
Drone Hobbyists Angered by Congress Ending the Aerial Wild West - antr
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-27/drone-hobbyists-angered-by-congress-ending-the-aerial-wild-west
======
FundThrowaway
Almost every time we have a BBQ or other outside event someone buzzes a drone
overhead and just sits there watching us. Almost every time I go out hiking I
hear the high pitched whine of a drone flying around the country park. It
seems no matter where I go there is someone flying one. They are a total
nuisance, create tons of noise pollution in areas that are usually quite
tranquil, invade privacy and just annoy me all around to be honest.

~~~
mashgin
where do you live? I'm in the Bay Area and have never seen any drones flying
overhead! I'm myself a drone enthusiast, and I take great care not to make
anyone feel uncomfortable (at least not intentionally) when I'm flying a drone

~~~
iancmceachern
I live in norcal (sacramento) and spend a lot of time outdoors here, in the
bay area, and near Tahoe and we see them consistently nearly every time were
out, even when we're paddling on the water.

~~~
MisterOctober
Phoenix area here - drone nuisance an occasional but non-negligible problem
here too. Sometimes they're a minor annoyance [e.g., 4th of July fireworks
viewing], and sometimes genuinely creepy [hovering over backyards in my
neighborhood, sometimes at night]

I observe that the majority of drone owners use them with a mind to avoid
making others ill-at-ease, but y'know, tragedy of the commons and all that

~~~
Jedd
Not really tragedy of the commons.

~~~
andybak
If the resource is peace and privacy then "tragedy of the commons" seems like
a reasonable metaphor.

Can you post in a little more detail as just prefixing the bit you disagree
with with "not" isn't terribly useful.

~~~
Jedd
If resource was peace and privacy (those aren't resources), and they were
zero-sum, then it'd arguably be tragedy of the commons.

People being dicks and drawing unwanted regulatory attention towards
themselves and other people ... is just people being dicks.

I appreciate that 'tragedy of the commons' is a very hip phrasing these days,
but its usefulness benefits from not being misused.

~~~
ken
"Resource" (Merriam-Webster), definition 1c: "a natural feature or phenomenon
that enhances the quality of human life".

I would say silence does indeed meet this definition.

~~~
Jedd
> If resource was peace and privacy (those aren't resources), _and_ they were
> zero-sum

Not to say I agree with your dubious attempt at bringing 'silence' into the
fold of 'resource'.

When you start mining silence by the barrel from deep space, then we can start
treating it as a commodity resource.

~~~
andybak
A resource can be locally limited despite being globally (or universally)
unlimited. Energy for example (to a certain degree)

Also I'm not sure "zero sum" is the same thing as "limited". The former
imposes stricter requirements.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one.

~~~
Jedd
I can't consume all the available quiet and therefore prevent you from having
any.

~~~
andybak
You can consume all the quiet in specific area at a specific time. If that's
not a limited resource then nothing is.

~~~
Jedd
> You can consume all the quiet in specific area at a specific time. If that's
> not a limited resource then nothing is.

a) I don't know how you'd measure 'all the quiet' to determine that I'd
consumed all there was.

b) even if I did, it doesn't prevent you from consuming as much (up to all) of
'the quiet' as you wanted, too.

Which brings us back to why it's not a tragedy of the commons, and why the
analogy doesn't work either.

------
bjt2n3904
Calling the state of drones the "wild west" pretty much puts the conclusion at
the start.

How about, "Drone hobbyists angered at pointless laws that treat their hobby
like it's a problem"

~~~
MBCook
What about the part of the article where the FCC gets 100 complaints a day,
including from pilots seeing drones in dangerous areas?

~~~
gorkish
100 reports per month.

The relatively small city I live in gets this many or more animal-at-large
reports on a daily basis which likely constitute a larger public safety threat
than people flying their quads around throughout the entire country.

Where is the regulatory capture on leash laws?

~~~
poof131
Animal populations aren’t growing at exponential rates. The future scale of
drones and autonomous airborne vehicles is going to be huge. The growing
possibility of midairs with drones is more significant than bird strikes or
deer on a runway. Hobbyist drone pilots are going to lose the safety battle.
Just as you can’t drive however you want on public roads, class G airspace is
going to resemble class A airspace. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_\(United_States\))

~~~
freeone3000
Really? There are more drones than _birds_?

~~~
CleaveIt2Beaver
More unaware drones/flying objects with greater mass than birds, maybe?

------
asynchronous13
The article is talking about the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/4/te...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text)

The problematic portion for drone hobbyists is "S.2836 - Preventing Emerging
Threats Act of 2018" that was attached to the FAA Reauthorization bill.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/283...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/2836/text)

In it's current form, it has some really vague wording and definitions. For
example, the bill frequently refers to "threat" without a solid definition. It
basically says that "threat" will be defined by the Secretary or Attorney
General at a later time.

~~~
iamdave
_THREAT DEFINED.—In defining the term ‘threat’ for purposes of carrying out
paragraph (1), the Secretary or the Attorney General, as the case may be,
shall take into account factors, including, but not limited to, the potential
for bodily harm or loss of human life, the potential loss or compromise of
sensitive national security information, or the potential severe economic
damage resulting from use of an unauthorized unmanned aerial system in the
vicinity of a covered facility or asset._

Well no, 'threat' is not being defined by the Sec/AG at a later time, it's
right there. Where I will concede to your point is that in the context of
unmanned aerial flight, _actions by the pilot_ that satisfy the above are not
well enumerated or defined-but I'm only partially through reading the text of
the bill.

~~~
asynchronous13
Please read that definition more carefully.

Here's a paraphrase: In defining the term _threat_ , The Secretary or the
Attorney __shall take into account __factors such as potential for harm, loss
of life, national security, and economic damage.

That is not a definition, that is a list of things that must be taken into
account when making the definition.

~~~
wahern
"Eiusdem generis: Of the same kind, class, or nature. In statutory
construction, the 'ejusdem generis rule' is that where general words follow an
enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific
meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent,
but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general
kind or class as those specifically mentioned."
[https://thelawdictionary.org/ejusdem-
generis/](https://thelawdictionary.org/ejusdem-generis/)

"Noscitur a sociis: A latin term for 'it is known by the company it keeps', it
is the concept that the intended meaning of an ambiguous word depends on the
context in which it is used." [https://thelawdictionary.org/noscitur-a-
sociis/](https://thelawdictionary.org/noscitur-a-sociis/)

------
iamdave
I'm mildly incredulous on the actual scope of the bill compared to what's
being reported (it's a learned behavior), does anyone have the name of the
bill or the full text that I may go read for myself?

Mostly because as as a remote pilot, I have a feeling the proposals may be
much less onerous than we're being lead to believe by Bloomberg here and what
hobbyist groups are complaining about.

Stated as a Licensed Part 107 operator. I think _everyone_ should be required
to undergo _some_ kind of training, with tiers for educational, hobbyist, and
commercial. I learned a lot more in those classes than just how to fly a
Phantom DJI and found the regulatory knowledge alone to be HIGHLY insightful.

~~~
ransom1538
Ugh. _Everytime_ I fly a micro drone ($40) I get some "Licensed Part 107
operator" lecture me on how I need to "undergo some kind of training". I think
these guys should shift their energy to firearm laws and stop harassing
children at parks.

~~~
stevecalifornia
You should have to undergo some kind of training. It's wildly routine to see
drone pilots flying at the end of a runway because they didn't realize the
runway was there and they didn't know aeronautical charts exist and/or how to
read them. Buying a flying battery pack doesn't entitle you to circumvent
airspace rules and endanger lives and property.

~~~
diego
a $40 micro drone _is_ training. It's a completely harmless toy, even less
harmful than a soccer ball. This is not a $1000 hobby grade drone (for which
you definitely should undergo training). A $40 drone typically has extremely
weak brushed motors. You don't need training to operate a frisbee but you
definitely need training to operate a discus. This comment is an example of
how the general public does not know enough about the subject matter.

~~~
dmitrygr
So nice of you to decide that is it ok for you to endanger my life because
_you_ think that something is harmless. Thanks. Your quad _will_ break my
windscreen on short final (since i am doing 80 knots or so), distract me, and
possibly make me crash on landing.

~~~
jsjohnst
A $40 drone is usually an under 2” device that fits in the palm of your hand
with an operating range of under 100ft and barely can be used outdoors (due to
wind). I’ve had similar size devices fly into me (including in the face) and I
didn’t even get scratched, let alone remotely hurt.

If it hits your windscreen, you were more likely driving where you shouldn’t
be rather than someone with a literal kids toy doing something wrong.

~~~
donarb
Windscreen refers to that of an airplane, not a car. The clue is the reference
to 80 knots, which is never used to measure vehicle speed.

~~~
jsjohnst
Thanks. I meant to say flying, not driving. Swap out the two words and you’ll
realize what I said makes sense as written otherwise.

------
cmurf
As a pilot and former flight instructor, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the
recreational drone complaints. There are recreational kite fliers too, and
they have FAA regulations that apply to them, I don't hear them complaining.
There are model airplane pilots, they have FAA regulations, they have a
community that is very serious about education, training, mentor-peer
relationships and self monitoring and reporting.

I do not see this at all with the drone pilot community. It's a community of
individuals. And even if it's less than 1% of the total drone pilot
population, there is a real problem with this bizarre demand that they have a
right to do what they want. They do not. This is shared space. Ham radio
operators have more rules, testing, peer review and community than
recreational drone pilots.

~~~
orclev
Interestingly much of the (hobbyist) drone hardware also requires a Ham
license to operate, so there's quite a bit of overlap there.

There are at least 3 distinct groups potentially impacted by this. First there
are the non-commercial, "toy" users that are flying around cheap little
"smart" drones using phones. Most of this class are using drones under 5" and
that weigh negligible amounts. The second class are the non-commercial
hobbyists that mostly build their own drones and use them either for
recreational freestyle or racing. These drones can be anywhere from 3" all the
way up to 12" on the extreme end, and similarly have a very wide weight and
performance envelope. Much of the equipment in this class requires Ham
licenses, or in some cases other federal licensing. Lastly there are the
commercial operators that are mostly using drones for aerial photography.
These tend to be medium to large sized drones (everything from 6" all the way
to multiple foot wide monstrosities) which most definitely require FAA
licenses to operate.

Part of the problem here, is that each of these groups has different
expectations. Little Timmy getting the 4" plastic drone he flies with his
iPhone for Christmas shouldn't really be required to pass a FAA license to fly
it around his backyard. The professional across the street with access to the
5 foot wide 150 pound hexacopter with the gyrostabilized 4k camera mount and
an effective range measured in miles probably should have some kind of
license. The guy who built his own 5" drone out of parts and tools around the
local park probably falls somewhere in the middle. Lumping all drones under
one single set of regulations really isn't going to work because not all
drones are the same. It would be like trying to cover unicycles, bicycles,
segways, and motorcycles with a single set of regulations just because they
all had less than four wheels and required you to balance on them.

~~~
jsjohnst
> The professional across the street with access to the 5 foot wide 150 pound
> hexacopter with the gyrostabilized 4k camera mount and an effective range
> measured in miles probably should have some kind of license.

1) that category of person already had to have a license (a license I hold)
before this new bill and does require testing.

2) that size drone weighs nothing near 150lb. I have a commercial grade 5 foot
octocopter with advanced gyro and a professional grade dSLR and fully loaded
(drone, battery, comms, gyro, camera and lens) it’s under 25lbs.

------
gaahrdner
Long gone are the days of needing only a Technician class radio license to
operate FCC uncertified radio and video transmission gear, strapped onto a
cheap foam RC plane from China, piloted by a human with nothing more than a
controller, video goggles, and an antenna to achieve mile-long distances and
thousand foot heights.

THAT was the wild west.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfzBiZUPSo0)

~~~
zrobotics
Plus, we still have part 103 ultralight aircraft. As long as it weighs < 254
lbs and is slow enough, you don't even need to register the darn thing.

Edit: to clarify, these are 'real' aircraft that humans can fly in.

[https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-
interest...](https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-
interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-
flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights)

~~~
carapace
OMFG so if I can build a thing within these constraints I can fly it?

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety
devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic
situation;

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in
level flight; and

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated
airspeed.

God Bless America!

~~~
Merad
It's been done:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSN6qet1kE)

~~~
jcims
Peter has become some kind of guerilla youtuber. I have seen him on at least
six different channels in as many months (most recently
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZCxxKp0hM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZCxxKp0hM)).

The funny thing is he's about the only one I'd actually like to meet in
person. Nothing against the other folks (Mark Rober from above seems really
nice), Peter just seems like he'd be fun to hang out with and build something.

------
samstave
What year will we see the following scenarios actually happen:

* Someone flies a drone into a government facility with an explosive | camera | contraband?

* Public figure/celebrity or official assassinated by drone

* Drone causes infrastructure damage or transportation accident

* Drone used for spying /financial gain

\---

Honestly, the lack of the above happening in any large scale, notable or
meaningful way shows that there arent a ton of people out there looking to
wreak havoc with drones.

What I am surprised by is there are not yet a range of security services based
on drones - i.e. a swarm of autonomous drone cameras which patrol a given
asset/area where they autonomously recharge themselves and fly around -
coupled with motion sensors/proximity sensors that being triggered are
dispatched to investigate.

~~~
valarauca1

        Someone flies a drone into a government 
        facility with an explosive | camera |
        contraband?
    

Yemen, Syria, or Iraq (any time within the last 1-2 years)

    
    
        Public figure/celebrity or official
        assassinated by drone
    

Attempted assassination attempt of Nicolás Maduro earlier this year.

    
    
        Drone causes infrastructure damage or
        transportation accident
    

Yemen, Syria, or Iraq (more then 2 years ago)

    
    
        Drone used for spying /financial gain
    

Shit everything has already happened (outside of the US), so I assume this has
as well. Just we aren't going to hear about it until the statue of limitations
is up.

\---

Seriously the asymetic warfare from relatively cheap drones is a massive
problem. The US has fired patriot missiles are little more then ~$300 hobbyist
drones carrying hand grenades.

~~~
samstave
I meant within here in the US.

I am perfectly aware of military use of drones. I was referring to the
hobbiest movement's potential use of drones for 'domestic terrorism'.

~~~
KirinDave
Most folks think drones as in the US military's absurdly heavy and old-
fashioned style, though, so it's good to point out these antics were all with
light duty quadcopters, often custom built on site.

~~~
samstave
Good point.

I fully expect that this ___WILL_ __happen here in the US, and I am surprised
that it has not happened _already_.

------
dragIo
This is just to clear the airspace and sell licensing fees to Google, Amazon
and the like in a few years.

------
Kiro
Why are HN so keen on defending drones? Serious question. Is there any
altruistic reason or do hackers just like drones? What about privacy issues?
Drones seem much more intrusive than the CCTVs people here normally are
against.

~~~
jsjohnst
Generally because the folks attacking don’t have the first clue anything what
they are talking about. Those opposed are buying into pure FUD. Just read
through the comments here alone, we have folks talking about regulations
didn’t exist (they do), that licensing/testing isn’t required (it is, for the
categories generally needing it), thinking a palm sized drone endangers their
life (it doesn’t, unless they were being stupid), that commercials drones
weigh 150lbs (almost none are remotely even close, 99% are under 25lbs, 99.9%
are under 50lbs), etc etc.

------
jakobegger
Some time ago I wanted to see what kind of videos people make with drones, and
the top result on Youtube was a compilation of videos of nude girls sunbathing
who absolutely did not want to be filmed.

When I saw that, I realised that there are too many assholes in the world to
allow unregulated drones. Some people will invade the privacy of others
without any thought, and the only course of action is to require registration
of drones.

It's a shame -- I'm sure there are plenty of responsible drone pilots out
there. But the jerks ruin it for everyone.

------
LinuxBender
Ending the Aerial Wild West implies that the wild west is no more. There are
plenty of places to buy drone parts, controllers, etc... that do not require
any registration. Would it perhaps be more accurate to say, that the wild west
is slightly limited to true hobbyists and terrorists? Would such regulations
just limit the average person from buying their "toy" drones? The drone
hobbyists that I know are not impacted by this. They use 3d headsets and race
their drones through buildings up to 6 miles away.

~~~
superkuh
> race their drones through buildings up to 6 miles away.

This is a pretty incredible claim. I think your friends may have been
exaggerating things or you misunderstood.

~~~
LinuxBender
Not at all. They are actually working on methods to extend even further by
creating a network mesh in the air. This involves multiple RasPi's and
multiple drone blimps and multiple quad drones.

~~~
superkuh
Alright. That's a little more plausible. At least that would give them line of
sight. Now it's just incredible and unlikely instead of completely infeasible.

~~~
LinuxBender
There are companies deploying commercial solutions similar to what my friends
are doing. There are a couple companies in the EU that will send an AED drone
to emergency callers for heart attacks. The drone's wings collapse and it
converts into an AED. It can fly to locations minutes before first responders
get there. They are also being used to deliver medicine to remote camp-sites
in the mountains and some jungles.

------
upofadown
The eventual value of low level airspace for drone use vastly exceeds the
value of any current use. If we wait long enough we will get to read lurid
articles about reckless people in manually controlled aircraft blundering
through drone space, putting the lives of themselves and others at risk for no
good reason.

The governments of the world have entirely dropped the ball on anti-collision
systems for small aircraft up to now. I anticipate them doing no better now
that there are even smaller aircraft added to the mix.

------
CitizenTekk
I think it's fair enough that there should be law to choose out fly zone only
for drones to still preserve privacy, tranquility and lessen the noise
pollution, some people might think that drones are also hobby for people, but
not all people don't have the same exact common things to enjoy.

City of LA is now issuing permits for this kind of issue

Excerpt: The city and the county of Los Angeles have issued nearly 60 permits
for drones on film and TV sets in the last year, according to data from
FilmL.A., which handles permits for the Los Angeles region. In addition to the
permits, applications for drone waivers have poured in, with more than 200
companies and individuals requesting authorisation from the FAA to operate
drones for film production, per the FAA website.

full article: [https://beth.technology/drones-over-hollywood-an-aerial-
view...](https://beth.technology/drones-over-hollywood-an-aerial-view-of-
video-security/)

------
EGreg
While I think many of the provisions for drones are too restrictive, one
provision is crucial:

 _The law also weighs into the controversial issue of whether drones should
have radio beacons that identify their position and registered owner. It would
grant the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to require that. The
agency is drafting such a regulation at the request of homeland security and
law enforcement agencies and has signaled it may require retrofitting millions
of drones already in use._

Autonomous drones are far cheaper to produce than automobiles. And what if an
autonomous drone drops grenades in a public area? Who do you blame? How does
the law prevent further issues?

We better crack down on unidentified drones.

~~~
kxrm
If someone wanted to launch such an attack disabling identification would be
fairly trivial.

~~~
EGreg
That’s the only way we can catch the drones early. Drone flying without a
radio beacon would be instantly shot down by laser or emp or whatever. We
would need tons of those. Otherwise there are huge dangers.

------
xchip
LOL it will be harder to own a drone than to own a gun

~~~
krapp
Put guns on all the drones and they'll be protected by the 2nd Amendment. And
the guns.

------
abledon
About time. I'm F*ing amazed this has gone on so long! As if no one has duck
taped some github computer vision human recognition AI's with some strapped on
Pistol/Semi automatic hooked up to an onboard arduino.

------
trhway
Ultra light aircraft don't need test/license while drones would be required to
have it.

------
draugadrotten
Terrorists are already using Drones to attack people[1]. ISIS are buying and
perhaps using drones in Europe[2]. Unfortunately, this means drones will need
to be regulated like they are weapons, because they are used as weapons.

1-
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/americas/venezuelan-
president-targeted-in-attack-attempt-minister-says.html)

2- [https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-
Denmark-...](https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Two-arrested-in-Denmark-for-
attempting-to-smuggle-drones-to-ISIS-568039)

~~~
learc83
People use all manner of electronics to build detonation devices for bombs. Do
you want to regulate cell phones and alarm clocks like weapons too?

Drones are too easy to build and conceal to effectively prevent determined
attackers from getting them and using them. Regulations are aimed at
preventing accidents and nuisance incidents, not terrorism.

~~~
reaperducer
_People use all manner of electronics to build detonation devices for bombs._

Explosives are also used in bombs, and those are heavily regulated.

~~~
learc83
Which is why I referenced detonation mechanisms. The drone attacks the OP is
referencing also used explosives.

~~~
draugadrotten
Your line of thought is interesting, that cell phones (should not) be
regulated despite their use as detonation mechanism.

If I think along those lines, the drone attacks are using drones as the
delivery mechanism for the explosives, and whatever they are using for
detonation mechanism is not interesting here. The explosives are regulated. So
should the delivery mechanism be regulated? I think yes-- other delivery
mechanisms for explosives to a target are guns, cannons, rockets... all
regulated.

~~~
trhway
>The explosives are regulated.

given that fireworks and powder are easily available (re: Tsarnaevs) or
relative availability of ANFO (re: McVeigh) and similar stuff or that just one
visit to Home Depot allows you to buy components making for a pretty good
explosive, i think the explosives are regulated mostly to avoid them lying
freely around under the kitchen sinks and in the garages and to avoid being
handled by clueless people, not to protect from terrorists.

~~~
reaperducer
_just one visit to Home Depot allows you to buy components making for a pretty
good explosive_

It also gets you a visit from the feds. Those sorts of purchases are tracked
very closely since Mcveigh.

~~~
philipkglass
Buying explosive precursors together does not automatically trigger any sort
of investigation.

I bought acetone, hydrogen peroxide (in the form of a wood bleaching kit), and
hydrochloric acid together in 2002 at a Home Depot and never got the slightest
bit of attention.

I also bought an 80 pound sack of ammonium nitrate from a fertilizer dealer in
2002 with cash. I didn't show ID. The employees didn't grill me at all. I was
pretty surprised, actually. I thought there would be _some_ sort of tracking
in place six years after the OKC bombing and 1 year after the 9/11 attacks.
Maybe they only start tracking when you try to buy it by the tonne. Maybe my
appearance (clean shaven white guy with glasses, no tattoos) gave me a pass
where other sorts of buyers might need to show ID or explain why they're
buying.

~~~
trhway
just googled - you were 9 years too early :)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-
ammoni...](https://www.businessinsider.com/oklahoma-city-bombing-ammonium-
nitrate-sales-regulated-2011-8)

" the new legislation will require anyone buying more than 25 pounds to
register, be screened against a known terrorist list, and require any thefts
to be reported within 24 hours. "

------
swingline-747
This is bureaucratic nonsense. For 50 years, RC planes have been fine. This is
a knee-jerk overreaction to take out their frustrations on convenient
bystanders, eg hobbyists, when they can't defend against terrorists with
flying bombs whom aren't going to register anything. Plus, how will it be
enforced? Going to put FAA goons in park trees to catch those felonious dads
shooting Estees model rockets and buzzing RC planes (aka "drones") around?

