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: 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]