Slashdot Mirror
FAA Moves Toward Treating Drones and Planes As Equals (hackaday.com)
Hackaday's Tom Nardi writes about the Federal Aviation Administration's push to repeal Section 336, which states that small remote-controlled aircraft as used for hobby and educational purposes aren't under FAA jurisdiction. "Despite assurances that the FAA will work towards implementing waivers for hobbyists, critics worry that in the worst case the repeal of Section 336 might mean that remote control pilots and their craft may be held to the same standards as their human-carrying counterparts," writes Nardi. From the report: Section 336 has already been used to shoot down the FAA's ill-conceived attempt to get RC pilots to register themselves and their craft, so it's little surprise they're eager to get rid of it. But they aren't alone. The Commercial Drone Alliance, a non-profit association dedicated to supporting enterprise use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), expressed their support for repealing Section 336 in a June press release: "Basic 'rules of the road' are needed to manage all this new air traffic. That is why the Commercial Drone Alliance is today calling on Congress to repeal Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and include new language in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act to enable the FAA to regulate UAS and the National Airspace in a common sense way."
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act does not simply repeal Section 336, it also details the new rules the agency would impose on unmanned aircraft and their operators. Under these proposed rules, all unmanned aircraft would be limited to an altitude of 400 feet unless they have specific authorization to exceed that ceiling. They must also be operated within line of sight at all times, effectively ending long-range First Person View (FPV) flying. There's also language in the Reauthorization Act about studying the effects of flying unmanned aircraft at night, or over groups of people. It also states that drones, just like traditional aircraft, must be registered and marked. It even authorizes the FAA to investigate methods of remote identification for drones and their operators, meaning it's not unreasonable to conclude that RC aircraft may be required to carry transponders at some point in the future. To many in the hobby this seems like an unreasonable burden, especially in the absence of clear limits on what type of small aircraft would be excluded (if any). The report also notes that the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act will require drone operators to have to pass an "aeronautical knowledge and safety test," and to show proof of their passing to any law enforcement if questioned. Also with the repeal of Section 336, "young people might actually be excluded from flying remote-controlled aircraft," Nardi writes. "While many RC planes and quadcopters are marketed as children's toys, in the absence of Section 336, it's not clear that a child could legally operate one. The FAA requires a person to be 16 years of age to obtain a pilot's license, and if unmanned aircraft are truly expected to obey the same 'rules of the road,' it's not unreasonable to assume that age requirement will remain in effect."
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act does not simply repeal Section 336, it also details the new rules the agency would impose on unmanned aircraft and their operators. Under these proposed rules, all unmanned aircraft would be limited to an altitude of 400 feet unless they have specific authorization to exceed that ceiling. They must also be operated within line of sight at all times, effectively ending long-range First Person View (FPV) flying. There's also language in the Reauthorization Act about studying the effects of flying unmanned aircraft at night, or over groups of people. It also states that drones, just like traditional aircraft, must be registered and marked. It even authorizes the FAA to investigate methods of remote identification for drones and their operators, meaning it's not unreasonable to conclude that RC aircraft may be required to carry transponders at some point in the future. To many in the hobby this seems like an unreasonable burden, especially in the absence of clear limits on what type of small aircraft would be excluded (if any). The report also notes that the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act will require drone operators to have to pass an "aeronautical knowledge and safety test," and to show proof of their passing to any law enforcement if questioned. Also with the repeal of Section 336, "young people might actually be excluded from flying remote-controlled aircraft," Nardi writes. "While many RC planes and quadcopters are marketed as children's toys, in the absence of Section 336, it's not clear that a child could legally operate one. The FAA requires a person to be 16 years of age to obtain a pilot's license, and if unmanned aircraft are truly expected to obey the same 'rules of the road,' it's not unreasonable to assume that age requirement will remain in effect."
Require all drone operators to undergo $15,000 worth of training and certifications. That will teach them how to behave with their toys!
No more drone delivery now. Trump sticks it to Bezos yet again!
with the unsafe and perverted nonsense going on in my neighborhood because of punks with drones, some testing and regulation might be a good thing
Does this mean I can now land my drone at the local airport?
All good bureaucrats want more ... control. It's no surprise that the Commercial Drone Alliance sees the unmanaged and uncontrolled drones as an opportunity to be more important, grow the organization, charge more fees, have a larger budget and everything else. Don't worry: few organizations work themselves out of jobs and love to create regulations and burden to go along with it.
Yes, this even applies to non-profit organizations where people want more ... control.
Let people live their lives.
They should at least be consistent. Paragliders and related are not licensed at all.
So if they are treated the same, can I pilot a manned craft with my drone license?
There is a very wide spectrum of drones. One one end there are the micro-quadcopters that weigh 50 grams, on the other one there is RQ-4 Global Hawk. Having one regulation for tiny quadcopters or model planes on end and multi-ton machines at the other end makes no sense whatsoever.
Anything that flies lower than 100 feet AGL in class G airspace should not need to be regulated. Any unmanned vehicle flying in any other class of airspace than class G and above 100 feet AGL in class G airspace should be regulated and operators adequately trained. This would be simple and sensible.
I've been involved with R/C for over 30 years. Always go out of town or a very open field with NO people to fly my stuff. Now all these lDIOTS that take their quads out of a box, charge them, turn them on and suddenly... I'm a pilot! They have no idea the danger those spinning blade have, how to operate them, no respect for safety or anything. Now, thanks to YOU morons, I'll probably have to get a license, be tested, pay a fee all because of these stupid toys (not including the pros that fly these things for commercial purposes). I've been a ham operator for about as long, and back in the "old" FM days, flew a black flag on my transmitter. Those old Futaba transmitters were pretty good to, nothing like the Spectrum transmitters today, but still for the time pretty good. THANKS a lot.
The section in question applies to small model planes uses only for recreation (no commercial use). In other words, toys. For decades model aircraft have been just fine using compliance with AMA rules, without a bunch of paperwork with the FAA for each foam plane.
The word "drone", used in the title, has at least three completely different meanings.
In the military, a "drone" is an aircraft, normally fixed-wing (an airplane) which has some degree of ability to operate autonomously.
Around the same time that new military drones were in the news, toy helicopters with four motors (quadcopters) became popular. Advertisers capitalized on the media coverage of military drones by calling these toys "drones", though they can in no way fly autonomously. Most can't go more than about 100 meters from the operator (though a few can go further).
Thirdly, although the physics are such that quadcopters are horrible for scaling up, some people thought about building 2 meter sized quadcopters and using them commercially. There have been some serious proposals, but largely that's gimmick to get attention because the physics don't work out very well. Anyway, that's a third thing called "drone" that's very different from military jets, and very different from little plastic toys.
Talking about what laws should be for "drones" doesn't make much sense because military jet planes are called drones, little plastic toys are called drones, and motorcycle-sized commercial aircraft are called drones. Talking about laws for "drones" is pointless, or worse, highly misleading, unless you first define which kind of "drone" you're talking about.
Section 336 is about model aircraft, little foam and plastic toys. Getting rid of it won't solve any concerns anyone may have with anything else called "drone", such as the commercial use vehicles Amazon talks about.
It's not personal, it's just time to extract all that value out of the public airspace now that technology exists to do so. Capitalist government creates the space for private capitalists to compete for profit. Win-win!
As a father of kids attending outdoor sporting events, it's always worried me that some dad was yoloing his drone up there, taking a video of his little Suzie.
The clear right move isn't to prevent drones from public events, but ensure that hobbyists and commercial operators are licensed according to the risk of the dad dropping a drone on a kids head accidentally. I watched a cross country start be restarted as there was a drone flying overhead.
I'd like to see if folks here could conceive of some means of communicating with the "pilot" when folks are bothered, or annoyed or scared by drones.
I'm a commercial drone operator, and literally everything in the parent post is how we already operate. It's not even a little bit burdensome, and it lets sUAS operators fly safely with our crewed counterparts.
No, you _can't_ fly your drone out of sight without a spotter or a waiver. You never know when a helicopter's gonna be around, or when you'll bump into something you can't see. No, you can't fly over 400 feet without a waiver — low flying air traffic can't see a 3 ft wide drone until it's too late, and if they're coming up in your (massive) blind spot, you won't see them either. Flying at low altitudes over large crowds of people can be unsafe if you have some sort of malfunction.
Look, it's all fun and games when you're flying a drone around inside. But if you're in a busy airport's Class C airspace, you don't need to be screwing around where your drone can get sucked into a jet intake or smack into a helicopter. You need to know the rules of the road. You need to know where and when it's safe to fly.
It's not even that hard to get a commercial license. Study, take a few practice tests online, go down to an FAA testing center and sit for the exam. There's a fee, which should arguably be lower, but for Pete's sake, these are exceptionally reasonable requirements.
It's not oppression. It's just safety.
why did they do something as stupid as treating drones and planes equally?
Why does the FCC regulate micropower AM/FM stations? Why does the DOT regulate home-built cars?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
there goes my potato gun and water rocket!
4wdloop
> But most of the current furor over abuse and privacy and safety are about precisely the "second" set of drones you mention. In common usage, those are what most people mean by drones, and they are what will be affected most strongly by removing section 336
I suspect most of the fear and furor is from confusing the second set, toys, with the third set, large commercial vehicles ala Amazon. If people are seriously worried about their safety from other people playing with toys, they are not well informed about the topic. I have the most common "large" size quadcopter, same size as the DJI Phantom, and I've grabbed it by the rotor while it was flying. Didn't hurt. The plastic props arw *designed* to not cause injury. The prop on my model plane did hurt. Not enough to cause lasting injury, but a bandaid was appropriate. The "drone" prop didn't merit a band-aid.
If you're concerned about YOU getting injured because I play with a toy, I invite you to come check it out and see what it's like. I suspect you'll be particularly surprised how light it is. The physics of flight are a bit complicated, but all kinds of flight equations end up with the same conclusion - the lighter the better for flight, and very much so. I'll also invite you to feel the nylon props and I think you'll be surprised how soft they are - a bit harder than a pencil eraser.
As it happens, other government agencies are pretty picky about the safety of toys. Toys aren't supposed to injure the people using them, so anyone who isn't even touching the toy is pretty darn safe. Someone riding a bike is much more likely to hurt you - bikes are much, much heavier, and made of metal. Model aircraft are made of plastic and foam.
... , a non-profit association dedicated to supporting enterprise use of Unmanned Aerial Systems ...
Is that like a special interest group for "for-profits", kinda like lobbyists or a PACs or stuff?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
... is going after our guns.
Where's the NRA when you need them and stuff?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
First of all, the DOT does not regulate home-built cars. I'm not sure where you got this bad information, but I'm not surprised, considering the quality of most of your assertions.
Second, "regulate" is not the same as "treat as equals". But thanks for setting up those two dopey strawmen for me to set afire.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Every idiot quadcopter pilot who flies with no thought of safety, regulations, noise, privacy, or common sense. That would be well over a third of them, possibly over half.
Why is Snark Required?
You can (legally, in the US) buy an ultralight aircraft and fly it in some areas without any sort of training or licensure. Look up Part 103 ultralight.
Hopefully this will shutdown the continual denials about drones being dangerous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0
But paramotor pilots have eyeballs to see and avoid other aircraft. At least they do until they encounter a pissed off and highly territorial eagle or hawk and have their face ripped off, or just have their day ruined
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
FAA is going nuts, the language would require registration for simple balsa rubber band powered plane.
(1) Drones must be automatically altitude-controlled (so that they can't get into airplane airspaces)
(2a) Drones must send out beacons that airplanes, and other drones, can detect. The beacons would be able to convey their lat/long and bearing (once interrogated, and that only when they are close enough to matter).
(2b) Or drones are able to pick up airplane traffic and automatically refuse to go near planes.
TCAS has no dependency on ADS-B. TCAS depends on other aircraft having mode C, and is itself built on mode S, which is just a digital enhancement to mode C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
TCAS basically direction finds and ranges mode C broadcasts. TCAS antennas have multiple elements, thus multiple antenna cables, to allow the timed reception and calculation to determine range and direction.
ADS-B, once fully implemented, will mostly obsolete TCAS, as ADS-B has an integrated WAAS GPS source and broadcasts identity, location, and heading info. ADS-B transponders that both listen and transmit can provide proximity alerts and display relative positions and headings of other aircraft.
I say mostly because the ADS-B protocol is not secure, so bad actors can spoof being somewhere and/or someone they aren't. This could and would be detected, and, ah -eliminated with prejudice- rather quickly once deteced - i.e. in the range of a ground radar station (which is now most everywhere), but it would be very annoying none the less.
If you are really bored, you can buy a $10 usb TV tuner, now marketed as a 'software defined radio'. You can then run a program called dump1090, which will directly receive the 1090 MHz transmissions of aircraft transponders in the area. You can then plot these aircraft on a map (if they are broadcasting ADS-B), and see what commercial or civilian aircraft are flying in your area.
Flightradar24 would like you to send them the data you collect, which they will then display for the world to see:
https://www.flightradar24.com/...
Politicians and hoity-toity folks who think they are special can request that the FAA not pass on tracking data to folks like Flightaware and Flightradar24.
If you receive the transmissions directly from nearby planes, you can track whoever you damn well please, because the only way to prevent it would be for the airplane to turn off it's transponder, which is illegal :) Except for non-civilian aircraft. They have alien technology :-p
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Good job reading Wikipedia, bro. I stand by my previous comment. ADS-B will never be fully implemented. According to FAA ADS-B Out (transmission only) is *supposed to be* mandatory on all American aircraft of all sizes by 2020 but they are so far behind on implementation it's not even funny. ADS-B In (reception) is only required for ground stations and aircraft fitted with TCAS.
Planes are already safer than cars so the rational argument is in favor of no regulation outside of there being statistically significant evidence showing a substantial increase in deaths from drones.
For people freaking out there is ALREADY liability in the United States for those behaving stupidity and injuring others and acting as though this is a serious problem does nothing other than add to the fodder that enables the state to continue to infringe on everyone's basic human rights and freedoms.
The people screaming safety here are part of the 'think of the children' nanny state problem we have seen growing in Europe and the United States. We need to stop with the burdensome and expensive regulations based on irrational illogical arguments over "safety". Life has risks and at some point safety precautions actually have the opposite impact due to increasing regulations putting peoples lives in danger either from increased and unsafe policing practices (ie more people on the side of the road is a danger) to the harm done from increased safety equipment (increased pollution resulting in deaths for only a small increase in safety- if any).
I moved to NH because the world has increasingly become a totalitarian nanny state. I don't want to live some place where the government murders people (ie conservative states like Texas) or incarcerates people where there are no victims (California, NJ, NY, MA, etc). I'm not a conservative, socialist, republican, or democrat, but see the harm from the laws implemented from people with these political perspectives.
The reason I moved to NH was the Free State Project. I see no way of fixing the world, but think there is still hope for undermining further harmful regulations and government over-reach if enough people recognize the harms and care enough to migrate to one region. Most of us have assumed a need for and accepted ideas that we need laws and regulations for safety reasons which is certainly true in very particular circumstances like with serious environmental abuses, but not most everyday life situations. Part of this is because we have grown up with licensing laws (frequently a barrier to entry rather than an issue of safety) of all sorts and safety laws that infringe on our freedoms. We assume that the world has gotten substantially safer. In some respects it has, but how much of that can be attributed to over-bearing laws is negligible relative to the freedoms we have lost in the process. A nanny state puts the burden of stupidity on society rather than where it belongs with the individual. If you eliminate the nanny state you end eliminating the arguments for regulating things like smoking, guns, alcohol, and similar. This is because the liability is now on oneself or otherwise the person injuring.
We need to get rid of drivers license, license plates, and other taxation schemes. Not burden people with increasing costs that do more harm than good. There are alternative solutions to genuine problems like theft that don't involve government at all like GPS tracking devices, etc. You don't need registration, insurance, a drivers license, or a license plate to solve these problems. You do need to hold people liable for damage they cause. You do need to take reasonable steps to secure your property. You do need to make sure you have some level of protection either financial or insurance (or peril at your own risk). NH already doesn't mandate insurance as an example and has very low insurance premiums and high rates of voluntarily insured vehicles.
Drivers license were never about safety and even in the late 1960s some US states didn't have ANY testing requirements to obtain a drivers license. Drivers licenses were created out of bigotry toward motor vehicle operators in the days of wagons and horses. Emotional sorts like to make up excuses around safety and produce FUD about why we need a big overbearing government. But the reality is we don't. People who take responsibility for themselves already will not be impacted by a smaller governme
(a) Parents raise irresponsible schmucks who abuse every tech with no regard for the risk/harm to others.
(b) The education system re-aligns to teach people that the job of government is to protect people from all risk of harm.
(c) The stupid and irresponsible do stupid and irresponsible things, generating headlines (breathlessly reported by the 24-hour news media as LIFE THREATENING dangers, for better ratings)
(d) Desperate politicians, eager to be re-elected and therefore afraid to point at the public and tell them they need to be more responsible, instead point at THINGS and demand the bureaucracy produce more rules (not laws for which the elected politicians would have some accountability) to limit the THINGS.
(e) Average people sheepishly sit back and say nothing because they do not want to get involved and their lives are already too frantic as they run their own lives, care for their kids, and care for their elderly parents.
Problems with murders involving guns? The problem: clearly guns. The solution: "common sense gun control" and less privacy
Problems with opiod addicts dying? The problem: obviously drug makers and their pills. The solution: further restrictions on prescriptions and less privacy.
Problems with airspace conflicts? The problem: obviously "drones". The Solution: new rules for all drones and model planes.
In every instance, normal decent responsible people are futher inconvenienced and lose more of their freedoms because a handful of morons are being irresponsible and the people in authority refuse to crack down on the bad players, which would allow normal people to remain free. A few decades ago, American kids all around the country took guns and/or knives to school (the guns becuuse they were going hunting after school or were in gun clubs AT SCHOOL, and the knives because most American boys had pocket knives or utility knives). There were no mass shootings in the schools then, nor were kids getting stabbed/slashed. Now we have schools that call the police when a kid chews a piece of toast into the shape of a gun.
So, new SOPs on DOAs from the FAA?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Hey bro, I didn't read any of that wiki article except the title and first two sentences. I glanced at some of the pretty pictures though. Dealing with aircraft systems like ADS-B was my day job once upon a time, so I just dug around in my brain for most of it, thus it's rambling and disjointed nature :-p
I have ADS-B in and out in a plane that I fly as often as I can, and I did a fair amount of the physical install, and worked with a repair station to make it all legal, a few years ago. I think I was one of the first IFR certified ADS-B installs in my state. I chased down the first air to air contact I saw on my first flight with ADS-B. That was a bad idea, turned out to be a Blackhawk helicopter. Up close, they look like flying anger, and they can fly sideways and look at you with intensity.
ADS-B adoption rates are increasing as my cockpit display is getting gradually more cluttered, and the FAA is likely to simply ground airplanes that don't comply, which I would support. I can see temporary exemptions being issued on a case by case basis. ADS-B brings too much capability to the table, both for pilots and for controllers, to put off any longer. Also, prices are coming down, and the FAA is likely to re-introduce some financial incentives and rebates. Check out the NGT-9000, it's sweet! And for not much more than the price of two new Continental O-470 cylinders, you can have one installed! The install really is easy. The hardest part is tying in to the encoder, so if you haven't already, it's best to upgrade to a serial output encoder. Encoders are cheap, under a kilobuck, below a standard aviation monetary unit! Not many devices going forward are going to keep supporting binary gray code, or so I've been led to believe.
Sparc up dump1090 on a linux laptop or pi and watch all the stuff flying near you that has ADS-B. Now, if you are in BFE small town, you'll mostly just see airlines and business jets going overhead, but you'll catch a bug smasher now and then. A pi and USB SDR will also receive FIS-B weather very nicely, and send it to your cell phone or tablet via wifi or bluetooth or something. Never tried it, too much cockpit clutter for me. I saw folks at Oshkosh 3D printing cases for a pi, usb sdr and battery for cockpit use one year. Kids and their toys :)
Similar levels of bitching were encountered when the mode C mandate was issued about the time my existence first became multi-cellular. The world didn't end, and aviation adopted mode C.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
I was just getting into rc planes, flew FPV a few times. Loved it.
Did ground school. Glasses prevent me from getting a real license. Was a fun hobby for a week...
So what is the situation in the US with vehicle testing?
In most countries vehicles need to have periodic checks to make sure they are safe and meet emissions standards. If you don't want to get the test done you can only drive on private roads, not public ones. Self built cars are the same, if you want to drive on public roads you have to pass the test.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A long time ago, the courts ruled that land ownership includes the use of a limited amount of the air above it necessary to enjoy the land.
Not sure why drone technology would change the basic logic of how rights transition from ground to air.
The case involved raising chickens under the end of a runway.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/
Seems like the FAA would have a hard time saying much about model airplanes over their own land, under 400 feet.
Hopefully, they are smart enough not to try.
But above 400 feet, and near airports, I would expect FAA certifications and operating rules to be what happens.
It fits with 'We are not happy till you are not happy', but it also is probably the only thing that will work.
The interesting question is below 400 feet over other folks property and public property?
Maybe not DOT in the Federal sense, but the EPA and state DOTs/DMVs (or whatever they're called) certainly can and do regulate kit cars.
Your ad homeninargument is fundamentally flawed, but thus is the same FAA that's trying to deregulate private aircraft, so your more fundamental argument is also retarded. As for unwashed, I'm an airline transport pilot, and lay month we missed one at about 3000' AGL over a national forest. It was close enough that my coolly could count the rotors. Asshats with toys have already demonstrated that they're a menace.
The DOT doesn't regulate home built cars if you never take them on to public roads, but take it on to public roads, and you have to register it. Try registering something that hasn't been certified. There's a reason why kit cars are typically built on pre-existing frames.
then only Oulaws will have Drones.
Patchwork, many states do emissions testing, few do safety inspections on personally owned cars. Busses and trucks are/maybe different. Anyways its all run by the states. Nerbaska for example has neither emissions or safety inspections.
The FAA will not ground any planes, short of commercial airliners, without ADS-B. The ADS-B requirement only applies in class A, B, and C airspace, the vast majority of airspace under 18,000 feet in the US is class D, E, and G.
A bit of financial reality for you, an ADS-B install is a LOT of money to most people. It's not a casual drop in the bucket as you seem privileged enough to believe. A $5,000 ADS-B unit plus install is a third to a half of the entire worth of most of my friends planes. Spending $10K on a plane that can be purchased for $20-30K is financially idiotic. It doesn't add much value to the plane on the resale market, it's just a penalty, one most won't pay just to land at Charlie airports and get in the vicinity of Bravo airports (although if you don't have an engine driven electrical system (as the plane I'm building won't), you can still fly underneath class Bravo airspace.) The mode C switchover didn't even come close in price to aircraft value ratio.
And you can kindly fuck off for supporting grounding planes without ADS-B. It's my airspace too, and I have zero desire for ADS-B tracking.
Depends on the state you live in, and what rules they have for inspections.
It ranges from very strict and PITA in like say, California, to other states where they have no inspection requirements at all.
I live in LA now...and they do have annual inspections, but it is really nothing more than a revenue generator, they don't really inspect much, just see if your horn works, lights work, windshield wipers, etc.
I've never lived in a state that requires any type of emissions testing tho...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People will die accidentally, as a result of drones.
People will die intentionally, as a result of drones.
No amount of training or regulation will solve the problem.
No benefit from drones is worth it. Except maybe defense against other drones.
A simple solution is to require all drones to have hardware such that they will self-destruct within 500' of any other airplane. Problem solved.
So what is the situation in the US with vehicle testing?
Citizens of the USA are permitted to register one (1) custom-built vehicle for use on public roads. It has to have some basic equipment and it has to pass a basic visual inspection, and it smogs (where smog testing is required) as the engine donor. If you initially power it with a pre-smog engine, then you never need to do another emissions test, even in California. Each state's specific rules for the inspection vary; California's are focused on emissions, not safety. Vehicles to be operated on a public road have to have (among other things) a metal floor pan and a glass windscreen.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The earlier initiative to register drones and pilots doesn't sound so bad now.
So shooting down noisy 747s and scum-eye peeking backyard drone are equally legit ? I admit blasting away at AMAZON quadper delivery sounds like fun ... skeet-with-leet ! But, do you really want to AA a Federal Express cargo-jet delivering fresh mangos from Costa Rico ? Hardly seems like "faire chase" .
That video is amazing!
-=Lothsahn=-
It's a local issue. Not Department of Transportation.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The California inspection requirements are far less of a hassle (and less expensive) than the Texas ones.
You are welcome on my lawn.
VFR guys, lol
You don't register your vehicle with the Department of Transportation. You register it with the state you live in. It's not a federal issue.
Maybe your confusion comes from the fact that states have their own little departments of transportation, but that's not what we're talking about here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You were _born_ ATP?
You do realize that the very fastest in country, competing in the unlimited class, are by definition highly unusual, right?
The average hobbiest runner runs about 8 MPH. The average person slower than that. Usain Bolt goes 28 MPH. Pretending that world record numbers are typical would be pretty silly.
But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? LynwoodRooster referenced a series of things: FAA, FCC, DOT. All of which are federal.
States can do what they want. when it comes to regulating home-built cars, whereas federal regulations govern aviation and communications.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey bro, I understand your frustration. Aviation is expensive, especially as a hobby, and nobody likes Uncle Sam breathing down their neck.
And I hate to break it to you, but ADS-B is also required in class E airspace at various altitudes depending on where you are: FAA Nextgen info. These requirements are subject to change, and we all know the FAA regulatory process is pretty much one way, unless congress gets involved. The FAA grounds planes all the time. Every time an FAA licensed IA mechanic inspects an airplane and determines that the airplane isn't airworthy (like, not having required equipment), it's grounded until it's fixed. And don't think you'll be able to squeak through some airspace undetected. If you knew the capabilities available to track and assign target IDs to anything moving, in the air or on the ground, being tracked by ADS-B would be the least of your worries.
There are much cheaper options for ADS-B than a $5000 radio. However, some use your existing mode C transponder or require an external GPS source, so they have a bit of extra complexity and will be a bit more expensive to install and maintain.
These cheaper options are not more expensive than the mode C mandate was years ago due to inflation. $500 in 1960 is equivalent to over $4000 today. $500 in 1970 is equivalent to over $3000 today: Inflation calculator
And sadly, your $20,000 dollar airplane has a $20,000 engine. It's going to need to be rebuilt or replaced eventually, and your friends will only be able to kick the can down the road for so long by replacing a valve or cylinder here and there. Also, your exhaust components don't last beyond a thousand hours or so, so you'll need new stainless steel exhaust parts. And that muffler! You inspect that flame tube frequently, right? No cracks, hasn't broken off and fallen out, right? Mufflers only last a few hundred hours, and they are around $500 to replace. And those aging Marvel Shebler carburetors, not cheap!
The point is that if you or your friends can't afford to drop $1k every now and then (an aviation standard monetary unit), once or twice a year on maintenance and safety items, then you should probably pick a different hobby. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't terribly different than a nice -ish car that is out of warranty. Timing belts and clutches add up.
And as for ADS-B allowing the FAA to track everything about who, what, and where you go when you fly: yep, it's kinda creepy. And have you seen what it takes to sign up a new student for flight training?! They almost strip-search new students to prove they are US Citizens or are here legally and have a good reason to learn to fly. 911 changed things bro, in a big way.
I do not wish planes to be grounded or pilots to not fly as any form of elitism. In fact, I am rather fond of folks flying anything, even drones and quadcopters, as more people responsibly participating in aviation is a good thing.
And lastly, I am not going to return your ill sentiment, but I will tell you this: you do not have any more of a right to fly or occupy an airspace than you have the right to drive. Flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Violate that privilege and you'll hurt someone and/or go to jail. And please don't be one of the pilots described in A Darker
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
You're an idiot. ALL vehicles on the road must conform to all FMVSS regulations - and the FMVSS is overseen by the NHTSA, which is part of the DOT. Lights, brake pedal location, turn signal lever, wiper blades, bumper heights - all are regulated by the DOT via the FMVSS.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Try to get a license plate without passing FMVSS regulations. Then go talk to the DOT about how you can get past the FMVSS regulations. Good luck.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I say mostly because the ADS-B protocol is not secure, so bad actors can spoof being somewhere and/or someone they aren't. This could and would be detected, and, ah -eliminated with prejudice- rather quickly once deteced - i.e. in the range of a ground radar station (which is now most everywhere), but it would be very annoying none the less.
This can be mitigated to a certain extent by Multilateration (MLAT): use multiple antennas to figure the position of the signal being broadcast. If the data in the broadcast claims the aircraft is in front of you, but the signal was broadcast behind you, then a filter can be applied to (e.g.) ignore it.
* https://flightaware.com/adsb/mlat/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateration
* http://www.multilateration.com/surveillance/multilateration.html
* http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/on-board-operational-initiatives-mlat.aspx
Home-built cars are not subject to FMVSS regulations.
Are you just going to keep throwing bullshit up against the wall hoping nobody will notice?
You are welcome on my lawn.
We get it. You get a woman pregnant, she had a kid and you failed as a man to provide that kid. Failed so badly that the government stepped in and said, we aren't paying for your kid when you be doing so. Then you skipped town to live with other angry men and rant against "the gubbermint".
If you don't want to pay child support, keep it in your pants. Abstinence is 100% effective for men. Women get raped and pregnant once in a while, but hey, they should have poured their own drink/not worn such a sexy overcoat or whatever. If you don't put your dick in a woman, she can't get a court to force you to pay for it afterwards.
Finally consider this if the only woman that would sleep with you is a greedy harlot that wants cash, maybe you are the problem.
No, dumbshit. As long as you're not making them to sell, you do not need to conform to all FMVSS regulations to get a car licensed and use it on the roads, and you don't need to conform to NHTSA regulations either (in case that was going to be your next bogus claim).
Here in California, where dune buggies and crazy home-brew cars rule, the process is easy and does not require anything from the federal government. Yes, you have to have brakes. Yes, you have to have a horn. Yes, you have to have lights. All of the regs are local. None have anything to do with the federal government.
Now will you please just take the "L" on this and move on? Try to hang on to some shred of dignity, man.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
https://autoweek.com/article/c...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Only one per person? That's interesting.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Good luck setting headlights at the wrong height. Or using blue for your tail lights. Or not having wipers. You've never built a custom car, have you?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Bzzt. Go ahead, don't put headlights, brake lights, a windshield, or bumpers on your car. Sure you MIGHT NOT get a ticket - but it's illegal. And the Federal Government has the same power to determine that, that it has for the FCC to regulate your pirate radio station. Or who can fly objects in the air.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I have a Baja Bug.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes, you stupid sonofabitch, but not because of federal law or regulation. All of those things are required by state law. "DOT" doesn't have any goddamn thing to do with it.
Federal law (or regulation) doesn't say anything at all about a home-built car. Nothing. No federal law or regulation applies. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH? The federal laws regarding cars don't kick in until you build cars for sale, and even then, only when you build and sell more than 325 cars.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That a well trained militia would use...and they _are_ in common use....just look at Syria!
I don't think that's true. Since I built my Baja bug, I've gotten to know a lot of knowledgeable guys at the custom shop and I've never heard them mention a one-per-customer rule.
In fact, there is a guy on the next street over that has a dune buggy and a giant trike and they both have license plates and he built them both.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Great info, thanks!
I thought this kind of technique required synchronized clock signals, but I guess GPS time is good enough!
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
If you receive the transmissions directly from nearby planes, you can track whoever you damn well please, because the only way to prevent it would be for the airplane to turn off it's transponder, which is illegal
Nit: Except that not all aircraft are required to have transponders. Here's info from the AOPA...
Exemptions
Aircraft not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or subsequently have not been certified with such a system installed, balloons, or gliders may conduct operations:
In the airspace within 30 nautical miles of the listed airports as long as operations are conducted:
Outside of Class A, B, and C airspace.
Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport, or 10,000 feet msl, whichever is lower.
Above 10,000 feet msl (excluding airspace above the lateral limits of Class B and C airspace).
Just another day in Paradise
When did CA stop requiring emissions testing? I sold my '78 Trans Am there in 1979, and had to get emissions tested.
Just another day in Paradise
Not interested in who's right here, but came across a related article...
https://www.caranddriver.com/n...
Just another day in Paradise
I believe CA always does emissions testing.
I live in LA (Louisiana) and no emissions testing here.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm not your bro.
You're not breaking anything to me here. I didn't bother to list every exception, so class E over 10Kfeet MSL if over 2500 feet AGL is not news to me, just not worth including for this discussion.
It helps reading the entire sentence before replying. I know the FAA grounds planes. That's why I said "The FAA will not ground any planes, short of commercial airliners, without ADS-B." In the context of the discussion, the "without ADS-B" at the end is quite important. Sorry for not listing every single reason the FAA might ground a plane to show you that lack of ADS-B is not on the list.
Mode C transponders could be bought for much less than $500 in 1960. A brand new Cessna 150 was $8,000.
My $10,000 airplane has a $3,000 engine. Experimental Amateur Built completions per year is about equal to new small plane sales per year. There will not be an ADS-B system on my plane.
There's a big difference between dropping $1,000 per year to keep your plane running and $10K on an ADS-B install, especially since the ADS-B isn't needed for you to legally fly. And you are just proving that you ARE elitist with this last post. You stated you want pilots grounded for not installing ADS-B. You are NOT the arbiter of what is safe and what it not. It is perfectly legal and safe to fly without ADS-B after 2020. Those who can't afford to install it are still welcome in the aviation community, despite your over-inflated opinion.
Thanks for painting me as a rogue pilot because I don't want every single move I make in a plane tracked and identified as me. We might as well call everyone who doesn't install an insurance tracker in their car as a rogue driver, too.
Another fuck off for assuming since I don't want to be tracked, that I'm some sort of troublemaker pilot. You're really giving pilots a bad name here.
A very valid nit. I always forget about those guys, but I have encountered one in congested airspace outside KOSH during the air show. They're ghosts.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Also, and I'm sure they've improved since my flying days, but back then (87- 1991 when my kid was born and I gave it up), transponders in the Cessnas I flew didn't work so great. Flying in Korea, at ~1800ft on my first solo cross country, with flight following, I had a close call with an A10. I got on the radio and gave ATC hell, and was told, well, you're flying kinda low and hard to see...seriously?!?
Just another day in Paradise