drones be MONITORED, but the entire point of a drone is that it is autonomous. Requiring it be tethered to some meat-bag on the ground is like requiring a car not leave its owners property.

    1. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if they can just get that stupid "line of sight" restriction removed drone use should begin to see its potential realized. I fully appreciate the requirement that drones be MONITORED, but the entire point of a drone is that it is autonomous. Requiring it be tethered to some meat-bag on the ground is like requiring a car not leave its owners property.

      So according to your appreciated requirement:

      Fly spy drones. Fly commercial drones. Commercial drones are not allowed to look like spy drones. Spy drones aren't allowed to look like commercial drones unless they ask themselves if they have good reason.

      Then you need a monitor "that drones be MONITORED" you said. So how do you monitor a drone with spoofed spy gear (yeah, they lie like that) unless you have spies monitor it? Then the spies know who their own drones are twice? And not to mention, the people the spy drone are monitoring are still monitored without lack of monitoring twice.

      Wake up.

    2. Re:A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just get a politician or lawyer to monitor the spies everybody trusts them OH WAIT

  23. This does not allow Amazon drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the FAA's published rules summary (not the flawed Slashdot summary):
    "Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation"

    Unless there's no one between you and the Amazon warehouse, the delivery drones are not allowed. Also, you'd have to be pretty close to the warehouse anyway, since the drones need to be operated in visual line-of-sight.:

    "Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer" (FAA Summary)

    Although a waiver is available, however, the text of the actual rule (Part 107), does not allow for Amazon's proposal:

    "any waivers that the FAA may grant to the visual-line-of-sight provisions of part 107 will not allow the operation to transport property for compensation or hire beyond visual line of sight." (FAA Part 107 Rule)

    And, no you can't get around that rule by riding in a car:
    "For these reasons, this rule will also not allow the operation of a small UAS from a moving vehicle if the small unmanned aircraft is being used to transport property for compensation or hire." (FAA Part 107 Rule)

  24. First drone to fly near a candidate ... by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    And all the rules go out the window. The secret service will step in and forbid all drone flights within 100 miles of someone they are protecting.

    1. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      The Secret Service already requests the FAA to issue NOTAMs surrounding VIP movement. Being in the DC area, I get regular updates telling be when it's suddenly illegal to operate a 12-ounce plastic toy copter within wide ranges of where Obama or another VIP is attending a fundraising dinner at a fancy house along the Potomac in suburban MD or VA. Happens all the time. And of course it's long been illegal to operate any sort of RC machine of any kind in a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House/Capitol Hill area. The DC Flight Restriction Zone is huge, and covers many of the areas where politicians regularly attend events - so no need for NOTAMs there - it's a permanent ban.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Secret Service already requests the FAA to issue NOTAMs surrounding VIP movement. Being in the DC area, I get regular updates telling be when it's suddenly illegal to operate a 12-ounce plastic toy copter within wide ranges of where Obama or another VIP is attending a fundraising dinner at a fancy house along the Potomac in suburban MD or VA. Happens all the time. And of course it's long been illegal to operate any sort of RC machine of any kind in a 30-mile-wide circle around the White House/Capitol Hill area. The DC Flight Restriction Zone is huge, and covers many of the areas where politicians regularly attend events - so no need for NOTAMs there - it's a permanent ban.

      Since you work for the CIA who is this?

      216.34.181.48 - Geo Information
      IP Address 216.34.181.48
      Host star.slashdot.org
      Location US US, United States
      City Chesterfield, MO 63017
      Organization Savvis
      ISP Savvis
      AS Number AS3561 Savvis
      Latitude 3865'00" North
      Longitude 9053'34" West
      Distance 8780.91 km (5456.20 miles)

    3. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://slashdot.org/~ScentCone

      CIA.

    4. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9268021&cid=52360605

    5. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say nothing about the region of active ECM that follows the president around. Seriously, say nothing.

      2.4 GHz is tricky, people depend on it. But you know there is a SS agent with his thumb on a broad spectrum scrambler. Rules don't matter to assassins.

      Try and pull back a 'history reproduction trebuchet' within 5 miles of the president, see all of H&K's newest hardware, up close. Not that I've spent any time considering ways of delivering bags of bullshit ballistically.

    6. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Hilarious!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Since you work for the CIA who is this?

      Thanks, best laugh I've had all day.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not funny.

      X insincerity

      X CIA

    9. Re:First drone to fly near a candidate ... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Ah, two laughing days in a row! BTW, what's "insincere" about describing the DC Flight Restriction Zone and the bulletins that the FAA sends out when there are temporary expansions to those restrictions because of VIP movement? NOTAMs are public records. Your paranoia on the subject is kind of odd.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  25. How about requiring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Permanent registration numbers readable from 100'? Since we can't defend our property and privacy from these airborne peeping toms, make it a Federal felony to operate one without the number registered to the SN of the airframe.

    1. Re:How about requiring... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Permanent registration numbers readable from 100'?

      You don't think that might not be a tad impractical, given the size of most drones?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re: How about requiring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi! Have a nice day!

  26. Re:Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 ye by tsqr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when can i get a waiver for driving on the ground, and they let these people fly drones commercially, what happens when the Coca Cola bottling company uses drones to deliver cases of coke to the local stores and they drop them on top of people? there needs to be accountability and liability for commercial drones flying over populated areas

    From the FAA press release: "The new regulations also address height and speed restrictions and other operational limits, such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people on the ground who aren’t directly participating in the UAS operation." Also, see SceentCone's comment regarding the laws of physics.

    Amazon's drone delivery dreams aside, the vast majority of commercial drone usage is going to be infrastructure (power grid, railway bridges, etc.) or agriculture (crop monitoring). Plus (maybe) inspection of hard-to-reach areas of homes such as roofs and rain gutters.

  27. Re:Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 ye by bws111 · · Score: 1

    Dropping cases on people would kind of require flying over people, which is not allowed.

  28. Some kind of liability is needed as well so by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Some kind of liability is needed as well so amazon can't just dump it all on the 3rd party subcontractor pilot who can't cover the pay out after it crashes into an plane.

  29. Flight over people is prohibited by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Quoting the new regulation:
    Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
    not directly participating in the operation

    1. Re:Flight over people is prohibited by Luthair · · Score: 1

      So pretty much limited to a farmers field then without overshooting the property boundaries.

  30. Re:Give them enough rope to hang themselves by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Enjoy it while you can horseless carriage fans. There are at least a few morons among you who will still do stupid irresponsible things with their toys, someone will get hurt or killed or there will be massive property damage, and the local city council will throw up it's hands and say "We tried trusting you, but you clearly can't be trusted!" and they'll get taken away from you. On that day I and many others will rejoice that the scourge of pesky, noisy, death traps will finally be ended. Then automobiles will be in the hands of professional drivers and the military, as it should be.

  31. And the NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't regulate gun sales. Prepare to not have your packages delivered because someone shotdown the delivery person. Er, bot.

    1. Re: And the NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to sales are already highly regulated, ignorant one. Law-enforcement can't or won't enforce the laws that are already on the books, because they like to selectively enforce laws in order to manipulate people. Additional laws won't help the situation, but it will put innocent citizens at risk by making them unable to defend themselves.

  32. Yeah and closed real estate. I shoot fireworks by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yeah it's limiting. One popular use is for high value real estate. That will be allowed, if for example you're selling a home with land, or any retail/ office real estate with a parking lot. Block the driveways some time when the business is closed and you're good to go.

    I shoot fireworks shows. Fireworks shows have been popular with drone operators. In fact, there is a real nice professional looking drone video of one of my shows on Youtube. It just so happens that when we launch explosives into the air, we make sure there is nobody underneath, so drones can be used to video fireworks shows.

    I'm sure there are many more examples. What is not clear is how they'll treat flight over areas where it's UNLIKELY that you'll fly over any people, such as some lakes and rivers, mountainous areas, etc. I suppose the operator can watch to be sure they don't fly DIRECTLY over any boats. Based on how the FAA handles ultralight aircraft, I think they'll be reasonable. Flying over any rural area will probably be generally okay of you're otherwise being safe; even though there is a small chance that a farmer on a tractor could drive under your flight path.

    1. Re: Yeah and closed real estate. I shoot fireworks by Lenny369 · · Score: 0

      There are no restrictions for flying over a few people. You don't need to block off driveways. The same current restrictions stand for highly populated areas, but that has generally been interpreted as, per the FAA, crowded sporting events.

    2. Re: Yeah and closed real estate. I shoot fireworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, you can't pay the $100 or so to get someone to fly over and take pictures?

  33. Re:Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 ye by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    You're ignoring efficiency issues. Coca-Cola is going to continue using trucks for delivery because it's more energy efficient and lower maintenance than using drones. Even if the cost of a drone comes down to $200 for one that can carry a case (about 10 pounds for a 12-pack), the ability to carry even 10,000 pounds involves an astronomical cost of $200,000 for a thousand drones, plus the time of operation for one pilot per drone ($7,250 per hour at federal minimum wage), plus maintenance and replacement costs, and that would cover only a small region.

    There will be a point where drones can be used for delivery, but it will require far higher battery power density than we have now, and is probably decades in the future.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  34. Re:Been driving cars, trucks & bikes for 35 ye by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    You could launch the case ballistically and hit someone without ever flying over them. You would have to fly 'at them' at least momentarily.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  35. Re:Give them enough rope to hang themselves by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    You're referring to autonomous cars, are you? ;)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  36. Regulation: "any persons" by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Other FAA regulations, for other purposes, refer to heavily populated areas. For instance, that term is used for ultralights, which I fly. The new commercial drone regulation is:

          Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
          not directly participating in the operation

    The commercial drone regulation mentions neither crowds nor heavily populated areas. You are forbidden to fly over "any persons". Indeed, that's even more clear than "people" - one person is an "any person".

  37. Fix the headline, Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe how irresponsible Slashdot is. You still need a pilots license. A UAS is an aircraft ( which the FAA defined as any contrivance which can travel through the air). commercial UAS pilots are called airman. They are required to pass an written and practical skill test. Thanks for sending thousands of unskilled idiots into the air, Slashdot. I hope they all get arrested.