
US government will require all drone purchases to be registered - techbullets
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/16/9558383/us-government-will-create-drone-registry
======
mkempe
On the one hand, it makes sense to have registries of vehicles passing through
public spaces, for the sake of contract law and liability; on the other hand,
is there any human activity that the US government will not want to monitor,
control, rule, or otherwise restrict?

------
13thLetter
The article states that there were "several recent close calls involving
remote-controlled drones and commercial aircraft" but provides no details.
Anyone have links to more information?

I've heard of an issue, singular, with a NYC company flying drones too high
and into controlled airspace, but wasn't aware that there had been any genuine
close encounters between a plane and a drone.

~~~
dalke
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/cl...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-
encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/) \- "In 15 cases over the past two
years, drones flew dangerously close to airports or passenger aircraft" \- "A
NASA database of confidential complaints filed by pilots and air-traffic
controllers has recorded 50 other reports of close calls or improper flight
operations involving drones over the past decade." \- "Since November 2009,
law enforcement agencies, universities and other registered drone users have
reported 23 accidents and 236 unsafe incidents, according to FAA records."

> On Sept. 22, while at an altitude of 2,300 feet over Phoenix, a pilot
> reported a near-collision with a black-and-white drone the size of a
> basketball, according to records the FAA released with many details
> redacted. The pilot reported that the drone was 200 feet ahead and closing
> in. The pilot swerved left and the two aircraft missed each other by 50
> feet.

> On March 25, 2012, a pilot was flying 11 miles northwest of Houston at 2,000
> feet when he saw what he described as a drone just 100 feet below his plane.
> The mysterious aircraft disappeared in a blur before the pilot could get a
> better look. He notified the control tower, but it could not find the drone
> on radar.

~~~
13thLetter
Interesting, thank you very much for that link.

I gotta say, though... Back in the day, I was really interested in skeptic
culture, which at that point was focused on debunking UFO sightings. Often,
airline pilots were the ones who reported UFOs. And the pilots' drone reports
in that newspaper article really feel familiar to the old UFO reports in their
vagueness and impossibility to confirm, without useful radar information or
photographs. This one in particular set off screaming alarm bells for me:

"In the first incident on May 29, the pilot of a commercial airliner
descending toward LaGuardia Airport saw what appeared to be a black drone with
a 10-to-15-foot wingspan about 5,500 feet above Lower Manhattan, according to
a previously undisclosed report filed with the Federal Aviation
Administration."

10-to-15 foot wingspan? 5,500 feet up? Really? And nobody could track down
this enormous mystery aircraft operating high above one of the most tightly
controlled airspaces in the world and almost colliding with an airliner?

Of course, none of this says that a drone and an airplane couldn't get into a
fatal collision at some point -- it's a serious danger we should consider ways
to avoid -- but there's just something about these reports that feels terribly
off.

~~~
dalke
I can see where you are coming from. Plus, these observations are of
"unidentified" flying objects, making them technically UFOs.

When will airlines have the equivalent of dashcams?

