Hundreds Apply For FAA Drone Licenses 90
itwbennett writes: The Federal Aviation Administration has issued eight more commercial drone licenses, the latest approvals for several hundred applications it has received. The newest licenses went to companies planning to use drones for video and TV production, aerial photography and surveying and inspecting flare stacks in the oil, natural gas and petro-chemical industry.
Other readers sent in followups to last week's stories about an enthusiast's drone that crashed onto the White House grounds, and the subsequent firmware update from the drone's manufacturer to enforce a no-fly zone in that area. The EFF argues that this is a shortsighted solution and only serves to highlight how the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands. Meanwhile, such "no-fly zone" updates give rise to a host of liability issues for manufacturers and enthusiasts alike.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is when manufacturers change the product you bought without your consent, after you've bought it. In the case of the self-braking car, that's not wrestling ownership away from anybody. That's a feature that existed when you bought the car, and one that you probably paid a premium for.
If they added this functionality without your permission after the purchase, then there's a big issue. It doesn't matter if they're adding or removing features at all. This is why I always disable autoupdates of conne
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Look, the EFF lately has been seeing boogey men everywhere - even when they don't exist.
This is such a case. Nobody is holding a gun to drone owners heads and forcing them to install this update. It's no different than refusing an update to your computer software. But the EFF needs to find ways to remain relevant in the face of growing competition and public indifference, so they write crap like this, and of course people go nuts.
The EFF is just as guilty of click bait as anyone else. Listen to them at yo
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is forcing to update (yet)
And how do you propose that they (meaning the manufacturer, because they are the ones who set the limit) "force" someone in the future? They can't.
As for "but when there's a bug fix or a new useful feature", I suggest that you lobby the manufacturer to reduce their limit if it concerns you so much, rather than listen to the EFF's fear-mongering, which WON'T result in any change whatsoever.
Of course, unlike the EFF, I have nothing to gain from FUD, so it's easier for me to suggest the logical course of a
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a pretty reasonable addition anyways. There is a legal no fly zone over most of DC (there are flight corridors to the two DC airports, and BWI is far enough away to not matter). This is not new, it has been in place for a long time. It makes sense to have the drone detect that it will break the law if it is flown. To me this is a good feature, as the drone is actively preventing me from having the FAA come knocking on my door and fining me large sums of money. For UFO people who want to f
Re: (Score:2)
I have a cable card tuner manufactured by Silicon Dust, it has three tuners which my computer connects to to record with Windows Media Center. I then convert the files using a piece of software named MCE Buddy which I have selected to output MP4 files which are unencrypted. I then have a 1080P signal that is unencrypted from FiOS as a source. You could call the combination of the Silicon Dust box and my PC as "a cable box" as this could all be done in one box, I have it separated for upgrade path reasons
Re: (Score:1)
I think most people would prefer that it reduces the possibility of a visit from the men in the black suvs. As well as wasting taxpayers money dealing with repeat performances, or losing their toys to an anti-drone system. You simply don't have the right to fly drones just anywhere.
Does it reduce the possibility of a visit from men in black helicopters? Or visits from government drones (flying or other types)? Tim S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The no fly zone is practically all of DC. The drones will stop at the border and refuse to cross it, and can be controlled to land whereever you want outside the zone. The drones will also refuse to take off from within the zone. This seems like a reasonable change to me. The drone will still work indoors where it is legal to fly them as the GPS can't get a lock inside a building.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is when manufacturers change the product you bought without your consent, after you've bought it.
No that isn't the issue here at all. In fact you need to connect the drone to a computer and explicitly apply an update that by definition changes the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Caller ID is on every cell phone I've owned, with no option to disable it. And automatic collision-avoidance systems that take control of your car will be mandated in the future [theiet.org]
Nobody is forcing drone owners to download and install this update. And in case you weren't aware, the drone involved in this incident already has software to restrict access to no-fly zones [dji.com]. The only difference is now you can download an update that includes the White House no-fly zone.
The EFF is once again engaging in fear-mong
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You disproved your own argument...
"if they haven't blocked it"
They *can* block it if they wish to... it's not being forced on anyone (albeit how to block it isn't always easy to find).
Re: (Score:3)
You still don't get it, do you? I cannot turn off the ability to see the unblocked numbers. That has NOTHING to do with blocking my own number.
Sure,I can block my outgoing number, but there is NO guarantee that the system will respect that setting - YMMV - because the caller info can pass through multiple carriers, and they ALL get your caller #. It's how they bill. Your number is only blocked (if it is) when the final connection is made to your phone.
Before they blocked that at the termination and introd
Re: (Score:2)
You still don't get it, do you? I cannot turn off the ability to see the unblocked numbers. That has NOTHING to do with blocking my own number.
Cover your eyes I guess? How is it in any way a problem to know who's calling? Does it spoil the surprise or something?
Re: (Score:2)
The original bone of contention was whether it was possible to turn off caller ID on cell phones. I pointed out that the recipient cannot turn off caller id, as well as the fact that the system may not honor a request by the caller to block their number.
All calls to womens shelters show who called, even if you turned off caller id at the caller's end.
Re: (Score:2)
And APK had to eat his words here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Your point is? Oh that you are an intolerant asshole, I see.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you forgo this update, you don't get any further bug fixes, added features etc. Just like with the PS3... you could refuse the update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but that meant not getting any future updates, not being able to play future games, and not being able to watch future BluRay movies.
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is? The drone in question already has a list of no-fly zones. This just adds the white house (which IS restricted air space) and the area around it, to the list.
Plus, the controller has a switch to turn no-fly zones on or off.
The EFF flat-out lied when they used this as an example of "how the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands." This is just another example of how the EFF increasingly engages in FUD and clickbait, Probably because they're less and less r
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty large no fly zone:
https://www.faasafety.gov/file... [faasafety.gov]
That yellow in the upper right is labeled Baltimore, that is about 50-100 miles away, so i estimate the zone is around 20 miles radius. I believe the black lines are the approved flight paths for Reagan National Airport (which is bisected by the lines). There is good reason for the no fly zone, but it isn't around the white house so much as the whole of DC.
The manufacturer is preemptively forcing their drone to follow the law so that dron
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't just add the white house... it adds a 20 miles radius around the white house, which isn't all restricted airspace.
You keep mentioning a switch to turn off no-fly zones. Are you certain of that? Not a single article I've read on this subject mentions there being a switch, and having one completely defeats the purpose of having no-fly zones to begin with.
How did the EFF "lie"? They gave a few examples (and I'm sure you can find many, many others) of manufacturers removing or gimping features aft
Re: (Score:2)
Go to the manufacturer's website - it's (the switch) is mentioned right on there. That nobody mentioned it just shows that everyone is a sucker who is ready to believe any and all fear-mongering by the EFF rather than take a minute to go to the source.
The EFF claimed that this was an example of "how the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands". Total BS. Total FUD.
Nobody has to install the update. They remain entirely in control of their property.
It's gotten to the point th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... the EFF is responsible for how well (or poorly) every news site out there reports this story. /s
Like I said, refusing to update means you no longer get any bug fixes or useful feature additions. You could refuse the PS3 update that removed the "Other OS" feature, but you'd then be unable to play any future games or Blu-Ray movies, and would be unable to access PSN. That's exactly the kind of thing the EFF is talking about, you buy something because it has features X, Y, and Z, then the manufacturer
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one lie pulled from the EFF's announcement:
As the White House reacted to the drone crash with a call for more regulation, the manufacturer of the downed quadcopter announced it would push a firmware update to all its units in the field, permanently preventing those drones from taking off or flying within 25km of downtown Washington DC.
It is physically impossible to do that. The drones can't me modded directly - you need to connect them to a PC.
And immediately, another two lies:
This announcement may have been an effort by the manufacturer DJI, whose Phantom model is one of the most popular consumer drone units, to avoid bad press and more regulation. But it also reinforced the notion that people who "own" these drones don't really own anything at all. The manufacturer can add or remove features without their agreement, or even their knowledge.
The owners still have complete control of their property. The manufacturer can NOT add or remove features without explicit action takent by the owner. They can choose not to update it. They can also use the "ignore no-fly zones" switch. They can also petition DJI to change the no-fly zone. Not very likely, since m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My truck has auto emergency braking...
I can also turn it off...
Re: (Score:2)
The drone involved in this incident already has a list of no-fly zones. All this update does is add the whitehouse to that list - and you have to download it and install it for it to take effect. And even then, there's a controller switch to turn no-fly zones off.
So how is the EFFs claim that "the concept of ownership is increasingly being pulled out of users' hands" in this case anything more than their usual self-serving FUD? The EFF fell into the "boy who cried wolf too many times" category years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
These are not personal drone licenses, but commercial licenses. It isn't even like a driver's license, but more a license to allow a company to use drones for a purpose.
No-fly zones are already enforced on DJI phantoms (Score:4, Informative)
This no-fly zone feature has been around for quite a while on their high-end models, to prevent users flying over an airport - see http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/ca... [dji.com]
Also, last time I checked the firmware update process involved connecting the quadcopter to a PC via a USB cable, so it's not like new rules are being applied without the user knowing.
Re: (Score:2)
IT'S A TRAP !! (Score:1)
They get you to register so they can TAKE IT AWAY !! Don't do it !! It's a TRAP !! It's your constitutional RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment !!
Don't Treat On Me !!
Re: (Score:2)
No fly zone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Which all points to what the rules should actually be. It should not be about no-fly zones, it should be all about 'Fly Zones', places where you are allowed to operate them with specific grades of licences. So very small ones, in you own yard only. Larger ones, at approved locations only, with an partial operators licence. General use, full licence requirement and the unit tagged to the licence holder. Your hobby is your hobby and you do not have the right to force it upon others. Same with all hobbies tho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That restricted air space does *not* extend 25km from the White House like DJI's arbitrary no-fly zone does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, it was the drone company that made the decision to add the white house and the area around it. Second, the user has to manually install the update - it's not like they can do it OTA. Third, the controller has a switch to ignore no-fly zones.
So no, what's ridiculous is the EFF spinning this as some form of "loss of ownership", and all the people who are up in arms over it. Anyone pointing out that the EFF is once again full of it is goring a geek sacred cow. Just goes to show that, sadly enough, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There will be no successful class actions. And if anyone buys one and it refuses to work, all they have to do is return it for a full refund, same as anything else.
So, are they offering full refunds to people who own one and live within the newly-banned area?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there is no such thing as a "no fly zone" in the US. It's a "Prohibited Airspace" red zone on a TAC, and for the most part PAs are permanent and extend to space. Flight is under Terminal Restriction rules 15nm around Ronald Reagan IA, Red Zone PA extends above the Capitol Building and the White House, and generally any air traffic (AT ALL) around the Baltimore-DC Metro area is subject to constant FAA monitoring with the added requirement of a permanently open channel to ATC.
Citation: http://sua.faa.gov/sua/ [faa.gov]
Re:No fly zone? (Score:4, Informative)
The White House is prohibited airspace (P-56 [skyvector.com]). There are no conditions in which a civilian would be allowed to operate there (otherwise it would merely be restricted airspace, and you could obtain permission). You pretty much have to be the President's helicopter to be allowed in (that is, convince the folks with the missiles to not shoot you down, which they will do if you don't comply with their fighter-jet intercept).
The rules for operating in the DC SFRA can not be complied with by any drone on the market today (they require radio communication and a discrete transponder code).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Low altitude airspace generally belongs to the land owner under that airspace. For example, the land owner can build buildings and radio towers on their land even if it inconveniences airplanes; pilots have to accommodate property owners, not the other way around. Commercial aviation simply has been granted a special exemption allowing them to fly through otherwise unused airspace. That exemption is not a property right and it
Re: (Score:2)
There are no conditions in which a civilian would be allowed to operate there
You Insensitive Clod! I'm not only a civilian, I'm the President, and I'll fly my drone anywhere I want!
But who was the WH drone-crash pilot? (Score:2)
http://gizmodo.com/guy-who-cra... [gizmodo.com]
and so dies the fad (Score:2)
when you're restricted to the 8 feet of air directly above your house, will it get boring?
Enforcment? (Score:3)
Maybe they could require registration for commercially purchased drones. But what stops me from building a drone in my garage and zipping it around the neighborhood?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing really (assuming you don't live within restricted airspace)... personal use is still unlicensed.
Re: (Score:2)
There will have to be a licencing scheme, similar to cars. If your drone isn't licensed it will be captured and confiscated, just like your car.
It sucks but if you consider what a bad idea people being allowed to throw tonnes of metal around at high speeds was on the ground you can see why allowing them to fly completely unregulated aircraft overhead probably isn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, another idiot.
advance the idea that it HAS this authority in the first place (which it arguably does not)
Just shut up. You're so unbelievable wrong that its mind numbing you continued the rest of your diatribe. The FAA has had, since its inception, mandate BY LAW OF CONGRESS to control ALL airspace, from the ground up. You and people like you need to get through your thick skulls that just because you read from some random guy on some random website that they don't doesn't make it magically true.
A toy helicopter hovering 50ft above your home or business is NOT in the "navigable airspace"
At no point does the FAA ever refer to anything as 'navigable airspace'. You're showing exac
Open Source / Open Hardware (Score:1)
Overlooked details Whitehouse "drone" crash. (Score:2)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]