Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Government The Internet United States Youtube

15-Year-Old Fights the FAA's Anti-Model-Flying NPRM With Social Media 106

Posted by BeauHD from the spreading-the-word dept.
NewtonsLaw writes: The FAA has issued an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that would effectively see the end of the traditional hobby of flying RC planes, helicopters and drones. As well as mandating remote ID on store-bought products it would effectively (over time) outlaw scratch-built craft as well. This stands to have a hugely negative impact on those STEM/STEAM programs that have in the past used drones and RC planes as a teaching tool and a way of getting kids into electronics, engineering, and aerospace-related subjects. Although many older folk have tried to rally public support for some pushback on these outrageous proposed new rules, a 15-year-old named Jack Thornton has outclassed everyone with his four-and-a-half-minute YouTube video. Not only does he explain what's going on but he makes a fantastic case for the continuation of the hobby and even uses some of the tech to create the video. I am seriously impressed by what this guy has done!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

15-Year-Old Fights the FAA's Anti-Model-Flying NPRM With Social Media More

15-Year-Old Fights the FAA's Anti-Model-Flying NPRM With Social Media

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry kid, Bezos has spoken (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @07:36PM (#59721618) Homepage

    The oligarchy wants the airspace for commercial delivery drones. Government "of the people" fundamentally changed after corporations were ruled to be people.

    Find a new hobby, because the FAA has pulled down their pants, sat down, and plans to drop a huge steamer on top of this one. It sucks, but complaining about things on the internet only produces change when you're dealing with "woke" companies who care about their reputation on social media. Unless you're a multi-billionare, your opinion of the government is just a check they can't cash.

  • Flashy video does NOT mean outclassing. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by auzy ( 680819 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @07:48PM (#59721672)

    Where do I begin (I'm a private pilot by the way here in Australia)...

    For starters, a huge number of assumptions are being made, such as about the possibility that approved flying sites will decrease, etc. That's all assumptions which are unlikely to be true..

    Secondly, it does NOT end hobby RC's. It just means they need a transponder on them. It's an extra step, but it doesn't prevent people building these things. Yes, it would be TRAGIC if people breaking flight rules were caught, especially stalkers. It simply allows people to hold drone owners accountable finally. You license your car, so why would it be any different to be required to license a flying rock?

    Thirdly, we REGULARLY see people fly drones with no consideration for flight rules. I've literally stood onsite, at a wealthy families house working, whilst their teenage son was showing off his drone to his mates, and showing them how high it could fly (and I know their property was in-line of an approach point). In fact, on Reddit, we REGULARLY see people post video's constantly breaking the rules here in Australia.

    Finally, out of all 4 drone owners I know, every single one has knowingly broken rules. I also run a meetup trekking group and was annoyed when one pulled out their cheap drone in a national park and started flying it around.

    Sorry, but don't confuse a professional video with good points. So many assumptions in the video have been made, and there was nothing neutral about it. Arguments such as "privacy concerns" are made, however, those are negligible compared to the effect on MANY other people's privacy.

    Sorry, as a pilot, I agree with this proposal. It doesn't affect tiny drones less than 0.5lbs. Nothing about this proposal bans hobbyists flying these things, and it actually protects other people's privacy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Monoman ( 8745 )

      For starters I agree many assumptions are being made by all. The proposed rules lack clarity on too many points

      Secondly - as proposed it will have a large impact on hobby RC's. There are a wide variety of RCs, drones, etc. They come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.

      Thirdly - Don't let the few ruin it for the many.

      Finally - most people knowingly break the rules while operating motor vehicles and some do stupid stuff. These new rules are about money, not safety.

      The FPV Freedom Coalition has a very thorough

      • Re:Flashy video does NOT mean outclassing. (Score:5, Informative)

        by auzy ( 680819 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:58PM (#59721952)

        It's not a few drone owners, it seems to be the majority to be honest (unfortunately).

        People break the laws in cars, but those who do can be held accountable via their license plate (in fact, an ex-boyfriend of an ex-tinder date tried to hit my car from the side the other day, and because they had a license plate and I had a dashcam, we know who did it now, and I plan to go to the police this weekend). This ALLOWS drone owners to be accountable.

        I've skimmed the FPV response (it's long), but some of it's point's are basically "it's useless having a law because some people won't comply", and financial related. I do agree the weight limit is a bit low and should be increased though (although, any drone with a camera SHOULD require a transponder). People can disagree with a law and be in the wrong (it happens regularly). People hate any type of regulation. That doesn't make the regulation bad.

        I also disagree about not having transponders for uncontrolled airspace. Lots of urban areas are uncontrolled, and if a drone hit's someone's car, without any means of identifying it, no drone owner will fess up. This law also means companies such as DJI will start adding such functionality to their drones (so, you need to look at all affected parties). It's not only about safety, it's about accountability. It also won't kill the hobbyist RC market (people are exaggerating).

        Also, my aerobatics instructor actually got in a midair collision with another plane. Mandatory transponders (which will likely be introduced for planes) would have saved the other pilot (my aero instructor got REALLY lucky, as his elevator was jammed, and he only had some control of rudder). This was in uncontrolled airspace. The technology DOES work.

        You must remember, the good thing about the aviation industry is that its about improving safety not other factors. This proposal greatly improves safety (especially as those who regularly don't follow the rules or put others in danger can be held accountable). It should NEVER be a political thing, and never has been.

        Most of these things are not toys, and the vast majority have few redundancies in place to ensure they won't randomly fall out the sky (and I've heard of 2 instances where that has occurred now, one of which was in an area they shouldn't have been flying anyway).

        Yes, some drone owners are responsible, but the only disadvantage of this is increased cost, but the advantages are huge.

        • Re:Flashy video does NOT mean outclassing. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @11:17PM (#59722316)

          You make a good point here.

          REAL AIRCRAFT dont have manditory transponders, and the fuss you are making is about much less dangerous items.

          Do you support pushbikes, skateboards, and scooters (these horrific new electric things) having mandatory remote transponders? they can cause all sorts of carnage... we better make that a requirement also, along with registering each one, with a license to operate, etc.

          The people in NO WAY improved safety - it imposes control, but that doesnt magically give safety. You are trying to wave a 'safety' flag around for something that as yet has not caused one actual direct injury (at least with respect to aircraft). Pushbikes have caused tens of thousands of injuries - perhaps you should look at your priorities?

          And this is NOT just about drones - you need to actually research a bit, they are threatening the whole hobby of remote control aircraft. As far as I can google there has NEVER been an aircraft accident caused by a remote control (model.. lets not try and pull in military items, etc..) aircraft, and these have been quite common, even MORE common, for a good 60-70 YEARS.

          you sir are exaggerating - there is no evidence of an actual issue here, just one group wanting to impose regulations on another 'just in case'.

          And yes, I am also a private pilot, and I have no issues with this hobby co-existing.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by auzy ( 680819 )

            OK. Tell me specifically why these new laws prevent hobby aircraft from operating? I have literally heard NO reason yet. And you haven't said ANY.

            Someone has taken this proposal, and basically made a bunch of claims which DON'T make sense.

            Also, drone's have been used for stalking.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au] There have also been MANY near misses for drones.

            Also, we don't have statistics for drones which have damaged buildings, property or injured people (which is where this legislation also benefi

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Monoman ( 8745 )

              " A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight[6] and within an FAA-recognized identification area. Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate."

              Some US citizens don't really like it when you try to tell them what they cannot do on their own private property. I am sorry but i hesitate to get behind rules/legislation like this

          • You are comparing apples to oranges. Pushbikes, skaetboards, scooters, aeroplanes, seaplanes, all have a human driver/pilot in them who can be dealt with in case of mischief or accident. Drones obvously don't and hence need a tracker to trace back to the owner/controller to hold them responsible. The same thing would happen if we start deploying driver-less cars. If this is not for safety then what is it?

          • "real" aircraft have a HUMAN on board, risking his life if he does dumb stuff. Also, they are, you know BIG and easy to see. It takes a fantastic kind of idiot to willingly break the rules and fly a e.g. Cessna straight into the apporoach path of a major airport, it takes a averaje joe who has had a beer to many at the sunday bbq to fly a 4 pound drone into the same place.

        • People break the laws in cars, but those who do can be held accountable via their license plate

          I agree with most of what you say. But driving laws only apply when you're driving on government-owned roads. If you're driving on your own property (e.g. you own a farm), you can do pretty much whatever you want. You wanna let your 12 year old kid drive while on your farm, you can. You wanna drive while guzzling vodka, you can.

          In the same way, the first 400 ft of airspace has thus far been free from regu

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dougmc ( 70836 )

            If you're driving on your own property (e.g. you own a farm), you can do pretty much whatever you want. You wanna let your 12 year old kid drive while on your farm, you can. You wanna drive while guzzling vodka, you can.

            Actually, at least in the US drunk driving is typically illegal even on private property. There may be some exceptions, but the law is likely not on your side [drivinglaws.org]. (That said, if the police don't ever know, you're probably safe.)

            In the same way, the first 400 ft of airspace has thus far been free from regulation (away from airports). If you want to fly a model airplane over your property, you can - up to 400 ft.

            Well, this definitely isn't true.

            The registration requirement doesn't just kick in when you go over 400' AGL. The people who live within 30 miles of Washington DC can't fly at even one foot AGL, let alone 400 feet, ever. TFRs don't just restrict flying over 400' -- they restrict al

        • "People break the laws in cars, but those who do can be held accountable via their license plate "

          Counterexample: Steve Jobs, who was notorious for parking in handicapped spots and also not putting license plates on his cars.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by doachs ( 6604362 )

          (although, any drone with a camera SHOULD require a transponder).

          I am curious why you think that. How does having a camera change things? How do you define a camera? What if it is a analog camera barely able to view an NTSC signal, like those used in most FPV drones? What if that drone with a camera is 25g? What does having a transponder on such a device do for safety? What if that "camera" is a FLIR camera?

        • Do you know what a transponder is and how it works?

          A transponder merely responds with a radio signal when triggered by another radio signal, normally from a radar station. Now please explain how this will identify the drone that hits a car in uncontrolled (= non radar supervised) airspace.

          Repeating some nonsense doesn't make it true. Not a bit.

          • Step one: Fish the transponder out of the wreck.
            Step two: Hook it up to an appropriate power source.
            Step three: Ping it and read back the ID.

            Of course, this may be more complicated if the transponder's 'dumb' and merely an interface for the brains of the drone.

    • You license your car, so why would it be any different to be required to license a flying rock?

      BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OWN OR OPERATE THE FUCKING AIR.

      The FAA's reason for existing is a narrow charter for commercial safety and interoperability. Small craft (manned or not) are NOT to be subject to the FAA's draconian bullshit.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by auzy ( 680819 )

        Umm, no. You really have no idea do you (and you clearly don't have a flight license).

        Here in Australia, my aerobatics instructor was actually involved in a midair collision and survived. Making transponders mandatory on light aircraft (which is being changed now) would have saved the other pilots life. You'd also be surprised by the amount of damage a tiny bird can make in a bird strike.

        And VFR pilots in some areas REGULARLY need to take steps to ensure they don't hit other aircraft.

        Your information about

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Making transponders mandatory on light aircraft (which is being changed now) would have saved the other pilots life. You'd also be surprised by the amount of damage a tiny bird can make in a bird strike.

          You hit the nail on the head. We need transponders on all birds

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dougmc ( 70836 )

          Making transponders mandatory on light aircraft (which is being changed now) would have saved the other pilots life.

          You must be referring to a lot more than simply making transponders mandatory then.

          For example, many aircraft are already equipped with transponders and they are typically required near any major airport, but currently, they may only transmit a code -- not all transmit altitude and/or GPS coordinates, after all. What you seem to be proposing would require mandating the GPS part, right? (ADS-B would cover this.)

          But you must also be referring to every plane being equipped with a receiver for these things,

    • You license your car, so why would it be any different to be required to license a flying rock?

      My "flying rock" is registered. It has my ID number on the outside, just like my car has a license plate. If I do something stupid with it (which I wouldn't), law enforcement can look up the number and come after me.

      This proposal requires that drone pilots transmit their location and the location of their aircraft to servers on the internet, if they want to fly outside of model aircraft fields. Yes, this means even if I want to take a picture of my Christmas lights to post on Facebook, the FAA wants to k

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by auzy ( 680819 )

        Only if it falls out of the sky and injures someone. Why do you care if everyone knows where your drone is? After all, apparently you're not breaking any laws?

        They're not toys. Your argument is based on privacy and what YOU want, not safety, which is what the aviation industry is about (and is the reason why it's so safe to fly). Yes, we understand you need some e-points on your instagram, but if you're following the laws, why should you care? Are you concerned because you're afraid you might break the law?

        • Why do you care if everyone knows where your drone is? After all, apparently you're not breaking any laws?

          The same reason it's not a good idea to use your real name online. Even if you're doing nothing wrong, there are assholes who hate drones and will report or harass you for flights that are perfectly legal. As I write this post, there's already some anonymous internet tough guy threatening to shoot me and my drone [slashdot.org].

          Also, this [wikipedia.org].

          Your argument is based on privacy and what YOU want, not safety, which is what the aviation industry is about (and is the reason why it's so safe to fly).

          Yeah, the danger they're worried about is someone's hobby drone colliding with an Amazon drone. Manned craft aren't supposed to be flying below 400' in uncontrolled airspace:

          The Feder

    • Transponders (Score:3, Informative)

      by gavron ( 1300111 )

      The last time I priced an FAA-approved transponder (Mode-S without ADS-B out) it started at $15,000 USD.
      Nobody buying a $499 DJI UAV or better will pay thousands for one.

      Non-FAA approved is of no value.

      We could argue that if EVERYONE had to have one the costs might come down. That's a great argument but there's a bottom-line stop point which is the cost for the manufacturer to do the tests to get the FAA approval. (or EASA, or whatever your regulatory agency happens go be) and they won't do it without a

    • Re:Flashy video does NOT mean outclassing. (Score:4, Informative)

      by user32.ExitWindowsEx ( 250475 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @09:48PM (#59722104)

      Did you even read the NPRM?

      1. Drones would be required to transmit their flights over the internet.
      2. Drone owners would be required to pay a flightradar24.com type site to receive their flight data (no one will do that for free).
      3. Any random fuckwit that thinks "omg drones steeling my soulz or my seekrit gardening tricks" could see the flight data on said sites and possibly go hurt drone owners if they felt slighted by a nearby drone flight.
      4. The sites would have to retain the data for 6 months minimum.
      5. No current drone would be legal. No transponder add-on kits would be allowed.
      6. No other class of aircraft in the US is currently subjected to such rules or anything close to it.

      It would be one thing for the FAA to say "by day X, the drone manufacturers need to come up with an RF protocol that scales better than ADS-B for drones (and eventually all aircraft). by day X+Y all drones need to have a transponder transmitting this protocol and a N-number." and leave it at that...that would bring the drone world up to parity with the manned aviation world.

      This is basically all the "security-minded" / "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" types got to do whatever they wanted without regard for anything remotely resembling freedom or privacy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      Finally, out of all 4 drone owners I know, every single one has knowingly broken rules. I also run a meetup trekking group and was annoyed when one pulled out their cheap drone in a national park and started flying it around.

      Then perhaps it's time to change the rules? BTW, I'd be probably annoyed by you if I meet you in a National Park.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      The easiest way is to generally ban them and then allow for local government to allow them at locations they deem appropriate, pretty simple really. As for identifying them, well that is plain common sense, they are a risk to all those around them, a real risk. Who takes precedence the drone operator or a innocent bystander, who has the greater right peace of environment, they one generating the conflict or the innocent party.

      So I support general ban and let local government decide where and when they can b

    • You're a pilot? Good. Imagine that all you may fly anymore are ultra-lights with no more than 100 kilos of weight.

      Nothing about banning you from flying in that proposal, right? Well, unless there's a wind with more than 0.0001 knots, of course.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by doachs ( 6604362 )

      "For starters, a huge number of assumptions are being made, such as about the possibility that approved flying sites will decrease, etc" This is not true. The NPRM specifically states that over time the number of approved sites (FRIA's) is designed to decrease. They can only be requested for 12 months after the regulation goes into effect and you are not allowed to request more and the FAA can remove them at any time.

      " It just means they need a transponder on them" Not exactly true either. You must pur

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dougmc ( 70836 )

      such as about the possibility that approved flying sites will decrease

      This is already happening.

      While it was always true with gliders, it was the advent of small electric planes around 2000 or so that really turned every single park into a flying field, and it was fine. Thanks to the drone hysteria, many parks now prohibit this when it was never a problem before.

      The FAA is likely to only designate formal AMA fields as "FAA-recognized identification areas" rather than parks, so without a club or organization, these area is likely to not be so designated ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jon3k ( 691256 )
      Thanks for posting this. From the headline I assumed this was going to apply to all drones, but there are a number of exceptions specifically carved out that seems to cover exactly what the video from TFA discuss ("amateur-built" drones, drones under 0.55lbs). I'm really not sure what they are complaining about, as this doesn't even seem to apply to them?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kbg ( 241421 )

      number of assumptions are being made, such as about the possibility that approved flying sites will decrease, etc. That's all assumptions which are unlikely to be true..

      It's actually in the NPRM after some time period no new sites will get approved, and any changes to old sites, like relocate will make them illegal.

      Secondly, it does NOT end hobby RC's. It just means they need a transponder on them. It's an extra step, but it doesn't prevent people building these things.

      Actually it does. If you could just add a transponder to a custom built drone it would also mean you could modify how it operates and what it sends since the flight controller is based on open source code and that isn't going to happen. The aircraft has to have FAA approved transponders. Secondly you need a constant internet connection which disallows flying in

  • I'd be interested if he was able to write his argument with words. Trying to say something via Youtube is an indicator of shallow, superficial thinking, and I don't bother with such things. Youtube is for entertainment.

    • To be fair to the kid, he did make a good use of the medium. So many YouTube rants are just talking head videos, which are painful to sit through. He probably should've had a Red Bull or something though before making the video, because his delivery is so sedate and monotone, I couldn't get through it. Bernie Sanders is old enough to be this kid's great grandpa and has more energy.
       

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      YouTube is a great platform for making arguments, the same as a lecture hall is. The written word isn't the be-all and end-all.

      Also for longer form stuff it's nice to be able to listen to it while doing other stuff like eating or grooming.

  • Oh please FAA can't even require transponders (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:03PM (#59721740) Homepage Journal

    This is bogus.

    The FAA doesn't even require transponders on the seaplanes flying out of Seattle, a port city, and at least half of them have none, so how can they enforce this against model planes?

    Please.

    Enforce the regs you have before you tell us about going after hobbyists.

    • Summarizing from: https://www.faa.gov/regulation... [faa.gov]

      In Class E or Class G (the US has no Class F) air spaces*, there is no requirement for a transponder (aka, "remote ID"). Also, except while operating within the specified range of an airport with an operational control tower, even a 2-way radio is not required. Even Class D doesn't require a transponder (though does require 2-way radio).

      (So far, I have yet to find a notice of a rules change to the above. Maybe someone with better search-foo than I can find

    • Planes have a human driver/pilot in them who to deal with in case of mischief or accident. Drones obviously don't and hence need a tracker to trace back to the owner/controller.

    • The FAA most definitely requires transponders on seaplanes. In fact every aircraft operating in the Seattle airspace will have to have a transponder after the ADSB out laws were created.

      • Not the ones that are flying right now.

        Read my post.

      • While the Seattle–Tacoma airport is Class C or B air space (probably Class B), so requiring a transponder, that doesn't mean the entire Seattle metro area is Class C or B. Likely it is Class D, which still doesn't require a transponder. The
        document [faa.gov] I linked in my earlier reply, does mention that transponders in Class A, B and C air spaces must, as of Jan 2020, have ADS-B Out equipped transponders. Air spaces (D,E and G) that did not already require transponders still do not.

    • Why would they need to put a transponder on a plane that is piloted by someone who has passed extensive training and knows how to properly operate a sea plane? Or any other type of plane for that matter?

      Many people have shown themselves to be complete idiots while operating a drone. I do feel sorry for the R/C airplane and helicopter enthusiasts whom have been, for the most part, safely partaking in their hobby for decades. In the past few years inexpensive drones have come to market and people with no com

  • And I will unleash a torrent of letters to my two retard RINOs in Congress, submit comment, and make much noise about this too.

    Ex-modeler here, anything from Guillow's to delicously screamy .30 os wankels. I think my blood is part CA part nitromethane.

    I quit because one mistake did result in various bouts of loss of months of time. I didn't ARF, I built from kit. Scale aerobats were my thing. I may return to it if I ever manage to retire before death. Few things are as relaxing as a big slow plane with

    • That's the thing, this law seems to primarily address issues with "drones" (quadcopters), but it also affects hobbyists flying fixed wing models. And I'm worried that they will make similar laws in my own country... even though in this crowded place, flying "away from crowds, buildings, infrastructure and airfields" pretty much means that you're flying at a designated model airfield anyway, where you're not going to cause any trouble.

      I quit the hobby as well, because it was taking up too much time. But
  • The problem is with ass-hat drone drivers (they are not pilots).

  • Outside of federal territories, outside of controlled airspace, far from airports, and below 500 feet AGL, how does the FAA even have jurisdiction? It is a 10th Amendment issue. Federal officers need permission from the county sheriff in order to be allowed to come hassle the local people.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Euler ( 31942 )

      It seems at the moment the FAA thinks anything above ground level is "airspace." Don't jump-up in the air, lest you become an unregistered aircraft.
      Do I need FAA approval to put up a swingset? At what point does the obvious and practical situation prevail (surrounding trees, terrain, etc.)
       

    • You have to start somewhere, so the FAA says it's the ground for them.

      If you think logically about it, they HAVE to start at the ground or they'd not be able to regulate what's flying around an airport. So from that perspective, it makes sense.

      Practically, though, it kind of makes sense that they'd not care what you do with your paper airplane off the balcony in the backyard. And in reality they don't care about that stuff.

      The problem here is the idiots who do stupid things in places where the FAA DOE

  • Wow ! I just saw this video mentioned on slashdot. I am blown away ! I am a community college instructor that employs drones and model aircraft as an important part of computer and electronics programs. This young man has brilliantly illustrated the fact that, if the proposed FAA remote ID rules for commercial remotely piloted aircraft, are also imposed on amateur built model aircraft, it will have a devastating effect on the use of model aircraft for education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
    • Where is the problem in having a small, purpose designed transponder on board as big as a GPS unit? There is no problem. I agree that the applicative rules must be written following common sense, still seeing this as "End of R/C" is misinformed. This can be the end of being ridge-flying a glider without seeing FPV plane but not of R/C activities.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by doachs ( 6604362 )

        Where is the problem in having a small, purpose designed transponder on board as big as a GPS unit? There is no problem. I agree that the applicative rules must be written following common sense, still seeing this as "End of R/C" is misinformed. This can be the end of being ridge-flying a glider without seeing FPV plane but not of R/C activities.

        One of the many issues with this proposal is that it does not allow you to have a small transponder added to your aircraft. It basically makes all existing rc aircraft unflyable legally. You must buy a pre-approved by the FAA complete aircraft. You are not allowed to build a model from parts of your choosing.

        Also there are many aspects of the model aircraft and drone hobby that would be seriously hindered by a transponder and gps unit. For example drone racing. They have absolutely no need for that har

  • I agree with this. And it has two good reasons: idiots and commercial use of drones. First off: idiots. Too many times I've seen drones where they are not allowed to be. Or better, I've seen drone pilots looking at the sky, because good luck spotting a drone while flying... No, I'm not down to hit a brick while flying. They need to respect airspace rules and be seen on anti-collisions systems on "full size" A/C. Modern drones are so easy to fly that most people using them have absolutely zero aeronautical

  • Cost/Benefit (Score:3)

    by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@@@gmail...com> on Thursday February 13, 2020 @09:33AM (#59723454) Journal

    According to https://www.federalregister.go... [federalregister.gov] this will cost $518m over 10 years, with costs including the cost to the drone operators, cost to pay for a subscription service to broadcast your drone's location to the internet (realtime!), cost to the makers of drones (including people who make their own), cost to develop the tech to implement. And the savings that justifies all of this is that the FAA "This proposed rule, in concert with the FAA's proposed rule for operations over people would create cost savings for the FAA and part 107 operators by avoiding the time expended processing waivers for these activities." Of course, the real reason they give isn't any savings, it's that authorities will save time investigating incidents and otherwise tracking drones because all drone activity will be logged into a centralized, searchable database, continuously in realtime. That's basically the people paying a huge cost, forever, in order to destroy their privacy. And requiring development of a new tech to solve this, since current tech is wildly over-priced relative to how cheap drones are.

    Of course, this will all have no effect on anyone who intentionally wants to break the law using a quad copter, since they can buy one for minimal cost, with no transponder, from anywhere else on the planet, or make one themselves from parts, which are cheap and easily available. So the whole "law enforcement can find terrorists" angle doesn't hold up.

  • A note to all those posters saying "it's all the fault of the idiot drone operators" and similar.

    Clearly you people are naive enough to believe what you read in an increasingly tabloid media.

    No doubt you believe that a little over a year ago, drones closed Gatwick airport -- because the media told you so. Ask yourself however, given that the world's media (with their cameras and long lenses) were camped out at Gatwick for nearly three days, whi is there not one single second of video showing these alleged

  • The FAA's NPRM and surrounding hysteria that is responsible for it sound like the hysteria around pushing for 2A bans.

  • I'm gonna guess they don't like drones as potential sites of resistance: recording what the police state does, busting corporations for massive environmental and human rights violations, or maybe even flying IEDs. As if anyone doing those things wouldn't simply remove or disable the transponder post-purchase. It's at least more security theater. A rising police state needs "citizens" to know they're never anonymous, never have privacy, and should always fear the state.

    • There are already regulations prohibiting drone operation over people. Some commercial operators want exceptions, for example, to operate delivery drones, and other services that require drone operation close to people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close