Jump to content

FAA Drone Rules Out


gbigs

Recommended Posts

The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday released recommendations for a new federal drone registry.
 
Requires drone owners to register their names and addresses in a new FAA database and place an identification number on their aircraft.
 
Less than an hour after the conference call, the Academy of Model Aeronautics, a 185,000-member hobbyist group with a seat on the task force, accused the government of stifling dissent.
 
Looks like the FAA is getting it right if the drone makers are pissed.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an AOPA member, EAA chapter president, and a long time member of the AMA. The AMA is not a manufacturer's group any more than the EAA is.

I have not heard what the beef is yet, but I suspect it will mean that all remote control flying devices will be classified as "drones" meaning a government agency will have to register hundreds of thousands of planes and R/C pilots.

(I own about ten - from "foamies" to an 80" 120cc biplane. None of which would fit the general public's view of what a drone is.)

-- When drones are outlawed, only outlaws will have drones -- lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is posted on this thread?? It doesn't have much to do with landing or flying.

 

The site lacks a few key categorizes to discuss topics like general aviation and the FAA.  Stuffing all of these things into Random Thoughts buries active discussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to answer slippery slope logic.

 

Making drone pilots carry licenses is stupid, pure and simple. There have been ZERO incidences with drones hitting any aircraft, and I would rather trust an actual study and the facts over a fear monger. RC has been around for many, many, many years. Why does it have to change now?

 

And when I said ground school, that was meant to include testing. Hell, if you want to make that the qualifications for the "license", then I'm fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to answer slippery slope logic.

 

Making drone pilots carry licenses is stupid, pure and simple. There have been ZERO incidences with drones hitting any aircraft, and I would rather trust an actual study and the facts over a fear monger. RC has been around for many, many, many years. Why does it have to change now?

 

And when I said ground school, that was meant to include testing. Hell, if you want to make that the qualifications for the "license", then I'm fine with that.

 

Actually there have been 2 in flight collisions between aircraft and drones reported. The FAA has classified it as a collision with an unidentified object.

 

Personally I think the commercial drone operations should require the operator to be certified, and their aircraft registered. For personal operation for the sole pleasure of the operator I don't see the need for licensing on a federal level, but rather a set of rules about how and where you can operate and a requirement to belong to a national organization like the AMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there have been 2 in flight collisions between aircraft and drones reported. The FAA has classified it as a collision with an unidentified object.

 

Personally I think the commercial drone operations should require the operator to be certified, and their aircraft registered. For personal operation for the sole pleasure of the operator I don't see the need for licensing on a federal level, but rather a set of rules about how and where you can operate and a requirement to belong to a national organization like the AMA.

 

I'd like to see info on those collisions.

 

Commercial operations are something different. Due to the nature of involvement, that I can see the need for more oversight. But personal operators? Take a ground school course, maybe even require refreshers every 2 years, for the purpose of teaching about the airspace system, and where, and not where, to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RC is different than drones.  RC requires a runway of some kind, or an open area to takeoff.  And RC generally doesn't fly out of sight.  And RC that can fly fairly high are pretty expensive and require some skill to keep in the air.

 

Drones can be launched from a palm of a hand or any spot on the ground.  Drones can and are flown out of sight and can rise to high altitude quickly (straight up) and fly erratically.  Drones are cheap and being sold in far higher numbers and are bought by non hobbyists that have a casual or nonchalant attitude toward what they are doing.  Drones pose a far higher danger to aviation.

 

The FAA is headed in the right direction.  For commercial ops this is no problem, but for the toy makers this is a deal breaker.  And that's the intent.  Wipe out the toy side of drones, make them undesirable and uneconomical, and scarce.  Let's face it, we already have turds shining laser pens in pilot's eyes.  Some of these same people will no doubt get a cheap drone and try the same stunt but with even more horrific results.

 

I don't wanna be the first plane to have a drone hit my prop.  Or be on the first passenger jet to suck one into an engine. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a guy who is so anti-government sometimes, you sure are on the government bandwagon for this one.

 

I can launch radio controlled airplanes from my hand too. Quad copters are not that much different; the only reason for all this panic is because drones are at the forefront of all this controversy lately, and the bandwagon effect is in full force.

 

Retaliating against a group of hobbyist people like this is pitiful. Some regulation? Sure. Making them get a license? Depends. If you're going to make them get a PILOTS license, that's too far for personal use. Ground school and testing? Sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the FAA sees a difference between RC planes and RC copters, no matter how many rotors. They are all "drones" to FAA.

That's my guess, and I am not exactly sure how it can be regulated. I would be willing to bet that the commercial folks aren't an issue. They have too much to lose. Many of their birds cost well into five figures. Some of the ag drones are R/C planes with cameras, but again commercial.

It is the person (kid?) who buys a quad copter at the local store or on the internet that is the problem.

I suppose you can require a store to register and train before purchase. Then you will need drone police with the FAA. I suspect the local taxpayers won't want to pay for it.

(I haven't flown R/C in a while, but my planes have always flown at a controlled field.)

Like so many other things it could well about to billions spent to keep the possibility of a few nuts doing bad things.

(I wonder how easy it will be to see an ID # on a drone? I guess it would help identify it after an accident.)

Guess we'll wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of a handful of 333 exemption holding and registered commercial drone owner/operators in South Eastern Arizona and Manned aircraft pilot, I am in favor of licensing requirements for commercial operators.  I feel that individuals are more likely to follow rules when there is something at stake like a license that can be taken away.  Personal use RC/Drones registration will be tough to manage.  As these devices have become so easy to fly compared to when I learned to fly RC planes and helicopters, people are not going to the local RC fields anymore to learn how to safely operate RC aircraft/drones, instead they can pull a device from a box and be an RC pilot in the time it takes to charge the battery.  I think many of the drone manufactures are coming on board with restrictive software that keeps units from flying near airports and above 400' agl.  DJI who builds my commercial drone is even adding in real time TFR restrictions to keep them out of these areas.  My commercial quadcopter wont even spin up a rotor at my airport and will stop midair if it approaches the defined boundary of the airport area, the busier the airport the larger the restricted area.  This process doesn't fix the DIY drone systems that don't have these software restrictions, only education can fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my guess, and I am not exactly sure how it can be regulated. I would be willing to bet that the commercial folks aren't an issue. They have too much to lose. Many of their birds cost well into five figures. Some of the ag drones are R/C planes with cameras, but again commercial.

It is the person (kid?) who buys a quad copter at the local store or on the internet that is the problem.

I suppose you can require a store to register and train before purchase. Then you will need drone police with the FAA. I suspect the local taxpayers won't want to pay for it.

(I haven't flown R/C in a while, but my planes have always flown at a controlled field.)

Like so many other things it could well about to billions spent to keep the possibility of a few nuts doing bad things.

(I wonder how easy it will be to see an ID # on a drone? I guess it would help identify it after an accident.)

Guess we'll wait and see.

 

The next step might be a requirement for logged GPS positions for all flights, or even some kind of mini transponder.  It just gets ridiculous really quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of a handful of 333 exemption holding and registered commercial drone owner/operators in South Eastern Arizona and Manned aircraft pilot, I am in favor of licensing requirements for commercial operators.  I feel that individuals are more likely to follow rules when there is something at stake like a license that can be taken away.  Personal use RC/Drones registration will be tough to manage.  As these devices have become so easy to fly compared to when I learned to fly RC planes and helicopters, people are not going to the local RC fields anymore to learn how to safely operate RC aircraft/drones, instead they can pull a device from a box and be an RC pilot in the time it takes to charge the battery.  I think many of the drone manufactures are coming on board with restrictive software that keeps units from flying near airports and above 400' agl.  DJI who builds my commercial drone is even adding in real time TFR restrictions to keep them out of these areas.  My commercial quadcopter wont even spin up a rotor at my airport and will stop midair if it approaches the defined boundary of the airport area, the busier the airport the larger the restricted area.  This process doesn't fix the DIY drone systems that don't have these software restrictions, only education can fix that.

 

Agreed.  It makes some sense for commercial operators, but not for the dude with a $500 Walmart quad.  Software restrictions like you mention could handle some of that, but that stuff is only as smart as the code is made.  Education is definitely the key.  Maybe instead of registration you could get owners to to go through some online training that they have to acknowledge taking that gives them a unique user ID.  Then if they ever get caught breaking the rules they have no excuse because they were trained in the rules.

 

Let's be honest here though..."registration" of drones is not going to prevent anything, it's only going to provide a throat to choke when a drone operator causes a problem.  I think the scheme I mentioned above would do the same thing with less burden on operators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a guy who is so anti-government sometimes, you sure are on the government bandwagon for this one.

 

I can launch radio controlled airplanes from my hand too. Quad copters are not that much different; the only reason for all this panic is because drones are at the forefront of all this controversy lately, and the bandwagon effect is in full force.

 

Retaliating against a group of hobbyist people like this is pitiful. Some regulation? Sure. Making them get a license? Depends. If you're going to make them get a PILOTS license, that's too far for personal use. Ground school and testing? Sure.

 

I don't like government when it meddles in private enterprise, does social engineering, fails to enforce sovereignty, threatens constitutional rights, and pushes a phony agenda like Climate Change. 

 

Government has one constitutional imperative: to protect citizens and property.

 

The FAA is there to protect us when we fly.  Their mission is in line with the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is still meddling in private enterprise. The drone business is huge and growing. When Amazon and Google are looking you know big money is involved.

I don't say this because I think there doesn't need to be regulation, just to say that just because it is not your enterprise didn't mean it isn't anyone's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The FAA is there to protect us when we fly.  Their mission is in line with the constitution.

 

As long as they don't go overboard and forget about the "freedom" part. Our government has a really bad problem with overreaching their authority once the drum beating begins, especially when the "fear" card gets played a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Government has one constitutional imperative: to protect citizens and property.

 

 

I would disagree slightly.  The one imperative of the government is to protect the RIGHTS of the citizens (including their right to property), but not to protect individual citizens or pieces of property.  Safety concerns are usually in line with protecting rights, but not always.  Sometimes to protect the rights of citizens, a situation must be allowed which it at least can be argued causes danger for citizens.

 

Take the Second Amendment, for example.  Protecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves from criminal acts, both by individuals and governments, trumps the fact that arms are by nature dangerous to life and property.

 

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Police Officers have a duty to protect public order, but NOT to protect any individual or his/her property from harm or damage.  So I think I'm on firm footing here.   :)

 

If the government really wanted to protect persons and property at all costs, it would outlaw all recreational aviation.  That shit is dangerous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree slightly.  The one imperative of the government is to protect the RIGHTS of the citizens (including their right to property), but not to protect individual citizens or pieces of property.  Safety concerns are usually in line with protecting rights, but not always.  Sometimes to protect the rights of citizens, a situation must be allowed which it at least can be argued causes danger for citizens.

 

Take the Second Amendment, for example.  Protecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves from criminal acts, both by individuals and governments, trumps the fact that arms are by nature dangerous to life and property.

 

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Police Officers have a duty to protect public order, but NOT to protect any individual or his/her property from harm or damage.  So I think I'm on firm footing here.   :)

 

If the government really wanted to protect persons and property at all costs, it would outlaw all recreational aviation.  That shit is dangerous!

 

Here is the preamble.

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

The founding principles are clearly to form a union for the purposes of insuring domestic tranquility and a common defense.  Establishing justice and promoting general welfare are also elements of protecting citizens from foreign and domestic threats.

 

Some think the government is there to pay for their basic needs.   But that is not the purpose of course.  It is to protect us, not coddle us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...