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?
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
The only thing that should be banned is the use of the word "sharing" when it comes to all of this sort of stuff. I'm paying you for a ride, or for a place to sleep. You're not "sharing" it with me! More hipster word-erosion.
Let me guess. You're one of the people who likes to stare at your full-brightness-enabled phone during movies and other performances, without bothering to think that it's as much or more the other paying customers you're pissing off, not the performing artist(s). Has it occurred to you that the person on stage might be wanting their paying customers to be able to enjoy the performance without people like you wrecking everyone's dark-adjusted vision and providing a bright visual distraction that, because of perspective, is larger than the person on the stage that everyone's just spent a bunch of money to see? I know, you really just don't care, because it's all about you. I wonder if there's anything the person sitting in front of YOU might be able to do that would make you wish they'd stop? Maybe, shining a flashlight in your face the whole time? Or is that, like, so cool, man!
Straight democracy on matters of law are usually a disaster. Which is why we have a constitutional republic, at the federal level, to prevent that crap from happening.
The fundamental point is precisely that because money is speech, people can out speak other people even if they don't at all represent what those in a democracy want.
So that's what explains the fact that Hillary wildly outspending Bernie equates to his being wildly behind her in actual votes, right? Hmmm, not the case. Or the fact that the people who spent wildly more than Trump on their campaigns got the power of their party's nod, right? Except they didn't, at all.
Money isn't speech, money is money. It allows you to do things like hire campaign workers, run TV ads, etc. Are you saying that you are personally unable to vote your conscience because the person you don't like has fancier signs or more ads, and you just can't stop yourself for voting for them? Have you considered simply doing what you want regardless, just as millions of voters have done this year, despite the people they didn't vote for spending WAY more money?
Freedom of assembly and speech is currently reserved for people with enough money to buy the right to that assembly. You don't have that "freedom".
So, you and ten people, or a thousand, want to form a group because you have something in common. Please detail what is stopping you from doing that. Specifically.
So what you're proposing is that regulators, executives, and legislators should NOT be allowed to talk to someone that many people get together and send to speak with them, but instead ALL of those people should descend upon Washington and say the same exact things thousands of times to the same few people?
Do you consider, for example, the millions of people backing Bernie Sanders to be a "powerful special interest group?" No? Why not? They gotten together, amassed a very large pile of money dedicated to forwarding a specific agenda, and they've got a person tapped to push that agenda on their behalf.
it's a shame for all those small special bills where it isn't worth building up an entire consortium to argue for its merits
Small, specialty regulations and laws are still fought for an against by special interests - they're just smaller numbers of people. It might be no more than literally a handful of people, some of which manage to get some speaking time at a hearing, or in a private meeting with their congress-creature. If the subject matter so arcane that one person's discussions with the committee or senator or whatever is wildly more persuasive than another's because she's better prepared, better informed, or more able to communicate, then yes - dollars talk because it costs money to have a very talented person making your case for you, if you're not going to go do it for yourself. Can you drop everything you're doing to go educate and persuade politicians on the merits of some arcane niche topic? No? What if you and a bunch of your colleagues carry on with your daily work and send a single talented person on your behalf? That's exactly balanced - you're balancing your need to influence the political process with your need to continue doing what you actually do for a living. There are professionals to help with that chore: they're called lobbyists. Have you ever met one, perhaps had a beer with one? No? You should.
Slashdot Mirror
Hilarious!
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?
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
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?
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.
... 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?
... 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.
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This.
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.
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.
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?
I don't think you have to worry. Nobody would carjack you when you're wearing your clown costume.
You'd like to THINK so, wouldn't you!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/ne...
The only thing that should be banned is the use of the word "sharing" when it comes to all of this sort of stuff. I'm paying you for a ride, or for a place to sleep. You're not "sharing" it with me! More hipster word-erosion.
Let me guess. You're one of the people who likes to stare at your full-brightness-enabled phone during movies and other performances, without bothering to think that it's as much or more the other paying customers you're pissing off, not the performing artist(s). Has it occurred to you that the person on stage might be wanting their paying customers to be able to enjoy the performance without people like you wrecking everyone's dark-adjusted vision and providing a bright visual distraction that, because of perspective, is larger than the person on the stage that everyone's just spent a bunch of money to see? I know, you really just don't care, because it's all about you. I wonder if there's anything the person sitting in front of YOU might be able to do that would make you wish they'd stop? Maybe, shining a flashlight in your face the whole time? Or is that, like, so cool, man!
But if your phone is in a bag, how can you know if it's an emergency or not?
Apple Watch.
Or, are these actual Faraday bags, not just can't-get-to-the-device-access-control-bags?
Straight democracy on matters of law are usually a disaster. Which is why we have a constitutional republic, at the federal level, to prevent that crap from happening.
Actually no, I don't have multiple ID's, it's just that some people are smarter than you and can actually read.
The fundamental point is precisely that because money is speech, people can out speak other people even if they don't at all represent what those in a democracy want.
So that's what explains the fact that Hillary wildly outspending Bernie equates to his being wildly behind her in actual votes, right? Hmmm, not the case. Or the fact that the people who spent wildly more than Trump on their campaigns got the power of their party's nod, right? Except they didn't, at all.
Money isn't speech, money is money. It allows you to do things like hire campaign workers, run TV ads, etc. Are you saying that you are personally unable to vote your conscience because the person you don't like has fancier signs or more ads, and you just can't stop yourself for voting for them? Have you considered simply doing what you want regardless, just as millions of voters have done this year, despite the people they didn't vote for spending WAY more money?
Oh, I read your post. It was typical anti-business drivel. You think that when people form a business, they give up their freedom of speech.
Freedom of assembly and speech is currently reserved for people with enough money to buy the right to that assembly. You don't have that "freedom".
So, you and ten people, or a thousand, want to form a group because you have something in common. Please detail what is stopping you from doing that. Specifically.
Do you consider, for example, the millions of people backing Bernie Sanders to be a "powerful special interest group?" No? Why not? They gotten together, amassed a very large pile of money dedicated to forwarding a specific agenda, and they've got a person tapped to push that agenda on their behalf.
it's a shame for all those small special bills where it isn't worth building up an entire consortium to argue for its merits
Small, specialty regulations and laws are still fought for an against by special interests - they're just smaller numbers of people. It might be no more than literally a handful of people, some of which manage to get some speaking time at a hearing, or in a private meeting with their congress-creature. If the subject matter so arcane that one person's discussions with the committee or senator or whatever is wildly more persuasive than another's because she's better prepared, better informed, or more able to communicate, then yes - dollars talk because it costs money to have a very talented person making your case for you, if you're not going to go do it for yourself. Can you drop everything you're doing to go educate and persuade politicians on the merits of some arcane niche topic? No? What if you and a bunch of your colleagues carry on with your daily work and send a single talented person on your behalf? That's exactly balanced - you're balancing your need to influence the political process with your need to continue doing what you actually do for a living. There are professionals to help with that chore: they're called lobbyists. Have you ever met one, perhaps had a beer with one? No? You should.