
New FAA drone rule is a giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists - NikolaeVarius
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/new-faa-drone-rule-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-aviation-hobbyists/
======
hatsunearu
Brought to you by FAA, the same people who let Boeing self certify their
shitbox and killed 600+ people!

Threadly reminder that there has been no deaths caused by drones, and no
confirmed drone incidents.

There was this one case where some pilots saw some trash bags as drones and
freaked out. Fucking fantastic.

~~~
redis_mlc
> Brought to you by FAA, the same people who let Boeing self certify their
> shitbox and killed 600+ people!

This illustrates a deep misunderstanding. Manufacturers are the only
organizations with current aerospace engineers. They will always be the ones
to write the certification documents and submit them to the FAA. However, the
FAA should punish them when they falsify those documents, as in the 737 MAX.

Also, the two 737 MAX crashes killed about 350 people total.

> there has been no deaths caused by drones, and no confirmed drone incidents.

There have been people killed by the blades of drones already.

Waiting until a drone kills somebody in an airplane accident doesn't make any
sense.

From the FAA standpoint, they're trying to figure out a way to separate
airspace with trained pilots from untrained drone operators. Historically,
separation was done by regulating altitudes, but drone operators are not
obeying, so there's no "positive airspace control."

So far the FAA doesn't know how to do that, and I'm in 100% agreement with
them. About the only constructive thing I can suggest is to add a terrain map
to each drone that prevents flight above 400', and outside of airport and
restricted areas.

It's been amusing following the drone saga in the USA. The FAA has acted in a
very predictable manner that everybody in the aviation industry knew. It's the
hobbyists that had unrealistic expectations from Day One. Also, one bad
package delivery drone flight and it's the final curtain for those, too. If
you work on one of those projects, transfer out now!

source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.

~~~
shakna
> There have been people killed by the blades of drones already.

You'll need to provide a source for this. I haven't managed to find any
stories that match this.

I have found a half-dozen stories where a drone has crashed near or into a
person with minimal injury, which could be a concern, and doesn't agree with
the OP. ([0], [1], [2])

I have not managed to find a single death.

Whilst extensive testing does show serious injury is possible in extreme
circumstances [3], the risk is negligible. Death wasn't something this FAA-
funded research found was likely even in extreme circumstances.

[0] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/drone-crashes-into-
virg...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/drone-crashes-into-virginia-
bull-run-crowd/2013/08/26/424e0b9e-0e00-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html)

[1]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504)

[2] [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/09/germa...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/09/german-chancellors-drone-attack-shows-the-threat-of-
weaponized-uavs/)

[3] [https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2017/01/ictas-
droneinjuryrese...](https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2017/01/ictas-
droneinjuryresearch.html)

------
bronco21016
It’s pure brilliance. Meanwhile, any genius with a few thousand dollars can go
build a manned aircraft and as long as it’s under 254 lbs can fly it around
essentially without rules. FAR Part 103 Ultralight.

Small drones and RC aircraft just simply do not pose the insane threat that
everyone makes them out to be. There are certainly reckless people and they do
pose some threat but small DJI drones like a Mavic or Phantom are not going to
be taking down airliners full of children. In addition the knowledge and parts
exist now for nearly anyone to build something like this without the required
tracking. A bad actor is not being shut out by this insane rule. It’s stifling
hobbyists and innovators who were operating safely 99% of the time.

~~~
beojan
The fact that you're on the ultralight would go a long way toward making sure
you're careful not to do anything dangerous.

~~~
bronco21016
That does play a factor to be sure but it doesn’t change the fact that nearly
anyone can operate one with absolutely no training. I think we can all agree
that operating an aircraft SAFELY requires some prior domain knowledge, which
is obviously applicable to drones and RC as well. You don’t know what you
don’t know.

~~~
beojan
> I think we can all agree that operating an aircraft SAFELY requires some
> prior domain knowledge, which is obviously applicable to drones and RC as
> well.

So you're saying drone operators should be even more strictly regulated with
some form of licensing akin to pilot's licenses? I have no objection to that,
I was just arguing that regulating drones more strictly than ultralight manned
aircraft is reasonable because self-preservation will motivate pilots of
manned aircraft to fly more safely than operators of remotely piloted unmanned
aircraft.

~~~
bronco21016
Self-preservation certainly goes a long way in preventing an amateur from
crashing an ultralight. However, self-preservation likely isn’t going to
necessarily prevent an amateur pilot from flying his aircraft in a manner that
is not hazardous to others. A self-taught ultralight pilot is not going to
have any more knowledge of airspace, traffic, and right of way rules than any
amateur drone operator. These are most of the issues that have come up with
drones thus far. They’re being operated in a way that interferes with other
traffic and the way to stop that is through education and perhaps even
sensible geofencing.

I think the current licensing requirements are about the right touch. The only
thing I could see changing is adding some knowledge/licensing requirements for
recreational operators so the regulatory body can at least certify a person
has been told where they are and are not allowed to operate and how to safely
avoid being an impediment to manned traffic. Simply throwing absurd tracking
requirements on them is not going to stop them from being operated in the
wrong space.

------
mips_avatar
It was really beautiful to see the ingenuity and innovation in small drones
the last ten years. That innovation is what made possible the commercial
opportunities that now want regulatory stability. Those corporate interests
can afford the costs, and are typically flying large enough aircraft such that
the added weight isn’t an issue either. I am disappointed in the compromise
dji and their lobbyist Mr. Schulman made with the FAA, we can now live in a
world where yes corporations can now develop SUAS for cargo or whatever have
regulatory stability, and consumers can take great aerial photography with
their dji products, but I feel that the loss of inspired homemade innovation
will be misrepresented in the influence calculations the FAA will make.

~~~
wmf
It sounds like DJI is now opposing the rules because their AeroScope won't be
enough to comply with them. Like they were trying to perform regulatory
capture and it backfired...

~~~
mips_avatar
I hadn’t thought about how the proposals from dji aren’t really being
followed. Though they did maintain the whole under .55lb no regulation thing.

------
shakna
So, if I'm reading this correctly, it becomes illegal to operate a drone of
more than 249gm in an area with no signal connectivity, unless you have a
satellite uplink on the device to broadcast its location over the internet...
Instead of any of the other myriad of standards that could be used to
broadcast a location over local radio.

~~~
s1artibartfast
yes, and the transponder signal must identify the air-frame, you so you may
need hardware for each of the drones.

Of course, this transponder could easily be disabled or omitted by someone
with nefarious intent.

------
amatecha
I mean... is there any real reason they can't just broadcast ADS-B or some
new, similar equivalent? A hobbyist drone's position is really only relevant
to people within radio-reception distance anyways.

------
wilde
I’m surprised they didn’t go for licensing requirements instead. It seems to
work for amateur radio.

------
wmf
What happened to the idea of connecting to the Internet through the controller
(e.g. a phone)?

~~~
hatsunearu
Apparently more dangerous than the 737 MAX!

------
dkdk8283
Another reason to never update drone firmware.

------
0xff00ffee
It amazes me that they are proposing doing this with drones, but gun
registration? naaaaah. Maybe define a drone as a new kind of assault-style
gun.

