Notably absent from the "Statements of support for DOT's approach to UAS registration" [1] is the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics)<p>Congress (and Obama) asked the FAA to write rules integrating UAS into the national airspace by September 2015, back in February 2012. [2] By all accounts, the section 333 exception policy does not meet that request... and now they expect to develop a full-blown registration process ready before the end of December? Please, don't make me laugh. They couldn't even answer at the press conference what the benefit of registration will be, arguing that it would be used to track down owners of drones flaunting the rules, but seemingly having forgotten that they already can't identify airborne drones properly.<p>I think Motherboard says it best. "It's clear that the agency, which oversees the Federal Aviation Administration, wants to crack down on the unsafe use of drones, and it's looking like it's going to try to bypass as much of the traditional rulemaking process as is possible... The short answer is, the FAA will probably cut corners and perhaps 'reinterpret' existing manned aircraft regulations" [3]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/statements-of-support-uas-registration" rel="nofollow">https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/statements-of-s...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/faa-regulation-of-drones-will-challenge-our-privacy-expectations/2012/04/19/gIQA9IH8TT_story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/faa-regulation-of-dr...</a><p>[3] <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/8-questions-raised-by-the-faas-decision-to-register-every-drone-in-the-us" rel="nofollow">http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/8-questions-raised-by...</a>
Drones should be licensed and/or registered, much the same way as cars are. There are places where you can drive an unregistered car without a driver's license. And that will be true of drones as well. There will be places where you can fly them unlimited. Just not in the common space defined by the government as such. That's what the government is for.<p>"Drone ranch" here we come.<p>I am a private pilot, so I appreciate how nuanced the airspace can be. Also I think drones are super cool and access to them should be easy. But not free. Drone operators should be required to take at least a brief ground school covering airspace (take it online!) and pass a quiz (also online!)
The current and proposed restrictions on drones seem insane to me. To see why, do the reversal test.[1]<p>Imagine if single-prop planes didn't exist, and drones were already used for productive purposes. Courier drones deliver packages in minutes. Construction drones monitor work sites and inspect structures for safety. Police drones scout and warn people near any crimes in progress. Ambulance drones alert drivers and secure intersections so emergency vehicles can respond faster. Some even deliver life-saving equipment or medicines. People have personal drones to follow them on bike rides or runs, carrying supplies and lighting the way at night. Etcetera.<p>Now imagine someone wanting to restrict these drones so that a few people can use cloth-winged planes that run on leaded gasoline. It would be a joke, right?<p>Except, it's not. It's the world we live in.<p>1. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test</a><p>Edit: I'm talking about general aviation, not civil aviation. Airliners and drones operate at very different altitudes. Except near airports, there's ≈0 risk of a collision.<p>Many find my example too skewed in favor of drones, but I think I've been rather conservative. Due to restrictions, there are many applications that haven't been explored. In all likelihood, the "killer app" for drones has yet to be invented.
I'm actually a big fan of this idea. As a private pilot, I'm excited about a lot of cool possibilities enabled by drones that aren't possible in manned aircraft (high speed, low-level FPV racing!) or are made better (package delivery with relatively high power aircraft). But I'm anxious about touching drones at all right now because the rules are either undefined or unfriendly and I theoretically have a certificate on the line.<p>I hope that we're able to get to a sane regulatory environment here that gives me well-defined, positive rules for flying progressively more powerful and sophisticated UAVs, including in controlled airspace. Those won't be toys, and it's debatable now whether many drones in the hands of consumers are already. The FAA is already stretched way too thin with existing manned aviation and there's no way the local FSDO is going to bother going after a kid with a small electric drone, registered or otherwise, unless they do something really stupid.
There's a lot of vitriol and misinformation flying around (pun definitely intended).<p>Here's my take on the situation.<p>Large companies building 'ready to fly' multicopters need to have some sort of communication with the FAA and other agencies.<p>I do not own a DJI quad myself, but I'm very familiar with them, so I'm going to use them in my example.<p>DJI has frequently updated firmware for their devices.
It would be very trivial for them to add in a 'default' setting on the device that prevents the device from breaking any of the <i>already defined</i> rules.<p>If the pilot so chooses, and most importantly, is authorized via a Section 333 exemption (or otherwise) can override those settings on the device.<p>As for all multicopters, I have no qualms about using a Dremel to etch in a registration number on my device.
I do, however, have issues with those suggesting that I must add extra hardware and extra transmitters to my device.<p>Etching the registration code on the device will also allow someone to return my quad if it's lost.
Ugh. So we're going to expand the bureaucracy to support this for the purpose of stopping a handful of bad actors that are going to be impossible to identify anyways.<p>Fantastic. Simply fantastic.
Also <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10406261" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10406261</a>.