I think it's a fair question to ask if there are enough problems to actually warrant a solution.
Nobody is saying 'never do anything ever about anything', but it's a legitimate question if action is necessary in this situation. Are drones going to be common enough, and causing enough problems, in the nearish future and in ways we can reasonably anticipate and address today that something can be done?
I'm not sure if there is any real data beyond a few isolated and anecdotal incidents that drones are even really causing a problem today. I definitely think that overturning 60-70 years of FAA (to say nothing of public privacy laws) for those few incidents definitely does seem premature. People violating already restricted airspace is really more of an enforcement issue, and something that can happen with a drone, RC aircraft, or silverized garbage bag filled with helium (...not that I know anything about something like that...).
I've played the devil's advocate a bit in this thread, but I think harassment / stalking laws, public nuisance laws, and FAA regulations on model aircraft (that drones fall under) is plenty sufficient at the moment in the context of hobbyist drone usage. I don't know enough about commercial drone usage and regulations to have much of an opinion, beyond 'don't drop an Amazon shipment on my head'.
We've had several incidents already.
Drones are getting cheaper all the time.
One of the biggest retailers in the entire US is looking at using drones to ship stuff to people's doors.
I think it's pretty clear drone use, or the desire for that use, is only going to increase. And thus we should be looking at solutions. You don't wanna wait for the first incident cause some chucklefuck is flying a drone in airport airspace to look at how drones should be handled legally.
That's already illegal within five miles.
So concern noted I guess?
And yet it's still happening. So not yet enough I guess?
How much is it happening statistically and what do you suggest to address that statistic? Cause I don't know of any law or regulation that resulted in zero offenses.
How much something is happening is not the only factor in risk assessment. There's also severity. That's the main issue with idiots flying drones into airport airspace.
As for addressing that specific issue? Licensing is one of the easiest ways. It's important people be fully aware of where they can and cannot fly these things.
There's issues of spying and of air-traffic from drones itself. And once you've got like Amazon and other companies delivering packages with these things and people flying them for fun you are gonna need traffic control.
Sure, if issues come up, let's regulate them. Currently the FAA has already addressed your voiced concern. Otherwise I suggest not insisting on more regulation cause of what we might think maybe will happen.
In what way?
I... seriously? I literally pointed out how in this quote tree. Flying drones within five miles of an airport is illegal according to the FAA. So unless you have a reason as to why that's not enough I don't know what else you would want. The FAA sure seems to think it's enough.
I'm not convinced that there's any actual evidence that a drone would damage a plane. Would a 4in quadcopter made mostly of pool noodle foam and PVC do as much damage as a goose full of bones and liquid? Does it pose a genuine risk to a helicopter with enough rotor wash to blow a man off his feet?
All this stuff smacks of media-exacerbated hysteria. The reporting feels more like warning parents against the dangers of skateboarding than any legitimate issue, and the response from "officials" feels pretty similar too.
spool32 on
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited September 2015
I think the danger is more that a drone could be weaponized, so keep that shit away from airplanes. After all, a drone with remote explosives taped to it is just an extremely well guided missile.
I think the danger is more that a drone could be weaponized, so keep that shit away from airplanes. After all, a drone with remote explosives taped to it is just an extremely well guided missile.
I think it's a fair question to ask if there are enough problems to actually warrant a solution.
Nobody is saying 'never do anything ever about anything', but it's a legitimate question if action is necessary in this situation. Are drones going to be common enough, and causing enough problems, in the nearish future and in ways we can reasonably anticipate and address today that something can be done?
I'm not sure if there is any real data beyond a few isolated and anecdotal incidents that drones are even really causing a problem today. I definitely think that overturning 60-70 years of FAA (to say nothing of public privacy laws) for those few incidents definitely does seem premature. People violating already restricted airspace is really more of an enforcement issue, and something that can happen with a drone, RC aircraft, or silverized garbage bag filled with helium (...not that I know anything about something like that...).
I've played the devil's advocate a bit in this thread, but I think harassment / stalking laws, public nuisance laws, and FAA regulations on model aircraft (that drones fall under) is plenty sufficient at the moment in the context of hobbyist drone usage. I don't know enough about commercial drone usage and regulations to have much of an opinion, beyond 'don't drop an Amazon shipment on my head'.
We've had several incidents already.
Drones are getting cheaper all the time.
One of the biggest retailers in the entire US is looking at using drones to ship stuff to people's doors.
I think it's pretty clear drone use, or the desire for that use, is only going to increase. And thus we should be looking at solutions. You don't wanna wait for the first incident cause some chucklefuck is flying a drone in airport airspace to look at how drones should be handled legally.
That's already illegal within five miles.
So concern noted I guess?
And yet it's still happening. So not yet enough I guess?
How much is it happening statistically and what do you suggest to address that statistic? Cause I don't know of any law or regulation that resulted in zero offenses.
How much something is happening is not the only factor in risk assessment. There's also severity. That's the main issue with idiots flying drones into airport airspace.
As for addressing that specific issue? Licensing is one of the easiest ways. It's important people be fully aware of where they can and cannot fly these things.
There's issues of spying and of air-traffic from drones itself. And once you've got like Amazon and other companies delivering packages with these things and people flying them for fun you are gonna need traffic control.
Sure, if issues come up, let's regulate them. Currently the FAA has already addressed your voiced concern. Otherwise I suggest not insisting on more regulation cause of what we might think maybe will happen.
In what way?
I... seriously? I literally pointed out how in this quote tree. Flying drones within five miles of an airport is illegal according to the FAA. So unless you have a reason as to why that's not enough I don't know what else you would want. The FAA sure seems to think it's enough.
And I already answered that. I thought maybe you had something else to say and that this conversation wasn't needlessly circular. I've literally already covered everything you've said here in the quote tree already.
I think it's silly of you to pretend like there isn't a need for more regulation for a future basically guaranteed to contain more shit flying around through the air.
I think it's a fair question to ask if there are enough problems to actually warrant a solution.
Nobody is saying 'never do anything ever about anything', but it's a legitimate question if action is necessary in this situation. Are drones going to be common enough, and causing enough problems, in the nearish future and in ways we can reasonably anticipate and address today that something can be done?
I'm not sure if there is any real data beyond a few isolated and anecdotal incidents that drones are even really causing a problem today. I definitely think that overturning 60-70 years of FAA (to say nothing of public privacy laws) for those few incidents definitely does seem premature. People violating already restricted airspace is really more of an enforcement issue, and something that can happen with a drone, RC aircraft, or silverized garbage bag filled with helium (...not that I know anything about something like that...).
I've played the devil's advocate a bit in this thread, but I think harassment / stalking laws, public nuisance laws, and FAA regulations on model aircraft (that drones fall under) is plenty sufficient at the moment in the context of hobbyist drone usage. I don't know enough about commercial drone usage and regulations to have much of an opinion, beyond 'don't drop an Amazon shipment on my head'.
We've had several incidents already.
Drones are getting cheaper all the time.
One of the biggest retailers in the entire US is looking at using drones to ship stuff to people's doors.
I think it's pretty clear drone use, or the desire for that use, is only going to increase. And thus we should be looking at solutions. You don't wanna wait for the first incident cause some chucklefuck is flying a drone in airport airspace to look at how drones should be handled legally.
That's already illegal within five miles.
So concern noted I guess?
And yet it's still happening. So not yet enough I guess?
How much is it happening statistically and what do you suggest to address that statistic? Cause I don't know of any law or regulation that resulted in zero offenses.
How much something is happening is not the only factor in risk assessment. There's also severity. That's the main issue with idiots flying drones into airport airspace.
As for addressing that specific issue? Licensing is one of the easiest ways. It's important people be fully aware of where they can and cannot fly these things.
There's issues of spying and of air-traffic from drones itself. And once you've got like Amazon and other companies delivering packages with these things and people flying them for fun you are gonna need traffic control.
Sure, if issues come up, let's regulate them. Currently the FAA has already addressed your voiced concern. Otherwise I suggest not insisting on more regulation cause of what we might think maybe will happen.
In what way?
I... seriously? I literally pointed out how in this quote tree. Flying drones within five miles of an airport is illegal according to the FAA. So unless you have a reason as to why that's not enough I don't know what else you would want. The FAA sure seems to think it's enough.
And I already answered that. I thought maybe you had something else to say and that this conversation wasn't needlessly circular. I've literally already covered everything you've said here in the quote tree already.
I think it's silly of you to pretend like there isn't a need for more regulation for a future basically guaranteed to contain more shit flying around through the air.
The FAA doesn't seem to think so. Do you have reason to doubt them other than gut instinct?
I'm not convinced that there's any actual evidence that a drone would damage a plane. Would a 4in quadcopter made mostly of pool noodle foam and PVC do as much damage as a goose full of bones and liquid? Does it pose a genuine risk to a helicopter with enough rotor wash to blow a man off his feet?
All this stuff smacks of media-exacerbated hysteria. The reporting feels more like warning parents against the dangers of skateboarding than any legitimate issue, and the response from "officials" feels pretty similar too.
...you have seen what a screw can do to a jet engine, yes? There's a reason FOD sweeps of tarmac are a thing.
I think the danger is more that a drone could be weaponized, so keep that shit away from airplanes. After all, a drone with remote explosives taped to it is just an extremely well guided missile.
So is this, and it's been available for 40 years:
Drones have been the Eternal September of RC aviation.
I think it's a fair question to ask if there are enough problems to actually warrant a solution.
Nobody is saying 'never do anything ever about anything', but it's a legitimate question if action is necessary in this situation. Are drones going to be common enough, and causing enough problems, in the nearish future and in ways we can reasonably anticipate and address today that something can be done?
I'm not sure if there is any real data beyond a few isolated and anecdotal incidents that drones are even really causing a problem today. I definitely think that overturning 60-70 years of FAA (to say nothing of public privacy laws) for those few incidents definitely does seem premature. People violating already restricted airspace is really more of an enforcement issue, and something that can happen with a drone, RC aircraft, or silverized garbage bag filled with helium (...not that I know anything about something like that...).
I've played the devil's advocate a bit in this thread, but I think harassment / stalking laws, public nuisance laws, and FAA regulations on model aircraft (that drones fall under) is plenty sufficient at the moment in the context of hobbyist drone usage. I don't know enough about commercial drone usage and regulations to have much of an opinion, beyond 'don't drop an Amazon shipment on my head'.
We've had several incidents already.
Drones are getting cheaper all the time.
One of the biggest retailers in the entire US is looking at using drones to ship stuff to people's doors.
I think it's pretty clear drone use, or the desire for that use, is only going to increase. And thus we should be looking at solutions. You don't wanna wait for the first incident cause some chucklefuck is flying a drone in airport airspace to look at how drones should be handled legally.
That's already illegal within five miles.
So concern noted I guess?
And yet it's still happening. So not yet enough I guess?
How much is it happening statistically and what do you suggest to address that statistic? Cause I don't know of any law or regulation that resulted in zero offenses.
How much something is happening is not the only factor in risk assessment. There's also severity. That's the main issue with idiots flying drones into airport airspace.
As for addressing that specific issue? Licensing is one of the easiest ways. It's important people be fully aware of where they can and cannot fly these things.
There's issues of spying and of air-traffic from drones itself. And once you've got like Amazon and other companies delivering packages with these things and people flying them for fun you are gonna need traffic control.
Sure, if issues come up, let's regulate them. Currently the FAA has already addressed your voiced concern. Otherwise I suggest not insisting on more regulation cause of what we might think maybe will happen.
In what way?
I... seriously? I literally pointed out how in this quote tree. Flying drones within five miles of an airport is illegal according to the FAA. So unless you have a reason as to why that's not enough I don't know what else you would want. The FAA sure seems to think it's enough.
And I already answered that. I thought maybe you had something else to say and that this conversation wasn't needlessly circular. I've literally already covered everything you've said here in the quote tree already.
I think it's silly of you to pretend like there isn't a need for more regulation for a future basically guaranteed to contain more shit flying around through the air.
The FAA doesn't seem to think so.
Incorrect. The FAA just hasn't passed any new regulation yet. These are not the same things.
Do you have reason to doubt them other than gut instinct?
I have already given you reasons that have nothing to do with "gut instinct". Like, I think at least 3 times now. And just in the very post you are answering here.
So, you know, I'm done with this endlessly circular conversation where you simply ignore anything I say and repeat your own question again.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I think the danger is more that a drone could be weaponized, so keep that shit away from airplanes. After all, a drone with remote explosives taped to it is just an extremely well guided missile.
So is this, and it's been available for 40 years:
You don't think if you were flying an RC aircraft over an airport, somebody in a uniform might have a problem with that?
I think the danger is more that a drone could be weaponized, so keep that shit away from airplanes. After all, a drone with remote explosives taped to it is just an extremely well guided missile.
So is this, and it's been available for 40 years:
You don't think if you were flying an RC aircraft over an airport, somebody in a uniform might have a problem with that?
of course... quid and shryke are currently having the argument about whether it's effective regulation or not, but the regulation already exists and the danger already exists, so I come down on Quid's side with this and think any threat of terrorism via this method is no harder to stop now, or easier to pull off now, than it was in 1990.
I think it's a fair question to ask if there are enough problems to actually warrant a solution.
Nobody is saying 'never do anything ever about anything', but it's a legitimate question if action is necessary in this situation. Are drones going to be common enough, and causing enough problems, in the nearish future and in ways we can reasonably anticipate and address today that something can be done?
I'm not sure if there is any real data beyond a few isolated and anecdotal incidents that drones are even really causing a problem today. I definitely think that overturning 60-70 years of FAA (to say nothing of public privacy laws) for those few incidents definitely does seem premature. People violating already restricted airspace is really more of an enforcement issue, and something that can happen with a drone, RC aircraft, or silverized garbage bag filled with helium (...not that I know anything about something like that...).
I've played the devil's advocate a bit in this thread, but I think harassment / stalking laws, public nuisance laws, and FAA regulations on model aircraft (that drones fall under) is plenty sufficient at the moment in the context of hobbyist drone usage. I don't know enough about commercial drone usage and regulations to have much of an opinion, beyond 'don't drop an Amazon shipment on my head'.
We've had several incidents already.
Drones are getting cheaper all the time.
One of the biggest retailers in the entire US is looking at using drones to ship stuff to people's doors.
I think it's pretty clear drone use, or the desire for that use, is only going to increase. And thus we should be looking at solutions. You don't wanna wait for the first incident cause some chucklefuck is flying a drone in airport airspace to look at how drones should be handled legally.
That's already illegal within five miles.
So concern noted I guess?
And yet it's still happening. So not yet enough I guess?
How much is it happening statistically and what do you suggest to address that statistic? Cause I don't know of any law or regulation that resulted in zero offenses.
How much something is happening is not the only factor in risk assessment. There's also severity. That's the main issue with idiots flying drones into airport airspace.
As for addressing that specific issue? Licensing is one of the easiest ways. It's important people be fully aware of where they can and cannot fly these things.
There's issues of spying and of air-traffic from drones itself. And once you've got like Amazon and other companies delivering packages with these things and people flying them for fun you are gonna need traffic control.
Sure, if issues come up, let's regulate them. Currently the FAA has already addressed your voiced concern. Otherwise I suggest not insisting on more regulation cause of what we might think maybe will happen.
In what way?
I... seriously? I literally pointed out how in this quote tree. Flying drones within five miles of an airport is illegal according to the FAA. So unless you have a reason as to why that's not enough I don't know what else you would want. The FAA sure seems to think it's enough.
And I already answered that. I thought maybe you had something else to say and that this conversation wasn't needlessly circular. I've literally already covered everything you've said here in the quote tree already.
I think it's silly of you to pretend like there isn't a need for more regulation for a future basically guaranteed to contain more shit flying around through the air.
The FAA doesn't seem to think so.
Incorrect. The FAA just hasn't passed any new regulation yet. These are not the same things.
Do you have reason to doubt them other than gut instinct?
I have already given you reasons that have nothing to do with "gut instinct". Like, I think at least 3 times now. And just in the very post you are answering here.
So, you know, I'm done with this endlessly circular conversation where you simply ignore anything I say and repeat your own question again.
Applies to air craft under 55 pounds. Why you think their rules aren't sufficient you haven't explained outside of you thinking they aren't sufficient. You did propose a solution but I don't see licensing actually happening in any fashion at all given an RC helicopter only costs 20 bucks. And as far as the FAA is concerned licensing isn't necessary. But for some you seem to think they're wrong.
I do think we're probably going to need some licensing for larger drone platforms that can perform deliveries or serve as deployment points for smaller swarms. A drone the size of a table is a whole different thing from a drone the size of a saucer...
I love the idea of a table-sized drone with a wifi hotspot and a swarm of 15-20 saucer-sized ones launching off it to do distributed tasks while streaming their data back to the "mother ship"...
...we're gonna be able to do so much cool shit with this tech as it advances.
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
Which they can't, because it would be a straight up violation of use of the unlicensed spectrum those bands used. It's carte blanche for the FAA to jam every type of wi-fi, walkie-talkie and baby monitor.
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
Which they can't, because it would be a straight up violation of use of the unlicensed spectrum those bands used. It's carte blanche for the FAA to jam every type of wi-fi, walkie-talkie and baby monitor.
hmm. Well, it's an easier regulatory problem to solve than trying to register every drone with a unique ID and track its whereabouts and owner.
I think the danger is more that a drone could be weaponized, so keep that shit away from airplanes. After all, a drone with remote explosives taped to it is just an extremely well guided missile.
So is this, and it's been available for 40 years:
You don't think if you were flying an RC aircraft over an airport, somebody in a uniform might have a problem with that?
Some people are incredibly dense, and for them we must rely on the legal system to enforce existing laws on the use of remotely operated aircraft. As I pointed out earlier, we have rules on pointing lasers at manned aircraft much as we have rules restricting RC aircraft; the issue may be simply one of enforcement rather than the absence of enough regulation altogether.
Is it a problem of enforcement though? The few incidents I've heard of (firefighters, airport airspace, and white house) all had the pilots tracked down, interviewed, and straightened out.
Turns out it was just morons being morons, nothing malicious. So...I suppose we could have prior restraint or some smart app that keeps drones from ever entering restricted airspace, which isn't unreasonable but probaby hard to force on everyone, or we keep doing what we are doing until it proves inadequate. And yes, maybe that is an emergency landing and some soiled underwear when a 777 sucks one through a turbine...but odds are that's it. A small quad probably won't do more damage than a big bird, something planes are designed to take.
Safety is really the big concern, but seems manageable under the FAA model aircraft guidelines.
I do think we're probably going to need some licensing for larger drone platforms that can perform deliveries or serve as deployment points for smaller swarms. A drone the size of a table is a whole different thing from a drone the size of a saucer...
I love the idea of a table-sized drone with a wifi hotspot and a swarm of 15-20 saucer-sized ones launching off it to do distributed tasks while streaming their data back to the "mother ship"...
...we're gonna be able to do so much cool shit with this tech as it advances.
Already covered - special FAA permission is required to fly any drone/RC aircraft over 55 pounds, and no (non-military) drone anywhere is allowed to detach objects in flight or carry any detachable object except a camera.
madparrot on
0
Options
Orphanerivers of redthat run to seaRegistered Userregular
I'm not convinced that there's any actual evidence that a drone would damage a plane. Would a 4in quadcopter made mostly of pool noodle foam and PVC do as much damage as a goose full of bones and liquid? Does it pose a genuine risk to a helicopter with enough rotor wash to blow a man off his feet?
All this stuff smacks of media-exacerbated hysteria. The reporting feels more like warning parents against the dangers of skateboarding than any legitimate issue, and the response from "officials" feels pretty similar too.
if it's sucked into a jet intake practically anything is dangerous especially given the speeds at which planes get up to iirc
To bring it back on topic, it seems like overtly creepy creep shots would be prohibitively hard to do with a drone.
well... this is just off the top of my head, but i feel like it would be fairly easy to just have a drone drift above a busy street, taking top-down shots of any woman in a low-cut shirt/blouse
cursory google search confirms this is already a thing called downblouse and regarded in the same realm as upskirt shots, but i don't know if legislation has been passed including the two concepts together considering that it's generally easier to take an upskirt shot than a downblouse one due to elevation requirements?
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
Which they can't, because it would be a straight up violation of use of the unlicensed spectrum those bands used. It's carte blanche for the FAA to jam every type of wi-fi, walkie-talkie and baby monitor.
hmm. Well, it's an easier regulatory problem to solve than trying to register every drone with a unique ID and track its whereabouts and owner.
Spool32 do you think that the current FAA regulations in place, along with current harassment, stalking and privacy laws are enough to include drone usage in them? I will asume that the answer is some convoluted type of yes.
If said regulations cant be enforced, wouldnt it be logical to find a way to enforce them? Dont get bogged down in the logistics of how, I know a guy who knows a guy who said he can. Im just asking, there are regulations in place, should they be enforced?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
"Don't get bogged down in the logistics of how" is not a great way to getting realistic results.
Im trying to avoid this kind of answers that avoid giving an answer. And to avoid getting stuck on details that are not part of the topic at hand. For example, I dont want to argue about government funding, and how that can spiral out of control, in a thread that is NOT about it. Im trying to avoid the derailing and dodging, Quid, can you help me out with that?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
"Don't get bogged down in the logistics of how" is not a great way to getting realistic results.
Im trying to avoid this kind of answers that avoid giving an answer. And to avoid getting stuck on details that are not part of the topic at hand. For example, I dont want to argue about government funding, and how that can spiral out of control, in a thread that is NOT about it. Im trying to avoid the derailing and dodging, Quid, can you help me out with that?
Help with what? If you don't care about how your goals can be achieved then you might as well declare a blanket policy against bad things. Everyone here agrees that taking creep shots is bad. But plenty of us aren't going to agree with you on bad policy ideas that won't achieve anything.
"Don't get bogged down in the logistics of how" is not a great way to getting realistic results.
Im trying to avoid this kind of answers that avoid giving an answer. And to avoid getting stuck on details that are not part of the topic at hand. For example, I dont want to argue about government funding, and how that can spiral out of control, in a thread that is NOT about it. Im trying to avoid the derailing and dodging, Quid, can you help me out with that?
Help with what? If you don't care about how your goals can be achieved then you might as well declare a blanket policy against bad things. Everyone here agrees that taking creep shots is bad. But plenty of us aren't going to agree with you on bad policy ideas that won't achieve anything.
You might want to re-read my post, Im not proposing any ideas, Im asking for ideas on how the current regulations could be enforced, I can only come up with the registry idea, but since people seem so adamant against a registration I am asking for people, you too Squid, to propose ways, and not just throw your hands up and let perfect be the enemy of good. (thats the phrase, right?)
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
No one is letting perfect be the enemy of good. Registration is simply a bad and unworkable idea. And that has been pointed out. People not having any better ideas doesn't make yours any better either.
One major part of a possible solution is a sort of Air Traffic Control just for UASes, though my only issue with such plans is they don't really solve vanilla RC aircraft. Perhaps the implementation of this system would result in all RC vehicles having onboard autopilots that can override pilot control in edge cases, but that doesn't feel like the best solution to me.
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
1) might be tricky making sure those don't impact the transponders, digital or analogy communication, GPS or AGPS signal used by planes. I honestly don't know how close all the various bandwidths are to the various signal bandwidths that can be used to control drones, but planes have to turn off WiFi when landing and cell phones are still a no-no. Those are kinda primary in drone control right?
2) drones have internal guidance and autopilots. If you kill it's communication, it doesn't crash so much as keep doing what it was last told to do. Potentially making the situation worse, cause the controller now can't get the drone out of the airspace or prevent it from going further in.
This is potentially a bad solution that increases risk.
Plenty of drones could end up being having more mass than a bird. They may have hard bits that don't blend as well as a frozen chicken(frozen chicken cannons being the preferred method of testing cockpits and engines against bird strikes). Bird strikes are an issue that airports and the faa have to take steps to deal with cause they are a risk.
Drones, particularly larger high lift, long loiter time or mothership type setups, will also be a risk, luckily these will be fewer and more aimed at professional/commercial usage. For a lot of reasons, these sorts of things will probably end up more regulated than microdrones, including much easier enforcement.
It's a real issue, but not a massive one. It will need to be addressed eventually, unless drone operators learn to not be idiots.
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
Which they can't, because it would be a straight up violation of use of the unlicensed spectrum those bands used. It's carte blanche for the FAA to jam every type of wi-fi, walkie-talkie and baby monitor.
hmm. Well, it's an easier regulatory problem to solve than trying to register every drone with a unique ID and track its whereabouts and owner.
Spool32 do you think that the current FAA regulations in place, along with current harassment, stalking and privacy laws are enough to include drone usage in them? I will asume that the answer is some convoluted type of yes.
If said regulations cant be enforced, wouldnt it be logical to find a way to enforce them? Dont get bogged down in the logistics of how, I know a guy who knows a guy who said he can. Im just asking, there are regulations in place, should they be enforced?
I'm not sure what you're driving at?
Yes in general I believe that laws should be enforced through ways of enforcement. That includes FAA regulations on drones approaching airfields.
But no, I don't believe that current law is good enough in some respects, and is too restrictive in others, and is impossible to enforce in some cases (e.g. air rights over private property).
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
1) might be tricky making sure those don't impact the transponders, digital or analogy communication, GPS or AGPS signal used by planes. I honestly don't know how close all the various bandwidths are to the various signal bandwidths that can be used to control drones, but planes have to turn off WiFi when landing and cell phones are still a no-no. Those are kinda primary in drone control right?
2) drones have internal guidance and autopilots. If you kill it's communication, it doesn't crash so much as keep doing what it was last told to do. Potentially making the situation worse, cause the controller now can't get the drone out of the airspace or prevent it from going further in.
This is potentially a bad solution that increases risk.
Plenty of drones could end up being having more mass than a bird. They may have hard bits that don't blend as well as a frozen chicken(frozen chicken cannons being the preferred method of testing cockpits and engines against bird strikes). Bird strikes are an issue that airports and the faa have to take steps to deal with cause they are a risk.
Drones, particularly larger high lift, long loiter time or mothership type setups, will also be a risk, luckily these will be fewer and more aimed at professional/commercial usage. For a lot of reasons, these sorts of things will probably end up more regulated than microdrones, including much easier enforcement.
It's a real issue, but not a massive one. It will need to be addressed eventually, unless drone operators learn to not be idiots.
The whole "cell phones and WiFi must be off while landing" is basically bullshit in that there might possibly be some sort of interference that gets caused by them. Maybe. I've had my phone on for entire flights before. Regretted it because searching for a tower drains your battery, but interference is nil
As for registration and such, anyone planning on doing anything nefarious is likely going to custom build their drone/software so they can get around registrations, flight restrictions, etc.
Ehh... I am almoat totally sure, there have been a few, like count them on one hand, cases of instruments failing during landing which coincide with receipt of phone calls and little else. Pretty sure this was a more legitimate concern with the older, higher signal strength, analogy Cellular Telephones, than modern ubiquitous 3rd and 4th generation mobiles.
If you really think broad spectrum jamming is a good idea, look up the various frequency ranges involved, basically them and see if they are at all close.
And, who knows what various drones will do when jammed, is still damned valid.
As for registration and such, anyone planning on doing anything nefarious is likely going to custom build their drone/software so they can get around registrations, flight restrictions, etc.
Regulation and education(basically licensing requirements for prosumer equipment and commercial applications) will stop or allow enforcement against a large percentage of fucking idiots who buy shit off the shelf. Which is probably a bigger threat for a lot of things.
Actual nefarious drone usage? What are we actually talking about? Espionage, terrorism and drug trafficking? Maybe counter surveillance? Low lift, short range, limited loiter time, fairly slow... And they don't really bring anything new to the table. Meh.
Though, i guess if Amazon gets their delivery drones working, your looking at the same sort of requirements you'd have for drug trafficking and terrorism.
The issue with jamming is all RC platforms these days use the same general ranges as cellular and WiFi connections (which is in fact a huge step up in safety as digital communications are much more reliable than old-school analog), so you'll have to jam a fair swath of the 2.4GHz band. I don't think the FCC is going to be happy with that idea.
I'm not convinced that there's any actual evidence that a drone would damage a plane. Would a 4in quadcopter made mostly of pool noodle foam and PVC do as much damage as a goose full of bones and liquid? Does it pose a genuine risk to a helicopter with enough rotor wash to blow a man off his feet?
All this stuff smacks of media-exacerbated hysteria. The reporting feels more like warning parents against the dangers of skateboarding than any legitimate issue, and the response from "officials" feels pretty similar too.
...you have seen what a screw can do to a jet engine, yes? There's a reason FOD sweeps of tarmac are a thing.
Yeah, but as noted the FAA has already banned remote aircraft within a sizable radius of an airport (indeed, a five mile radius is actually kind of crazy when you consider the location of some airports - there are tons of parks, etc. within 5 mi. of MSP and nobody would think twice about someone flying a plane in them... but technically illegal I guess?)
The fact that people can break the law is not ipso facto a reason to do more. The only sure way to prevent people from breaking any rules ever is to glass the planet.
Officials in Los Angeles told Ars that a small drone knocked out power to hundreds of Hollywood residents after it crashed into an overhead electrical wire.
The incident, which took place on Monday at around 1:20pm, happened at the corner of Larrabee Street and Sunset Boulevard, just one block from the famed Whisky A Go Go music venue.
"Numerous witnesses said they saw a drone hit power lines just prior to power going out," Lt. Edward Ramirez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department told Ars.
The line that was struck fell to the ground along with the drone, which apparently was recovered by a utility repair crew. There were no injuries.
Around 700 people in total were affected by the outage, and power was fully restored about 4.5 hours later, according to Southern California Edison spokesman Robert Villegas.
The FAA has announced their proposed drone regulations. Registration will be required for anything beyond an ultralightweight drone, which will be free and available online. They've also announced that registration data will be exempt from FOIA requests.
Posts
I... seriously? I literally pointed out how in this quote tree. Flying drones within five miles of an airport is illegal according to the FAA. So unless you have a reason as to why that's not enough I don't know what else you would want. The FAA sure seems to think it's enough.
All this stuff smacks of media-exacerbated hysteria. The reporting feels more like warning parents against the dangers of skateboarding than any legitimate issue, and the response from "officials" feels pretty similar too.
So is this, and it's been available for 40 years:
And I already answered that. I thought maybe you had something else to say and that this conversation wasn't needlessly circular. I've literally already covered everything you've said here in the quote tree already.
I think it's silly of you to pretend like there isn't a need for more regulation for a future basically guaranteed to contain more shit flying around through the air.
The FAA doesn't seem to think so. Do you have reason to doubt them other than gut instinct?
...you have seen what a screw can do to a jet engine, yes? There's a reason FOD sweeps of tarmac are a thing.
Drones have been the Eternal September of RC aviation.
Incorrect. The FAA just hasn't passed any new regulation yet. These are not the same things.
I have already given you reasons that have nothing to do with "gut instinct". Like, I think at least 3 times now. And just in the very post you are answering here.
So, you know, I'm done with this endlessly circular conversation where you simply ignore anything I say and repeat your own question again.
You don't think if you were flying an RC aircraft over an airport, somebody in a uniform might have a problem with that?
of course... quid and shryke are currently having the argument about whether it's effective regulation or not, but the regulation already exists and the danger already exists, so I come down on Quid's side with this and think any threat of terrorism via this method is no harder to stop now, or easier to pull off now, than it was in 1990.
They did.
Applies to air craft under 55 pounds. Why you think their rules aren't sufficient you haven't explained outside of you thinking they aren't sufficient. You did propose a solution but I don't see licensing actually happening in any fashion at all given an RC helicopter only costs 20 bucks. And as far as the FAA is concerned licensing isn't necessary. But for some you seem to think they're wrong.
I love the idea of a table-sized drone with a wifi hotspot and a swarm of 15-20 saucer-sized ones launching off it to do distributed tasks while streaming their data back to the "mother ship"...
...we're gonna be able to do so much cool shit with this tech as it advances.
ALSO!!!
There's no need for any of this nonsense if the FAA just asks the FCC for permission to to jam the fuck out of the broadcast bands that drones use to talk with their operators. Wreck the radio signal, problem solved.
Which they can't, because it would be a straight up violation of use of the unlicensed spectrum those bands used. It's carte blanche for the FAA to jam every type of wi-fi, walkie-talkie and baby monitor.
hmm. Well, it's an easier regulatory problem to solve than trying to register every drone with a unique ID and track its whereabouts and owner.
Some people are incredibly dense, and for them we must rely on the legal system to enforce existing laws on the use of remotely operated aircraft. As I pointed out earlier, we have rules on pointing lasers at manned aircraft much as we have rules restricting RC aircraft; the issue may be simply one of enforcement rather than the absence of enough regulation altogether.
Turns out it was just morons being morons, nothing malicious. So...I suppose we could have prior restraint or some smart app that keeps drones from ever entering restricted airspace, which isn't unreasonable but probaby hard to force on everyone, or we keep doing what we are doing until it proves inadequate. And yes, maybe that is an emergency landing and some soiled underwear when a 777 sucks one through a turbine...but odds are that's it. A small quad probably won't do more damage than a big bird, something planes are designed to take.
Safety is really the big concern, but seems manageable under the FAA model aircraft guidelines.
Already covered - special FAA permission is required to fly any drone/RC aircraft over 55 pounds, and no (non-military) drone anywhere is allowed to detach objects in flight or carry any detachable object except a camera.
if it's sucked into a jet intake practically anything is dangerous especially given the speeds at which planes get up to iirc
and as a quick aside
well... this is just off the top of my head, but i feel like it would be fairly easy to just have a drone drift above a busy street, taking top-down shots of any woman in a low-cut shirt/blouse
cursory google search confirms this is already a thing called downblouse and regarded in the same realm as upskirt shots, but i don't know if legislation has been passed including the two concepts together considering that it's generally easier to take an upskirt shot than a downblouse one due to elevation requirements?
Spool32 do you think that the current FAA regulations in place, along with current harassment, stalking and privacy laws are enough to include drone usage in them? I will asume that the answer is some convoluted type of yes.
If said regulations cant be enforced, wouldnt it be logical to find a way to enforce them? Dont get bogged down in the logistics of how, I know a guy who knows a guy who said he can. Im just asking, there are regulations in place, should they be enforced?
Im trying to avoid this kind of answers that avoid giving an answer. And to avoid getting stuck on details that are not part of the topic at hand. For example, I dont want to argue about government funding, and how that can spiral out of control, in a thread that is NOT about it. Im trying to avoid the derailing and dodging, Quid, can you help me out with that?
Help with what? If you don't care about how your goals can be achieved then you might as well declare a blanket policy against bad things. Everyone here agrees that taking creep shots is bad. But plenty of us aren't going to agree with you on bad policy ideas that won't achieve anything.
You might want to re-read my post, Im not proposing any ideas, Im asking for ideas on how the current regulations could be enforced, I can only come up with the registry idea, but since people seem so adamant against a registration I am asking for people, you too Squid, to propose ways, and not just throw your hands up and let perfect be the enemy of good. (thats the phrase, right?)
1) might be tricky making sure those don't impact the transponders, digital or analogy communication, GPS or AGPS signal used by planes. I honestly don't know how close all the various bandwidths are to the various signal bandwidths that can be used to control drones, but planes have to turn off WiFi when landing and cell phones are still a no-no. Those are kinda primary in drone control right?
2) drones have internal guidance and autopilots. If you kill it's communication, it doesn't crash so much as keep doing what it was last told to do. Potentially making the situation worse, cause the controller now can't get the drone out of the airspace or prevent it from going further in.
This is potentially a bad solution that increases risk.
Plenty of drones could end up being having more mass than a bird. They may have hard bits that don't blend as well as a frozen chicken(frozen chicken cannons being the preferred method of testing cockpits and engines against bird strikes). Bird strikes are an issue that airports and the faa have to take steps to deal with cause they are a risk.
Drones, particularly larger high lift, long loiter time or mothership type setups, will also be a risk, luckily these will be fewer and more aimed at professional/commercial usage. For a lot of reasons, these sorts of things will probably end up more regulated than microdrones, including much easier enforcement.
It's a real issue, but not a massive one. It will need to be addressed eventually, unless drone operators learn to not be idiots.
I'm not sure what you're driving at?
Yes in general I believe that laws should be enforced through ways of enforcement. That includes FAA regulations on drones approaching airfields.
But no, I don't believe that current law is good enough in some respects, and is too restrictive in others, and is impossible to enforce in some cases (e.g. air rights over private property).
The whole "cell phones and WiFi must be off while landing" is basically bullshit in that there might possibly be some sort of interference that gets caused by them. Maybe. I've had my phone on for entire flights before. Regretted it because searching for a tower drains your battery, but interference is nil
As for registration and such, anyone planning on doing anything nefarious is likely going to custom build their drone/software so they can get around registrations, flight restrictions, etc.
If you really think broad spectrum jamming is a good idea, look up the various frequency ranges involved, basically them and see if they are at all close.
And, who knows what various drones will do when jammed, is still damned valid.
Regulation and education(basically licensing requirements for prosumer equipment and commercial applications) will stop or allow enforcement against a large percentage of fucking idiots who buy shit off the shelf. Which is probably a bigger threat for a lot of things.
Actual nefarious drone usage? What are we actually talking about? Espionage, terrorism and drug trafficking? Maybe counter surveillance? Low lift, short range, limited loiter time, fairly slow... And they don't really bring anything new to the table. Meh.
Though, i guess if Amazon gets their delivery drones working, your looking at the same sort of requirements you'd have for drug trafficking and terrorism.
Yeah, but as noted the FAA has already banned remote aircraft within a sizable radius of an airport (indeed, a five mile radius is actually kind of crazy when you consider the location of some airports - there are tons of parks, etc. within 5 mi. of MSP and nobody would think twice about someone flying a plane in them... but technically illegal I guess?)
The fact that people can break the law is not ipso facto a reason to do more. The only sure way to prevent people from breaking any rules ever is to glass the planet.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Because, it should be noted, interference with operations is a crime already.
Begins next week
cool cool