
US transportation secretary announces drone registration requirement - Thorondor
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-anthony-foxx-announces-unmanned-aircraft-registration
======
matheweis
Notably absent from the "Statements of support for DOT's approach to UAS
registration" [1] is the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics)

Congress (and Obama) asked the FAA to write rules integrating UAS into the
national airspace by September 2015, back in February 2012. [2] By all
accounts, the section 333 exception policy does not meet that request... and
now they expect to develop a full-blown registration process ready before the
end of December? Please, don't make me laugh. They couldn't even answer at the
press conference what the benefit of registration will be, arguing that it
would be used to track down owners of drones flaunting the rules, but
seemingly having forgotten that they already can't identify airborne drones
properly.

I think Motherboard says it best. "It's clear that the agency, which oversees
the Federal Aviation Administration, wants to crack down on the unsafe use of
drones, and it's looking like it's going to try to bypass as much of the
traditional rulemaking process as is possible... The short answer is, the FAA
will probably cut corners and perhaps 'reinterpret' existing manned aircraft
regulations" [3]

[1] [https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/statements-
of-s...](https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/statements-of-support-
uas-registration)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/faa-regulation-of-
dr...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/faa-regulation-of-drones-will-
challenge-our-privacy-expectations/2012/04/19/gIQA9IH8TT_story.html)

[3] [http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/8-questions-raised-
by...](http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/8-questions-raised-by-the-faas-
decision-to-register-every-drone-in-the-us)

------
bdamm
Drones should be licensed and/or registered, much the same way as cars are.
There are places where you can drive an unregistered car without a driver's
license. And that will be true of drones as well. There will be places where
you can fly them unlimited. Just not in the common space defined by the
government as such. That's what the government is for.

"Drone ranch" here we come.

I am a private pilot, so I appreciate how nuanced the airspace can be. Also I
think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free.
Drone operators should be required to take at least a brief ground school
covering airspace (take it online!) and pass a quiz (also online!)

~~~
themagician
Yeah, we should regulate drones. Thing is, no one really flies "drones".
People are just flying RC helicopters. But we call them drones and associate
them with flying death machines and suddenly everyone is scared.

RC has been around for the better part of 60 years and it's never caused a
major problem. The only difference between then and now is that now they are
much more controllable and a little cheaper, and so more people are
interested. If anything, it's safer today than it was 10 years ago. They are
more reliable, more controllable, and fewer people are flying gasoline powered
craft.

This won't make things any safer. Far from it. It will just stifle innovation
by drying up the revenue streams of companies like DJI and 3DR. So instead of
them being able to spend resources building smarter, more intelligent flight
controllers and guidance systems people will just look to DIY kits.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission banned toy fucking magnets, but
250 people got shot yesterday and any legislation about firearms is off
limits. Can't talk about registration or "tests" or anything. Someone,
somewhere, maybe almost had a "close call" a few months ago with a plane and
an RC helicopter. Better get the DOT, FAA, and Congress on this stat. It's
literally the next 9/11 just waiting to happen.

So we'll come up with a registration list, licensing parameters, mandatory
insurance, and we'll start "banning" anything that doesn't meet FAA
specifications from being imported or manufactured.

Meanwhile, in the time it takes them to draft their first proposal 7,000+
people will get shot. A few thousand will die.

~~~
peterbraden
Why would this make people turn to DIY kits? DIY drones also have to be
registered.

~~~
themagician
That won't be enforceable.

~~~
fixermark
I don't see why not. If an unlicensed drone is found operating off of the
owner's private property, it's confiscated. Straightforward enforcement.

~~~
hga
It's _slightly_ more complicated, seeing as how shooting them down with nets
is a bit difficult (although we may see widespread application of serious
_DEATH RAYS_ , excuse me, lasers for that (hey, I want the future that was
promised to me in the '60s to come to pass)). There's also the ECM approach,
or maybe even EMP.

Rather, follow the drone until it lands. If the owner is stupid enough to
bring it back to him, you can go quite a bit further.

------
chroma
The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why,
do the reversal test.[1]

Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for
productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction
drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones
scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert
drivers and secure intersections so emergency vehicles can respond faster.
Some even deliver life-saving equipment or medicines. People have personal
drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting
the way at night. Etcetera.

Now imagine someone wanting to restrict these drones so that a few people can
use cloth-winged planes that run on leaded gasoline. It would be a joke,
right?

Except, it's not. It's the world we live in.

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

Edit: I'm talking about general aviation, not civil aviation. Airliners and
drones operate at very different altitudes. Except near airports, there's ≈0
risk of a collision.

Many find my example too skewed in favor of drones, but I think I've been
rather conservative. Due to restrictions, there are many applications that
haven't been explored. In all likelihood, the "killer app" for drones has yet
to be invented.

~~~
dogecoinbase
This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-
begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the
reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing
firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their
apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's
desirable, you made it up to support your point!

~~~
chroma
My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving
general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation
to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be
better for the vast majority of people.

Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal
them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes
sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills
countless beneficial uses.

~~~
sokoloff
Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in
his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but
referencing issues that have already happened with drones.

~~~
chroma
Drones would have to be much more troublesome than they currently are to
justify the current or proposed restrictions. Every time a drone causes a
problem, there's a story about it. Could you imagine if the same were true for
private aircraft? Or cars? Newspapers would have to be much thicker. Every day
in the US, 100 people die from cars. 15 are pedestrians.

I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go
outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by.
Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?

------
frisco
I'm actually a big fan of this idea. As a private pilot, I'm excited about a
lot of cool possibilities enabled by drones that aren't possible in manned
aircraft (high speed, low-level FPV racing!) or are made better (package
delivery with relatively high power aircraft). But I'm anxious about touching
drones at all right now because the rules are either undefined or unfriendly
and I theoretically have a certificate on the line.

I hope that we're able to get to a sane regulatory environment here that gives
me well-defined, positive rules for flying progressively more powerful and
sophisticated UAVs, including in controlled airspace. Those won't be toys, and
it's debatable now whether many drones in the hands of consumers are already.
The FAA is already stretched way too thin with existing manned aviation and
there's no way the local FSDO is going to bother going after a kid with a
small electric drone, registered or otherwise, unless they do something really
stupid.

~~~
truthermax
RC helicopters are not a threat.

Give me a break.

------
tomswartz07
There's a lot of vitriol and misinformation flying around (pun definitely
intended).

Here's my take on the situation.

Large companies building 'ready to fly' multicopters need to have some sort of
communication with the FAA and other agencies.

I do not own a DJI quad myself, but I'm very familiar with them, so I'm going
to use them in my example.

DJI has frequently updated firmware for their devices. It would be very
trivial for them to add in a 'default' setting on the device that prevents the
device from breaking any of the _already defined_ rules.

If the pilot so chooses, and most importantly, is authorized via a Section 333
exemption (or otherwise) can override those settings on the device.

As for all multicopters, I have no qualms about using a Dremel to etch in a
registration number on my device. I do, however, have issues with those
suggesting that I must add extra hardware and extra transmitters to my device.

Etching the registration code on the device will also allow someone to return
my quad if it's lost.

------
Karunamon
Ugh. So we're going to expand the bureaucracy to support this for the purpose
of stopping a handful of bad actors that are going to be impossible to
identify anyways.

Fantastic. Simply fantastic.

------
dang
Also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10406261](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10406261).

~~~
matheweis
That article was rumor/speculation a couple of days before this (the actual
announcement). Good discussion in both places, but this one has the better
info - thanks for keeping this one up.

~~~
dang
Yes. When a developing story has significant new information, we don't count
follow-ups as dupes.

------
jason46
What describes a drone? Do I need to register my $50 "drone"?

~~~
hydrogen18
I have some drone designs based off common materials and tools. You need your
hands and a sheet of A4 paper. Good luck registering those.

