SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New FAA drone rule is a giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists:
More than 34,000 people have deluged the Federal Aviation Administration with comments over a proposed regulation that would require almost every drone in the sky to broadcast its location over the Internet at all times. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, with thousands of hobbyists warning that the rules would impose huge new costs on those who simply wanted to continue flying model airplanes, home-built drones, or other personally owned devices.
"These regulations could kill a hobby I love," wrote Virginian Irby Allen Jr. in a comment last week. "RC aviation has brought my family together and if these regulations are enacted we will no longer be able to fly nor be able to afford the hobby."
The new regulations probably wouldn't kill the hobby of flying radio-controlled airplanes outright, but it could do a lot of damage. Owners of existing drones and model airplanes would face new restrictions on when and where they could be used. The regulations could effectively destroy the market for kit aircraft and custom-designed drones by shifting large financial and paperwork burdens on the shoulders of consumers.
"I think it's going to be harmful to the community and harmful to the growth of the UAS industry," said Greg Reverdiau, co-founder of the Pilot Institute, in a Friday phone interview. He wrote a point-by-point critique of the FAA proposal that has circulated widely among aviation hobbyists.
The new rules are largely designed to address safety and security concerns raised by law enforcement agencies. They worry that drones flying too close to an airport could disrupt operations or even cause a crash. They also worry about terrorists using drones to deliver payloads to heavily populated areas.
To address these concerns, the new FAA rule would require all new drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds to connect over the Internet to one of several location-tracking databases (still to be developed by private vendors) and provide real-time updates on their location. That would enable the FAA or law enforcement agencies to see, at a glance, which registered drones are in any particular area.
But critics say the rules impose massive costs on thousands of law-abiding Americans who have been quietly flying model airplanes, quad-copters, and other small unmanned aircraft for years—and in many cases decades.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @05:48PM (34 children)
I am sure terrorists will fully comply with this law. I think that we should also require drones to broadcast "Evil Intent" that will totally solve the issue!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @05:51PM
The TSA will be irresponsible for compliance.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Monday March 02 2020, @05:59PM (16 children)
I guess the drones which aren't broadcasting their position will be subject to scrutiny. That the scrutiny is able to stop a rogue drone from carrying out its mission is questionable.
Even more questionable would be the use of a drone for islamic estremism, which follows a tradition of self immolation (seen as a good thing, and improperly called martyrdom, when it's the dual opposite of it). But not all terrorists are islamists (only most of them, https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/terrorist-attacks/). [esri.com]
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 02 2020, @06:09PM (10 children)
Remember the Patriot missile deployments in Israel? Shooting a drone out of the sky is small-time, can probably be done with ordinance that turns to powder (and thus can be "safely" fired over civilian crowds...)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @06:14PM (5 children)
Ordinance is a law—mere words on paper. It's pretty hard to take down drones with words alone, even though the FAA appears to be making a real attempt to do so. The use of ordnance, on the other hand, will be much more effective.
(Score: 2) by broggyr on Monday March 02 2020, @06:42PM (2 children)
I learned something today.
Taking things out of context since 1972.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday March 02 2020, @07:24PM
I learned something today.
Damn, the internet is broken.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 02 2020, @09:06PM
Me too.
Accidents happen.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @08:07PM
Clearly you have not faced a barrage of paperwork.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 02 2020, @09:04PM
Thanks for the correction, though in the scenario described, sufficiently packed and fired at high velocity, the ordinance and the paper it is written on should be sufficient to take down your average DJI phantom...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @06:29PM (1 child)
So if an unauthorized drone is flying near an airport in Oklahoma City, it's going to get shot down by a missile?
You might see that in DC which is a no drone zone. Anywhere else... meh.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 02 2020, @09:09PM
I think you'd see permanent anti-drone batteries in DC - even today if you know where to look. What I see more likely are mobile deployments (like the Patriots) that show up at events like the SuperBowl, Trump golf trips, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 03 2020, @07:51AM (1 child)
The problem comes when the enemy has money, because anti X weapon tech tends to be quite pricier than X.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 03 2020, @11:02AM
There was a series of articles about this back in the 1960s regarding the nuclear missile arms race.
With mass production of very capable quad-copter tech only costing a hundred dollars or so per vehicle (think: Ali-Express, not HobbyKing), and swarm software already developed and demonstrated at the Beijing Olympics, you know there are anti-drone installations not only developed but also deployed at selected points of paranoia.
Luckily, almost anything you do to a quadcopter will put it out of commission, particularly if it involves string.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday March 02 2020, @07:15PM (3 children)
Then your would-be terrorist will use one that does broadcast its position.
The only functional value of this law is in totalitarian universal monitoring.
The FAA being rolled into the whole "The only legitimate role government services have is national security" ideology is fucking awful. The original purpose was to help planes not crash into eachother and navigate. And now it's apparently supposed to be tracking things "to stop the terrorists".
Paranoia sucks.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 02 2020, @07:50PM
I suppose it is the price you pay for constantly being at war.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 02 2020, @08:17PM (1 child)
In fairness, population densities continue to increase, the number of people operating vehicles in the airspace continues to increase, and thus the liklihood of collision continues to increase - they should be doing _something_ about it. In maritime navigation, there are now required commercial and voluntary recreational global tracking systems - and if I'm going to be navigating a small slow moving sailboat in the commercial shipping channel that winds along the river, I'm going to invest the ~$1000 required to make my vessel appear on the tracking systems so the commercial wheelhouses have a better chance to know where I am and where I'm going - just a matter of my and my family's life safety in an environment where most things are moving less than 10 mph, but have virtually zero stopping power...
The proposed hobby craft tracking rules are, indeed, over the top, but it's not surprising that they overreach when expanding their powers. Hopefully they can get some sense knocked into their heads about the negative impacts on U.S. technical skills development and how that is, ultimately, a bigger threat to national security than worrying about an esoteric delivery method for lightweight nasty payloads when anyone serious about drone attacks can borrow a Cessna, fit some remote control autopilot gear in it, and deliver ~1000lbs of nasty on target to anywhere within a few hundred miles, probably before the air force can scramble response fighters for 90%+ of the population.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2020, @07:11AM
It's either a misdemeanor or felony to fire one off inside city limits without a permit.
Same applies to drones, registered or unregistered. Good old fashioned policework should be able to find a drone owner pretty fast nowadays, and the few that 'get away' will no doubt show up again and get caught when they are sloppy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @08:00PM
I don't buy the extra scrutiny thing, if that would actually help then that would imply that there is no problem policing the airport situation. After all in that case ANY drone is illegal. The only use care here is enforcing no-fly zones for innocent trespass, you are giving enforcement the information they need to do their job. The terrorist thing is just an appeal to fear to get people to accept it.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday March 02 2020, @06:04PM (1 child)
You've got it backwards. What happens when the terrorists (or local boy scout troop) gets 100 drones, all advertising their position, and sends them all to, say, the airport? Or the Governor's office?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @07:56PM
Probably the same thing that happens when the terrorists get 100 internet connections, and spoof 100 drones moving in to, say, the airport. Or the Governor's office. And that one is easier to test.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 02 2020, @06:07PM (12 children)
Terror drones have been a possibility since the inception of the remote controlled ANYTHING hobby. Even 50+ years ago, a simple low cost RC vehicle _could have been used_ to deliver whatever explosives or other nasty payload ANYBODY wanted with it. Ranges have increased, autonomy with GPS navigation has increased, basically: if you can get your hands of high explosives, anybody can make a terror drone out of off-the-shelf hardware in an afternoon.
These rules, if enacted, will do several things:
1) reduce the number of hobby drones in the sky, reducing the workload for domestic "security" agencies (DSAs) in vetting them
2) provide a semblance of friend/foe identification, if the hobbyist's tracking ID isn't working properly then the DSA has probable cause to blow it out of the sky
3) crush the life and soul out of a legitimate STEM hobby and significantly reduce the number of US students who develop these skills (while other countries like Iran actively encourage said skills development)
Fear and insecurity will make us weak. Long before drones need tracking handguns, assault rifles, hunting weapons (including crossbows), and recreational fireworks need similar tracking systems, for our collective safety. /s
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 02 2020, @06:29PM (8 children)
I wish I had mod points to give.
Remote RC cars, as you point out, could be used to deliver nasty payloads.
New technology on the horizon could be self-driving self-navigating RC cars. Just drive by, stop, open your door, put RC car on the pavement, and drive away. Just as drones, I'm sure that terrorist RC cars will comply with all new laws just as terrorist drones would.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 02 2020, @06:45PM (3 children)
Someone's been watching old Tom Selleck movies [wikipedia.org]!!!! :P :D
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 02 2020, @07:28PM (2 children)
I don't recall having seen this movie. But if I did, it sounds pretty easily forgettable.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 02 2020, @07:53PM
It had Gene Simmons in it. I am going to assume it was just awful.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Tuesday March 03 2020, @10:56AM
Not sure it was so easily forgettable, because I recalled the same movie (well, probably the same scene) in response to your comment (basically - "seen that in a movie back in the 80s).
Couldn't have given you the title of the movie, or named the actors, nor can I give you a single line of dialogue, or plot (other than good guys vs. bad guy) but the _tech_, that was memorable:
* the almost ludicrously large tracking bullets that locked onto your "unique" heat signature and followed you round corners etc. before blowing a large hole in you
* the fact that they were _slow_ (for bullets), no need for bullet time (hadn't been invented yet :-), plenty of time to run away, dramatically, but the bullet always found you...
* the dinky little bomb cars that drove themselves between the wheels of other cars before blowing up under the target (that's the scene)
* acid injecting robo-spiders, nuff said
All the tech (I think) was autonomous fire-and-forget, the bad guy forgot this and got killed by his own creations as a result
That is about _all_ I remember of the film, but that has all stuck after 30+ yrs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @07:17PM
My favorite GTA missions!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @08:16PM (2 children)
How much damage could a fleet of full size self-driving cars/trucks loaded with explosives do to some target?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 02 2020, @09:33PM (1 child)
A secure popsicle factory installation might have pop up Bollards [wikipedia.org] to block large vehicles.
But a small RC vehicle might get through. Maybe even unnoticed. Or not noticed soon enough.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03 2020, @12:38AM
Bollards might not survive the first wave of the attack.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday March 03 2020, @06:16AM (2 children)
Isis has used RC aircraft as ordnance-bearing drones to some degree of success. The videos tend to disappear offline pretty quickly (It's terrorist propaganda, obvs.) but I have a small cache of it. They drop mortar shells or IEDs from a fixed wing or multirotor with FPV capabilities.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 03 2020, @07:54AM
They are sacrificing MY KIND?!?
Now it's personal.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday March 03 2020, @10:53AM
Was only a matter of time. In or around 2010 the UAV company I worked for did a test (sponsored by the US army) of hand-grenade delivery with their fixed wing 1kg drone. End result: first try on a pickup truck as the target resulted in a "vehicle kill" both simulated occupants received highly lethal injuries and the engine block of the truck was damaged beyond repair. This from a UAV designed for surveillance carrying a grenade smaller than your fist.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 02 2020, @07:44PM
came to post the same thing. these regulators know this full well. they are purposely removing the ability for regular people to fly (without being completely dominated by these useless pigs).