For the First Time Ever, the FAA Is Trying To Fine a Drone Hobbyist 297
Jason Koebler writes: "For the first time ever, the Federal Aviation Administration is trying to fine a hobby drone operator, a development that threatens to throw the whole hobby into disarray if the agency successfully levies the fine. While the FAA has explicitly said it doesn't want anyone flying drones commercially, it has never issued similar suggestions about hobby flight, which is why it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado, but illegal, in the FAA's eyes, for a journalist to do the same. That has changed, according to the agency. A spokesperson for the FAA told me that the agency 'has proposed a civil penalty against an individual in New York City. The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person (video).'"
Pretty big differencfe (Score:5, Insightful)
There is quite a lot of difference between fining someone for behaving in a way that puts other people in danger and fining someone for operating a drone.
The only problem I have with this is that FAA is involved.
Re:Pretty big differencfe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty big differencfe (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The FAA should be concerned with intrusion into air lanes and restricted airspace, not some ass crashing it onto a bicyclist. The BATF generally does not concern itself with people misusing guns in general as that is a local police issue.
In any case, are the Regulation-4-Everything Yes!!! types starting to see an issue with agencies adopting new memes to self-authorize control in new areas, outside normal political channels, which is to say, channels directly responsive to the voter?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We already covered ALL this ground 2 months ago in http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
It's really quite simple: The FAA controls ALL US airspace, from the ground up.
Re:Pretty big differencfe (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru... [pbs.org]
WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration’s only fine against a commercial drone user on the grounds that the small drone was no different than a model aircraft, a decision that appears to undermine the agency’s power to keep a burgeoning civilian drone industry out of the skies.
Patrick Geraghty, a National Transportation Safety Board administrative law judge, said in his order dismissing the $10,000 fine that the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So are they going to start restricting the path of bullets?
Re:Pretty big differencfe (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, the airspace IS restricted - by FAA rules. Typically you're not allowed to fly anything below 1000' AGL in a populated area. And a city is definitely a populated area.
There's a reason the light RC aircraft you see sold in stores are marketed as "Park Flyers" - you may not need to fly them at an RC park, but you should be flying them in a less populated park.
Granted, the FAA is unlikely to prosecute hobbyists that don't endanger lives or property (they could, mind you, but probably won't), but be an idiot and they can come down.
In fact, hobbyists often have unofficial governing bodies for that reason - while every one participating doesn't have to be "licensed" by the body, the body exists to help keep the sport in good reputation by creating processes, procedures and regulations to ensure they can coexist with others who may not share the same love of the sport. And yes, they may also try to restrict people's ability to fly "complex" RC vehicles until they've shown the skill to do so (again, it's all voluntary).
RC hobbyists aren't dumb, they know it only takes a couple of idiots to screw them over, which is why they subject themselves to voluntary regulation. It's also a lot easier to do advocacy when you can prove you're on the up and up, and disavow anyone who flouts the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pretty big differencfe (Score:5, Informative)
We've had this exact conversation already two months ago.
The FAA regulates ALL US airspace, and ALL flying machines.
It really is that simple.
Reposting my post from http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:
-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas
-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)
-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.
http://www.faa.gov/news/update... [faa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
OK: so that means they're the ones who control http://www.poweruptoys.com/ [poweruptoys.com] paper airplanes, as well as gliders, parachutes, kites and flying squirrels.
But then, the FAA is responsible for tall buildings as well (buildings that penetrate US Airspace unduly) and other tall structures -- they mandate blinking lights and radio beacons so that pilots can avoid the obstacles.
Basically, they're in charge of ensuring that objects don't run into each other in an unsafe manner. This looks like a case of someone flyi
Re: (Score:2)
No, you call the FAA.
FAA regulations require ALL aircraft, Radio controlled, ultralight or Commercial airliner to observe safety protocols.
By flying within 20 feet of people he's ALREADY breaking FAA regulations. Flying in NYC limits is almost certainly a violation as well as there just aren't that many places where you can be the required 500 feet away from a building other than central park.
The police have reason to be involved as well, but it most certainly is also an FAA matter.
The police don't police
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the sky does cross state lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really see how the FAA has the authority to do anything if he does not operate across state lines.
Because the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) make no distinction between flights that cross state lines and ones that don't.
Wouldn't that be a wonderful situation to have: to be flying an aircraft that can cross city/county/state boundaries faster than you can count them (and not always obvious that you have crossed such a boundary), subject to a different set of city/county/state regulations for each place you're in? Conflicting/contradictory regulation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the FAA has much much more experience of the applicable laws, and experts that are better capable of describing the actual endangerment incurred. Otherwise some NYPD cop has to spend days reading about drones before appearing in court.
wow (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're surprised when a government agency uses common sense when enforcing a law now? This sounds exactly like what the FAA should be regulating...
No! (Score:4, Funny)
I have a God-given, constitutional right to fly drones into permanent structures and crash them into crowds of people, and any attempts to restrict my ability to do this represent a tyrannical attack on my freedom.
Don't tread on me!
Re: (Score:2)
You know.. we already have assholes who refuse to stop pointing lasers at airplanes and helicopters.. wait until these geniuses start trying to fly drones into the aircrafts' flight paths.
Re: (Score:2)
"wait until these geniuses start trying to fly drones into the aircrafts' flight paths."
No need to wait. The article says that also happened in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You jumped from "regulate airspace" to "regulate drones" there. Having the feds regulate airspace makes good sense, given that a huge portion of air travel is interstate and having 50 different regulatory bodies for something t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the space between those tall building in that video footage is not "commercial airspace". As in, no commercial flights are routed through there.
Please correct me if commercial flights are routed between those buildings. Specifically, interstate commercial flights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You did say:
Once you have that, it's pretty straightforward to say that their job is to regulate flying things that may occupy or present hazards to that commercial airspace.
So, yes you did say something like that, considering this /. discussion is about a remote controlled toy flying over, around, and into buildings in a city.
Maybe I'm adding meaning to your specific post from reading dozens of others that state the FAA controls, and rightly so, everything in the air because it is all commercial airspace. If so, I stand corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I said anything about this particular case falling under that jurisdiction. My point is simply that the idea that the feds have no place regulating airspace in general is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The practical airpsace used by most aircraft? If they didn't, it would be an unholy mess for a particular aspect of interstate commerce. That's pretty much exactly what the commerce clause is for. I'm not arguing that they can regulate "all airspace." I'm just noting that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... Maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
In what twisted way will they imagine a drone operator, flying a home built drone, in the airspace of 1 state, involves interstate commerce?
Because airspace does cross state lines and aircraft do cross state lines and a home built drone can cross state lines. Due to this state line crossing it is interstate commerce that allows Federal jurisdiction over airspace and everything in it. Do you really think it is viable for the FAA to regulate aircraft but not UAVs that use the same airspace?
Just look at HAM operators.
HAM operators have a very important role to play during civil emergencies. If regular communications go down HAM operators can still keep communications open.
Re: (Score:2)
The first question is whether or not something should be regulated. Obviously farts should not be regulated and airspace should be. Without airspace regulation we would have aircraft falling out of the sky regularly. The second question is what level of government should regulate it. I have shown how it is a Federal responsibility due to Interstate Commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, laws aren't made instantly and perfectly. The drone flying hobby is pretty new, there's going to be a period of finding a balance between too restrictive and too lax. It's likely going to be more restrictive than hobbyists would prefer, and it's going to be more lax than the regulators would prefer. Additionally, hobbyists need to realize that if someone dies, and
Re: (Score:3)
Arbitrary enforcement of a law is NOT a good thing.
it is. IFF the enforcement only punishes the extreme cases, but not the harmless ones.
Then it's not really arbitrary is it? If you always pull someone over for 20 miles over the speed limit but
never pull someone over for 5 miles over the speed limit then the law probably needs to be changed to
reflect reality but the enforcement is not arbitrary.
Semi trucks actually have this codified. The weight limit is 40k. If you are over less than 5K then
you get a warning but no ticket. If you are over more than 5K then the fine you $1 per pound
STARTING at 40k not at 45k.
(note: numbers are somewhat
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Susan. But don't worry, they'll grow out after your first baby.
Then your husband will never leave them alone.
Re: (Score:3)
The question shouldn't be if there should be punishment. There should. The asshat could have injured people. The question should be whether or not the FAA should be involved in a matter that local law enforcement can deal with.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no question.
Airspace, ALL OF IT, is under FAA jurisdiction, no one else has any say, certainly not local police.
Re: (Score:2)
Airspace, ALL OF IT, is under FAA jurisdiction, no one else has any say, certainly not local police.
Yep. However, don't be too rough on the citizens. They're still under the delusion that they live in a democratic-republic, for fuck's sake.
OK... so the devil is in the details (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
LDRS craft, by definition, are the responsibility of the FAA - they fly into controlled airspace. This thing did not.
Put the drone in front of an runway - FAA has jurisdiction.'
Put the drone in front of a balcony - not so much.
Unless this is an end run to see just exactly what they can get away with.
Re:OK... so the devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.
They just say, "Keep within these limits and we won't care what you do." So the question is whether this guy's recklessnes exceeded those limits.
Kind of similar to how the FCC has jurisdiction over the ISM bands - they just say "stay below this power level and and a few other limits and you can do anything you want in that band"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the FAA has jurisdiction over anything that flies.
I think that we need Congress to step in and limit the FAAs jurisdiction to above 500 feet and above a certain size. Giving the FAA jurisdiction over frisbees, bows and arrows or toys with propellers is an absurd use of Federal government regulations and a complete waste of resources for them to be trolling You Tube for videos for accidents with toys that didn't actually cause any serious harm.
Re:OK... so the devil is in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would let them fly above a busy runway as long as they are at 499 feet or below? I didn't think so. Would you have a weight limit? What if it's only 4 feet long but weighs 50 kg? I thought so. How about flying above a military base or a nuclear power plant to gather intelligence?
I have an idea. Let's leave the FAA alone. They are doing exactly what they were created to do, and they are doing a good job.
499 (Score:2, Insightful)
"as long as they are at 499 feet"
below 500' is (or at least should be) considered private property, in this case you'd be trespassing on airport property which usually results in a quick response from armed, uniformed & angry individuals in cars with flashing lights. Also airports usually get easements over adjoining property effectively buying the airspace above those properties, so flying anywhere near an airport would be trespassing on the airport. A few people arrested, charged with trespassing an
Re: (Score:2)
we dont need congress to do anything.
the FAA is neither in the wrong, nor overereaching.
you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving the FAA jurisdiction over frisbees, bows and arrows or toys with propellers is an absurd use of Federal government regulations and a complete waste of resources for them to be trolling You Tube for videos for accidents with toys that didn't actually cause any serious harm.
Except the FAA isn't doing any of those things. The guy who was nearly hit by the drone recovered the video and gave it to the NYPD. The NYPD found the pilot of the drone, arrested him and charged him with reckless endangerment. The FAA only got involved after all that showed up in the news and they're proposing a further fine for the violations that he committed.
The FFA is not trolling YouTube. The only trolling here is your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nothing less than hilarious to see them try.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the paper plane. The record sized paper plane from a few years back is most certainly something they would regulate as it is large enough to be a serious problem. It didn't fly for shit so they probably won't ever care, but none the less they do have the ability to do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
--
JimFive
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know much about this subject, but why does the FAA need dominion over all thing above the ground? If I am flying a device under a certain altitude (250 ft?) under a certain mass, at less than a certain speed, more than a certain distance from an airport, why does the FAA care? Are they worried that there will be too many drones in the air? Seems a bit far fetched for the near future, and you can begin to regulate when there is a problem. Are they worried that my toy drone will fail, and fall on
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as uncontrolled airspace as far as the FAA is concerned in the manner you are speaking.
Uncontrolled airspace to a pilot means the area where you are not required to be in contact with air traffic controllers, not that its a free for all.
In the USA:
ALL airspace is under the jurisdiction of the FAA as far as physical objects are concerned, that includes BUILDING, which the FAA has regulations that apply to them, such as how they must be marked and lit at night.
ALL airspace is under the
Politics is a bigger problem (Score:2)
Right now, we're running into a road block with using UAVs for search & rescue with our local Sheriff. Given that his position is an elected one, he doesn't want to run the risk of alienating the electorate.
Re:Politics is a bigger problem (Score:5, Informative)
No, the sheriff isn't your problem, you're ignorance is.
Its not his call, its the FAA's jurisdiction and the fact that you don't know that shows that you aren't qualified to be flying aircraft in the first place.
You don't get to pretend you're qualified to have an argument about safety issues when you don't even know the rules, which are simple to find, with a quick Google search ... or the many times its been posted here (with citations) on slashdot.
As a formerly licensed pilot, and an R/C pilot of 20 years, you are EXACTLY the type of person that I don't want in the air.
If you had a clue, you'd get a waiver and you'd know the sheriff's opinion is irrelevant. Again, its not his call.
NO NO NO!!!!!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
"why it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado, but illegal, in the FAA's eyes, for a journalist to do the same. "
It is illegal for anyone without special permission to fly a drone over(sic) a tornado without a lot of special clearance. The "top" of a tornado will be well above the altitude limits on RC aircraft. It would also be in the realm of dangerous.
Flying over a disaster area is a different matter to take pictures is a different issue.
" A spokesperson for the FAA told me that the agency 'has proposed a civil penalty against an individual in New York City. The operator, who is a hobbyist, flew a drone carelessly or recklessly and violated air traffic rules as well. He ran the drone into a couple of buildings and it crash-landed 20 feet from a person (video).'""
And this is a good thing IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
It is illegal for anyone without special permission to fly a drone over(sic) a tornado without a lot of special clearance. The "top" of a tornado will be well above the altitude limits on RC aircraft.
So you're saying that it's illegal to do something that you can't possibly manage to do anyhow...?
Re: (Score:2)
No you could build an RC airplane that could fly over a tornado. All it would take money and a good engineering team. A turbocharged engine and a high aspect ratio wing is all you really need along with a good control systems.
I believe that someone did launch a glider from a weather balloon at an altitude above most tornados. I do not think it was in the US and well outside any urban areas but still probably a violation of regulations but I am not sure.
The law for RC aircraft places a legal altitude limit.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if I had to rank the danger on a scale of 1 to 100, (lower number = greater danger), I'd place the drone at 100 and the tornado at 1. I'm undecided about air cows and the flying pigs, but they would fall somewhere in between :-)
Re: (Score:2)
There is totally room to do weird stuff...
Right up until you endanger someone else (like me!)
Now, I don't like tons of regulations either, but I also don't want people crashing drones into me.
So yea, if someone is an idiot and crashes a drone in a city, that should be a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Land of the Free. Lol.
Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line regarding what the FEDERAL government can and cannot ban? Is the goal for no one to stand out, everyone go to work 9 to 5, watch TV, pay our taxes, and die after reaching retirement age, or is there some room left for people to do weird stuff?
You're free to do lots of "weird stuff," provided you're not damaging other people or threatening their well-being.
This guy failed to meet those two criteria, and thus is being punished appropriately. It's one of those "right to swing your fist" kinda things.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple answer is that which needlessly endangers people and property.
Flying a drone in controlled airspace around an airport is a great example. Hitting a 5 Kg drone at 200 knots or sucking it into a turbofan could cause someone their life or an airline hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Flying a drone over crowds of people where it could hurt somebody is another good example. Ever been to an airshow? You will notice that the performers in the US do not overfly the crowd during maneuvers.
These rules are n
Re: (Score:2)
> Land of the Free. Lol.
You're not free to damage other people's property or to cause injury to someone. Such restrictions are preservation of others' freedom to enjoy their property and life.
Your natural rights end where another's natural rights begin. My right to move my fist ends with your right to not have a broken nose, and vice versa. If you don't get that. I'm afraid there is no hope for you.
Unfortunately libertarians catch a bad rap because there are idiots who call themselves libertarians but ar
Re: (Score:2)
That is my view on most libertarians. It maybe that it is the idiotic nihilistic anarchists that I notice.
I believe that we need enough laws but not too many. Probably most people feel the same way. The key is workout the solution without getting nasty.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had some of these nihilists tell me I'm not a libertarian because I think banking tightly regulated (remember in the fractional banking systems, banks actually create money) and also companies' impact on the environment and public utilities should also be tightly regulated because everyone depends on them, and anything they do affects everyone in that society. The reason they should is so that the rights of the people at large are preserved. Society needs rules, even (or perhaps especially) in a libert
Re: (Score:2)
Ayn Rand is just the flip side of Karl Marx IMHO.
Maybe you are not a libertarian? Maybe you are a centrist. Some one that believes in a balance between rules and anarchy. Don't worry there is no organized group that called centrists but I think their are a lot more of us the anyone knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Responsive to voters I mean. Drone use responsive to voyers is still in its infancy.
Re: (Score:2)
If it flies it is the FAA. Do you really want every city and county in the US to make a patchwork of laws? Plus you have the violation of controlled airspace which is pure FAA.
Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
If I engaged in reckless behavior that posed serious threat to others or to their property then I too would expect to be fined if caught.
The FAA probably figured that the press and the paparazzi would be all over the use of drones if they were allowed to, and the ban was to prevent a bunch of people that had no interest in the technology itself from attempting to poorly use it. Hobbyists, on the other hand, are by definition interested in the technology, and are more likely to learn how to master its use. This particular hobbyist obviously wasn't in control, hence the fine, but he was also dumb and used the device where he shouldn't have been, ie, a congested urban environment with bystanders.
Play with this stuff where there's room and a lack of people to hurt and one should be ok.
Flying Objects and Buildings... (Score:3)
We're supposed to be okay with crashing flying objects to buildings? Did Al-Qaeda have it right all along? Should we give them medals instead of killing them? Is Bin Laden due a wrongful death payment?
These are legitimate concerns when you start complaining about a fine for a moron who caused his drone to fly into a stationary object.
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? "You mean I can't bludgeon you to death with my garden shovel? This is all Obama's fault, the damned communist!"
This would be funny if it weren't for Sean Hannity trying to make a hero out of the dude in Minnesota who executed a couple of teenagers [mediamatters.org] for burglary.
We need more governent controls! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Let me get this straight (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that the buildings had carelessly invaded his airspace and the pedestrians had trespassed his landing field. Obviously, these are the ones who should be punished.
This is NOT a fine for "Flying a Drone" (Score:2)
This is a fine for willfully putting someone in danger and destroying property. The pilot should be thanking his lucky stars that the FAA gets to process this in administrative law court rather than the State process it through criminal court.
Classes and Permits (Score:3)
It can be a fun hobby, but if they aren't flown responsibly and safely, eventually a mid-air collision with a helicopter is going to cause a fatality. At least with proper training it would lessen the chances of that.
Good (Score:2)
"Drones" vs "RC aircraft" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From my limited understanding, isn't in something to do with the line-of-sight requirement and/or capability of autonomy?
Either is capable of falling out of the sky and killing you, of course, so I'm not sure how much the distinction really matters.
Re: (Score:2)
An RC Aircraft requires line-of-sight control; if you can't see it you can't control it.
A drone has some level of autonomous control. For example, I can instruct a drone to fly to waypoints. Drones can also return home by themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone flying an RC aircraft has to follow precisely the same regulations. You can't violate airspace rules or operate recklessly. It's just that typically RC aircraft hobbyists have much more care and intelligence than random flaming assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone flying an RC aircraft has to follow precisely the same regulations. You can't violate airspace rules or operate recklessly. It's just that typically RC aircraft hobbyists have much more care and intelligence than random flaming assholes.
Us RC hobbyists also don't fly above 500', over populated areas, in restricted airspace, or near airports... At least the RESPONSIBLE ones don't. This nutcase deserves to be accosted by the FAA, as well as the local police for being a public danger, not to mention the owners of the property he damaged. Have fun with your toys, but do it responsibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Definition:
a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.
b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.
I'm an RC hobbyist myself. I don't do anything with multirotors, but I know many that do. Most of them have a control board that includes a "return to home" feature, so if they lose sight of the model (wind, equipment failure, etc), or even just lose visual orientation
Above a tornado? (Score:2)
it has been just fine for some guy to fly a drone above a tornado
I suspect that might be out of most drones' capabilities. The article has that link linked to another article, but it's about drones flying over a train crash. That article has a link to what appears to be the relevant story, which is about someone flying a drone over the aftermath of a tornado.
Re: (Score:2)
Practice safe flying people... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm fine with this (Score:2)
Its not a hobby vs comercial issue. Although legally, all private drones are by definition hobby (in this country). Its an issue of unsafe operation and the loss of control of the aircraft. Fine his ass.
It appears that the FAA might be taking a "no harm, no foul" approach to some drone operations. The person who filmed the tornado destruction technically might be in violation of the no commercial use regulation. But not having caused any trouble or run into anything or anyone, they don't appear to be doing
RC Helicopters/Planes vs. Drones? (Score:2)
I was an avid RC Helicopter hobbyist as a high school kid and I'm wondering what's the difference between a drone and a remote controlled helicopter/plane?
Is the drone 100% autonomous vs. the RC line of sight? Though you could fly an RC with a nose mounted camera..
Does the FAA define what a drone is?
Re: (Score:2)
Drone is what the public uses since they heard it on CNN, thats all.
My 'drone' as everyone calls it, is a quadcoptor ... which is funny, because my R/C Heli's (one electric, one nitro) and my fixed wing airplane ALL use the same hardware for flight control.
No one calls the heli's or the fixed wing a drone because it doesn't have a camera attached that they can see, the camera on those is inside a tinted canopy. On the quad, there are 3 cameras, one for First Person View while in flight, one still camera fo
Can cops issue tickets? (Score:2)
To illegally parked remote control cars?
I mean, if you're going to operate an RC car on a street where there is also legitimate vehicular traffic (even a suburban street), then the RC enthusiast should have a driver's license and the RC car should be insured and registered.
I mean, if they are going after people with a hobby for RC planes, then RC cars are the next target.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But I can't help being impressed by how quickly the drone stabilised - let alone stayed airborne - after the first collision.
Re: (Score:2)
I would only add that Operators MUST be non-commercial to be subject to your rules. Meaning that the activity must not be part of a "for profit" business, or additional requirements from the FAA may apply. If you are a hobbyist, flying for personal fun and stay away from populated areas and full sized aircraft, you should be able to fly your toy.
Re: (Score:2)
This has already been done ... 30-40 years ago, in voluntary cooperation with the R/C model industry, to avoid this very situation from becoming a problem and resulting in retarded regulations against the industry.
First off, the FAA regulations everything that flies, including baseballs and rocks your sister throws at you.
They already allow you to 'do what you want' in certain circumstances, which are easy to find out. For instance, a baseball is not something the FAA will take an interest in as it falls u
Re:Oh sure. Let's make drones illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
No.
There are NO rules that define anything called a 'drone'. Just people using words they heard on CNN.
The FAA has rules for hobby aircraft, which this man violated multiple times, and those rules have barely changed since the 60s! They will spank your ass for flying your 1960s vintage r/c airplane into a building as well as that is a violation of the rules that have existed since then, you can't fly within a close proximity to buildings OR people, and you can't fly in an unsafe manner ... EVER.
All of the things you mention ARE regulated by the FAA. Anything that flies, even a rock is regulated by the FAA. The regulations of them are different depending on which thing you are referring to.
But hey, why don't you go ahead and stay completely ignorant and act like the big bad government is personally making your life a living hell rather than growing the fuck up and getting a clue before spewing random shit out of your pie hole, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
And its already been appealed, and the FAA will win, the presiding judge fucked up in multiple ways. There isn't any question about this.
On the other hand, the story here is that a moron flew his r/c aircraft dangerously and he's going to get spanked for that.
Do you think its okay to let people fly into your house or car or you because its some random douche with an R/C airplane he bought and knows absolutely nothing about? 2 of my 4 aircraft can EASILY kill you, the other 2 can EASILY maim you, and I cer