New FAA regulations to restrict (toy) quad-copters use/flights?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by localoid, Dec 13, 2014.

  1. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #1
    Dec 12 (Reuters) - Americans shopping for toy remote-controlled airplanes or helicopters may find, sometime in the near future, that they come with unexpected accessories: A raft of new regulations.

    The Federal Aviation Administration, by the end of the month, is expected to propose new rules governing small unmanned aircraft systems, the first major overhaul of its drone policy.

    The agency is closely guarding details, saying only that the rules will cover a wide range of users flying aircraft or drones weighing 55 pounds or less.

    But legal and policy experts who have advised the FAA and lobbied on drone regulations said they predict the new regulations will include restrictions on hundreds of thousands of people who fly quad-copters or toy planes in parks or backyards.

    Experts said that based on existing drone guidelines, the new FAA rules, expected to take at least a year to kick in, will likely require, among other things, recreational fliers to either join a community-based model aircraft organization - or obtain authorization from the FAA. The rules also could place other restrictions on people who fly drones recklessly, the experts said. If the rules omit discussion of recreational fliers, the experts added, that could sow confusion on what type of flying is allowed.

    "There's basically going to be two options," said Richard Hanson, director of government affairs at the Academy of Model Aeronautics, who has lobbied Congress and advised the FAA on drone regulations. "You either participate in a community-based organization or you have to follow the rules as if you are commercial operator."

    Read more: INSIGHT-Drone downer: Will new FAA rules ground recreational fliers?
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    The FAA is a ****ing joke on this issue. The perfect example of American bureaucracy run amok and a bunch of old white haired ****s making laws about industries they don't even understand.

    Countries like Canada have huge up-and-coming industries surrounding drones. Meanwhile the US and the FAA are doing their damnedest to try to kill this industry before it even gets going.
     
  3. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #3
    My 12-year-old daughter has a Parrot AR 2.0 Drone. It's illegal for us to fly it at our home. We are 2.9 miles from D73.
     
  4. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #4
    Seems odd. You know I am fairly liberal, but this seems like unnecessary government regulation to me. (Unless, of course, the government is worried that having set a precedent of raining death from drones in the sky has given terrorists ideas....)
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #5
    You think it's unnecessary regulation to ban flying small objects that can be difficult for pilots to see yet cause a serious accident if it collides with a plane less than 3 miles from an airport?
     
  6. richwoodrocket macrumors 68020

    richwoodrocket

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Location:
    Hamburg, NY
    #6
    This is so stupid. They expect people to be professionals at flying a drone the second they take it out of the box. Everybody is going to be a "risky flier" at first!
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #7
    Frankly, I would rather not have my neighbors flying over my back yard examining my junk with their camera-equipped RC quad-copters. If it comes down to "my personal airspace includes whatever I can see above my head", the regulations will make sense. Freedom does not mean you ought to act like an irresponsible jerk.

    (And the annoying dogs in this neighborhood have enough to bark at as it is.)
     
  8. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #8
    However, if my daughter's drone were to impact an aircraft, that aircraft would already have bigger problems to worry about. Her drone can only get 165 feet from her iPhone. Any aircraft below that is not going to clear the high tension wires between us and the airport. Not to mention those leafy things.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    The majority of these drones that are more than a couple hundred have built-in GPS. They use it for auto-land and stuff. It's pretty easy for the manufacturers to build geofences into the software so they can't fly within 3 miles of an airport.


    Also, I think there could be some type of basic training class for drone safety. But the FAA's idea of requiring any commercial operator to get a PILOTS LICENSE is flat out retarded. That's not cost effective at all for any small businesses or startups in this industry, nor does it make any sense at all since the skills used to fly a little RC drone are not the same skills it takes to fly a Cessna.
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    I actually disagree; I think the FAA is doing good on this one. Case in point: when a drone came within 80 feet of an A320 and an ATR-72 at Heathrow and Southend airports, respectively.

    Additionally, consider a crime scene, when someone's drone could compromise the integrity of a crime scene, or better yet, a search for someone who has committed a crime, and someone decides to 'help' by sending up a drone, and has a MAC with the police helicopter that is conducting the search?

    Or better yet, someone sending up a drone to get a view of say, the Las Vegas Strip, not realizing that it is on the final approach to runways 19L and 19R at McCarran Int'l, as it is parallel to the Strip? OR even more so, further north of it, which is actually restricted airspace, due to proximity to Nellis AFB?

    In this case, the FAA is right, as it is the authority that not only designates the various airspace in a given area, but the ceilings and floors of such airspace. They are also right because the people owning the drones have not done their due diligence to check the various airspace classifications around where they live to even know if it would be safe, let alone legal to send up a drone.

    So the FAA is definitely getting this one right, as you can't blame the government authority over public ignorance of the airspace around them.

    BL.
     
  11. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #11
    Why do we have to kill an entire industry with ridiculous over-regulation though?

    I do some small multimedia work on the side and little drones that can capture high-quality video footage has the potential to revolutionize this type of work. I could invest a couple thousand into some good hardware and be able to get great aerial shots that before would have cost tens of thousands of dollars for a helicopter rental.

    Sorry, but the FAA is being completely brainless on this issue. They're going out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for small businesses who could benefit greatly from this type of tech. Offer a basic drone safety class so the operators will know not to fly in airspace a plane that's cheap for small businesses to send their people to.


    The hobbyists and kids who fly these things pose a bigger problem to safety than business operators like media companies, real estate agencies, etc. yet as of right now there are zero regulations for "hobbyist" use while commercial use is out-right banned.

    It could not be more backwards. Meanwhile Canada is doing a much better job with all this. Why can't the FAA approach this with some common sense like Transport Canada did?

    http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-recavi-uav-2265.htm?WT.mc_id=21zwi
     
  12. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    Did the industry consider airspace classifications and regulations prior to creating this industry? Because it is obvious that they hadn't, and wanted to leave it up to their consumers to do that themselves. They could have provided disclaimers or warnings about those prior to or when they began to sell their product. Sounds like a precaution they forgot to take into account.

    Again, same that comes into account. Know the airspace prior to making your flight, and advise the proper people. In this case, it is easier to get permission than beg for forgiveness. Otherwise, you end up with regulation proposals like this.

    The issue here is that none of them know about the airspace around them, so all need to be included in the education of the airspace around them. But you have to admit that the LHR incident does not help your cause, and proves the FAA's point on why their regulations are needed.

    BL.
     
  13. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #13
    While I agree that the regs are going too far, I don't think that the manufacturers are going to want to deal with geofences. First of all, they would need to model the airspace for every airport, which is not "easy". Secondly, and likely most important, is that it would open them up to liability should something happen in said airspace.
     
  14. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #14
    People have been flying model planes and helicopters for years. The FAA never regulated flights for them below 400 feet.

    Most companies do this. No different than if you wanted to get a permit for a shoot in downtown Boston.

    The problem is the hobbyists, not the small companies, yet right now there are zero regulations for hobbyists and companies are banned.


    It proves that people need to use more common sense and could use a basic safety class. It doesn't prove we need draconian nanny-state regulations requiring people like me to spend thousands of dollars and tons of hours getting a pilots license to fly a 5 pound model helicopter with a gopro attached to it.
     
  15. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #15
    There should be laws that make sense. The laws should take into account the size of the airport and aircraft using it. And it should take into account the type of drone. Something like the Parrot AR Drone isn't a danger to aircraft unless you are actually taking off from the airport runways.

    The airport near my home, D73 has more danger from parachutes, hang gliders, glider planes and ultralights than drones, especially ones as small as the Parrot AR 2.0 but that aside, we obey the law.
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    Because they were lightweight, short range, and finicky, and required skill to operate. Which made them a small problem.

    The newer stuff is heavier, easier to fly, longer range, and much more likely to get in the way of something. And has (see bradl's post). But, speaking of common sense, do you really want a 5 pound helicopter hovering over your head? If it drops on your head from 50 feet, how many joules will be dissipated? Have you calculated what force it would exert on your skull and spine?
     
  17. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #17
    There obviously should be some sort of regulation on flying drones and other aircraft, as there are many things that could go wrong and many ways that they could be used nefariously. Doesn't need to be too oppressive, though.
     
  18. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #18
    Hobby rockets, gliders, helicopters, and planes have been around for decades.

    Add the word drone and suddenly regulation and federal hacks need 100,000 new laws to justify fines, new tactical teams and weapons for "homeland security".
     
  19. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #19
    Do you REALLY think a parrot ar drone would do anything if it hit a plane like a 737?

    It only weights around 400 Grams and is mostly plastic!
     
  20. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    Do you want to be in the plane when that thing gets sucked into the engine (or hit by a propeller blade)? I certainly don't.
     
  21. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #21
    At low speed such as in landing I would have no problem sitting in a 737 that sucked in a Parrot AR Drone into one of its engines.

    They weight about the same as a pigeon, I not saying it would be a good thing and the engine would have to be inspected but a catastrophic failure would be highly unlikely from something that size/mass.
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    Look at what a pair of geese did to the two CFM56 engines of AWE1549. They weighed less, and at 1650ft AGL, sent an A320 into the Hudson.

    Don't doubt the damage such a small object can do to an aircraft.

    BL.
     
  23. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #23
    Well, this post explains a lot. Nothing I didn't already know, but it helps.

    ----------

    Bingo. The thought that anyone would say that they'd be perfectly comfortable having an object sucked into the engine of a plane they were on, leads me to believe we might need a DeWalt.
     
  24. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #24
    You are comparing what several Fifteen pound birds did to a drone that weighs around One pound...
     
  25. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #25
    The airport SD lives near is a tiny municipal airport that handles tiny single engine Cessnas and not 737s. The size difference isn't so great when we're dealing with crop dusters.
     

Share This Page