New FAA drone rule is a giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/new-faa-drone-rule-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-aviation-hobbyists/

by NikolaeVarius • 6 years ago

39 20 6 years ago

dkdk8283• 6 years ago

Another reason to never update drone firmware.

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.

wmf2• 6 years ago

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_avatar2• 6 years ago

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.

0xff00ffee• 6 years ago

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.

wmf2• 6 years ago

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

hatsunearu2• 6 years ago

Apparently more dangerous than the 737 MAX!

shakna2• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

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.

hatsunearu2• 6 years ago

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• 6 years ago

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.

shakna2• 6 years ago

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...

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

[2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/germa...

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

MyelinatedT• 6 years ago

The "drone blades" you mention wouldn't happen to be very large diameter model helicopter rotors, per chance? Because those are usually made of carbon fibre or lightweight metals, and attain blade tip speeds orders of magnitude higher than a typical consumer multirotor.

I have snatched my drone out of the air, right through the path of the props with my bare hands and sustained only very minor injuries (a few specks of blood, akin to a paper cut). I'd be extremely surprised if those kinds of blades (<15cm diameter) have ever killed someone.

amatecha• 6 years ago

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.

bronco210163• 6 years ago

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.

beojan2• 6 years ago

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

bronco210163• 6 years ago

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.

wilde• 6 years ago

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

New FAA drone rule is a giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists

Related Stories