Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Proposes Rules Allowing Drones To Operate At Night, Over Populated Areas (reuters.com)
The Trump administration is proposing rules that would allow drones to operate over popular areas and end a requirement for special permits for night use. The goal is to "help speed commercial use of small unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States," reports Reuters. From the report: The proposals, drafted by the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Transportation Department, come amid concerns about dangers that drones potentially pose to aircraft and populated areas. The FAA said that in developing the proposals its challenge was to "balance the need to mitigate the risk small unmanned aircraft pose to other aircraft and to people and property on the ground without inhibiting innovation." The FAA is proposing ending requirements that drone operators get waivers to operate at night. Through 2017, the FAA granted 1,233 waivers and "has not received any reports of (drone) accidents," it said. The FAA would require that drones have "an anti-collision light illuminated and visible for at least three statute miles," as well as testing and training.
Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."
Under the FAA's proposals, operators would be able to fly small unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 pounds (0.25 kg) or less over populated areas without any additional restrictions. For drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds, however, a manufacturer would need to demonstrate that if an "unmanned aircraft crashed into a person, the resulting injury would be below a certain severity threshold." Those larger drones could not have exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin and could not operate over people if they have any safety defects, the FAA said. The FAA would prohibit operations of the largest drones over any open-air assembly of people. The report also mentions that the FAA is "proposing allowing discretionary waivers for operations over moving vehicles, for operations over people that would not otherwise meet the standards outlined in its proposal, and for those that do not meet its anti-collision lighting requirement."
People are going love that racket buzzing over their houses all night long...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Non-competes are pretty much DOA in California, regardless of the state they were signed in.
I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
Currently, probably not much of an issue. But it brings to mind the Electric Scooter and Bicycle Rental debacles, where the companies attempted to rapidly permeate the urban walkspace. If you have ever flown at night ( or navigated a boat ) at night, the presence of an exponentially expanding sea of randomly moving lights will gradually deteriorate situational awareness - it is very very difficult to estimate distance and closure rate of point sources of light at night ( See Norwegian frigate collision ).
They need to figure out what that density is, and then work backwards from there, or and / or establish flight path corridors. Then they can hold something like spectrum auctions if there is some upper limit.
At this point, Trump is just trying to fuck as much shit up as possible before he's exfiltrated back to Russia in a submarine and lives out his life in a dacha paid for by his sponsors.
You just pitched Season 7 of The Americans ... Well done tovarich.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How the plan was conceived:
(Think of the old Guinness commercials, with two old time guys talking to each other):
Guinness guy #1: "Almost all the problems between planes and drones have been when drones are SEEN in the vicinity of aircraft or airports."
Guinness guy #2: "Correct."
#1: "Yes, and drones are much HARDER TO SEE at night."
#2: "Again, correct."
#1: "So we'll fly drones at night. The planes and airports won't be able to see them, so there will NO LONGER be problems between planes and drones."
#2: "BRILLIANT!!"
Tens of millions of people in the U.S. drive automobiles and other vehicles every day. The potential for accidents, even fatal ones, is omnipresent. Operators must take driver education courses; they must be licensed; they must carry insurance; there are criminal penalties for reckless operation. Plus, there are rules: signs, designated lanes, speed limits, etc. Why should aerial drone operations be any different? Too many people are losing their fricking minds over the prospect of a sky filled with purposeful drones when that's exactly what we have on the ground, already. The technology is new but it's not the problem; the problem is how we humans determine its most beneficial use and, in the case of aerial drones, that requires regulation similar to that governing the operation of automobiles.
There are currently no drones on the market below the .55 pound limit that are serviceable for any sort of commercial use. The lightest drone capable of anything meaningful is the DJI Spark, which weights 10 ounces or 300 grams, 50 over the 250 gram limit. I'm sure DJI could produce a lighter drone to sneak under the limit, but they already had to sacrifice a lot of functionality (short flight time, only 2 axis gimbal, limited obstacle avoidance cameras) to get the Spark to 300 grams.
The important bit here is how many manufacturers work with the FAA to get drones above 250 grams certified.
FAA bureaucrats should be at home during a government "shutdown".
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
If Trump is putting forth an idea like this then he's clearly and objectively a traitor working for Russia to destabilize the United States. Having drones flying all over the place at night will for sure start a civil war.
This allow innovative services to try out great new drone ideas.
Remove federal laws and make the USA great again.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That was funny. +1 for the humor.
I noticed it is nighttime in the US. If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night. You'd also see about 100 times as many planes as you can see during the day. In a few hours, you'll be able to see the International Space Station.
You may have noticed in the summary they are required to be clearly visible from at least 3 miles, minimum. During the day, my drone is visible out to about 300-400 meters, or 0.25 miles max. So at minimum it's required to be visible at 12 times the distance it's visible during the day.
If you're not sure I'm right, go get yourself a milk jug or something and try looking at it from a mile away. Then at night glance around and notice you can clearly see the lights on the antenna tower 10 miles away. My friends and I discovered a Bic lighter is visible at almost a mile at night. We used that to show our position while camping in the mountains.
Yes, but in the most awesome way possible. Also, don't hate me because you ain't me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I accidentally wrote:
---
It's night time in the US.
If you were to go outside and look at the sky, you would see things that are millions of miles away. You can't see them at night.
---
That should of course be:
You can't see them DURING THE DAY.
Even fairly dim lights are visible at great distances at night, as long as it's above the horizon. They are visible at far greater distances than the same objects during the day.
The TFA starts:
The Trump administration on Monday proposed rules that would allow drones ...
This immediately primes a bunch of people to look for fault with the rules, and another bunch of people to ignore any possible faults with the rules. Why not say "The FAA on Monday ..."?
Is this something driven by political office holders/appointees, or is it just the FAA doing its job and modernizing its rules as best it can? Technically anything federal government does can be attributed to the Trump administration, but it is misleading to make this attribution unless the action was directed by someone at the Whitehouse.
The TFA does say
In 2017, President Donald Trump launched a program to expand testing of drones in what the White House said would “open the skies for delivery of life-saving medicines and commercial packages (and) inspections of critical infrastructure.”
This is some justification for bringing the administration into it, but without more information I'm left wondering how much influence this program had on the proposed rules. Does anyone have information to show a connection?
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
So many opportunities for terrorists, so little time.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
This sounds like a reasonably well-thought out idea. Kudos to the current administration for drafting an intelligent idea.
It probably won't go anywhere. GOP presidents tend to do this. Pull a bunch of dumb crap and then they wonder why they lack the mojo to implement something intelligent.
Bush junior did this. One grudge war, re-introduced torture into our society, one irresponsible tax cut, VP shotgunned people in the face (wish I was kidding). At one point, a very large contingent of justice department officials nearly resigned en-mass just to make a point. Opened Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc. etc. After 6 years of crap, he tried to push a thoughtful, moderate, balanced, reasonable fair immigration bill and by then people were barely even paying attention to him.
Trump following same pattern. So much fecal matter spewing out of his mouth I can't even begin to list it. When his admin proposes something thoughtful, it's gonna get lost in the massive fart smell emanating from the administration.
what is the definition on night in this proposal?
Because we are afraid of drones flying ANY time NEAR people and/or in populated areas because of the inherent danger they pose WHEN they fail. It is a guarantee that some WILL fail and we will get hurt. It is also because of the noise, light, and visual pollution that will result. Amazon wants to put a drone port near us. That means thousands of drones per hour taking off and landing near us with a large portion of them flying over our home. I hate rush hour traffic. Why would I want to encourage rush our flight corridors above/near my home or place of being?
Greedy people seem to very easily dismiss the massive destruction of our peaceful existence just so they can get their swarms of drones in the air and then fire the guys and gals on the ground the drones are replacing.
In my opinion it is a good initiative. Franky, I think Donald Trump is an old man, who is far from perfect. Still he is much better than those professional politicians, who surf on the populist hysteria. Including the one about the civil RPAS (UAVs).
The deaths happen mostly on the overcrowded roads, and the aerial deliveries can potentially free the roads. Not only in a city but also between cities.
Spying in your widows at your wife or you children... all night every night.
Yeah, I saw that South Park episode, too. It's also total bullshit, because just about every consumer drone has a similar wide-angle lens like what you'd find on a smartphone.
I've personally tried "spying" on my cat with my DJI Spark. I flew it as close to the window as the anti-collision system would allow, and on the video feed you could sort-of make out that there was in fact, a cat sitting on the window ledge. So yeah, if you're pressing your bare ass against the window glass and don't notice some extremely loud buzzing coming from outside, someone could be spying on you with a drone.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
...in Gotham City. You really think those climbs are manned? And not once has the Joker been able to hack'em.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
have enough battery power to power a light visible 3 miles away.
It doesn't; the TFA is poorly written. The night flying applies to drones that can weigh up to just under 55lbs. That's more than enough weight to carry some beefy lighting and a battery to run it.
The 0.55lb weight limit is for flying over people, which is actually more restrictive than the previous laws (which considered anything under 0.55lbs to be a toy and outside of the FAA's jurisdiction). Under the previous law, if you flew a Ryze Tello (for example) over people, it was perfectly legal because the FAA did not consider it to be a drone. Toy drones weren't a free pass to fly wherever you like, though - local ordinances can still ban you from operating a remote controlled flying anything, while standing on their land.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Came to see formerly libertarian Slashdot mainly grouse at some level of sensible freedom being restored - was disappointed but not surprised
If I took the hamburger you're eating, crapped on it, and then wiped off most of the crap before giving it back to you, would you believe I'm doing you a favor?
That's more or less what happened here. Under the previous (before 45's administration screwed with it) FAA rules, a hobbyist could legally fly at night. People argued (on drone forums) incessantly over whether or not it was actually legal, but the FAA never took any action to indicate they gave a rat's ass if someone flew their Phantom around in the moonlight.
Also under the previous FAA rules, anything 0.55lbs was considered a toy, not an aircraft. Barring any local regulations against it (like public parks that ban consumption of alcohol), it was perfectly legal to fly a toy above people. Also, barring any regulations against unlawful discharge of a firearm, you could legally shoot them down, too. Now, for some bizarre reason, the FAA wants to regulate God damn toys.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
1) Don't be absurd. Of course there are consequences to the drone operator in the event of a collision: Damage to the drone and legal liability for any damage they cause. The pilot's life isn't at risk in a collision, but this seems like a benefit and
2) Yes, the vast majority of drones won't be piloted at all, and those that will be will be piloted at a very high level. This seems like a great way to reduce collisions. The current standard in consumer camera drones are quite hard to crash because of advances in the control systems. I wouldn't have any reservation about putting my camera drone under the control of a 10 year old, other than the legality of doing so.
I'm honestly surprised at the response here. If there is a community that would be able to see the benefit of UAVs, I'd expect it to be here on Slashdot. Instead, it's just rampant paranoia. WTF?
... until someone hangs Claymores on 'em and sends 'em into a crowd.
You'll have the Secret Service knocking on your door in about 3, 2, 1...
Perfect. Then they can finally explain why it's ok for Trump to call on "the Second Amendment people" to stop Hillary.
I am not suggesting anyone #ASSASSINATE Trump. I am merely indicating that I am shocked it hasn't happened yet.
Who says it's ok? I certainly don't. If we had a Senate with a modicum of ethics, he'd have been checked a long time ago. But as long as we have Mitch running the Senate, nothing will get done unless Mitch's sponsors approve.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
These are toys that can pose a deadly risk to innocent people and property.
You do realize we're talking about drones that weigh less than 250 grams? For comparison, a regulation basketball weighs approx. 623 grams, and a soccer ball weighs approx. 420 grams.
Even the bigger, heavier, flying-meat-slicer drones haven't managed to kill anyone yet - your "deadly" claim is pure hyperbole. A sub-250g drone is something like the Ryze Tello. You have to see it in real life to truly appreciate how tiny it is. The worst "crashing" one of those into a person will do is maybe get it tangled in their hair (if they have long hair).
As to your claim that these things didn't exist during the prior administration, you've obviously never walked past the toy section of Walmart during the Holidays. Lightweight toy drones which did not require FAA registration have been available for several years.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
I actually meant to say yards instead of feet... look at this thread for example. Even if you managed to hit a drone, most drone bodies seems like they are flexible or tough enough plastic shells that it wouldn't really see any damage past 40 yards, clay shatters but I could see propeller blades just bending some under the partial hit from birdshot pellets that had spread out by that range (drone blades can take more than you would think as you can see in this video..
Check out this video of people trying to shoot down a drone with specially modified shotgun shells meant to take out drones - 3-5 shots at 70 ft. They work by using netting, more effective than birdshot...
Most drones people would be flying would be spending time a few hundred feet up at least. Maybe you could get it during the landing phase where the operator is trying to land it gently. But then if you are there, why not just shoot the operator if it's bothering you so much...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley