| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Drone rule draft
Another useless government boondoggle.
********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. |
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." Regulation favors big corporations and the "aviation groups" hate drones. They would require regular GA pilot licenses for them if they got their wish. I doubt I will ever buy one so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I do wonder how they actually plan on enforcing this since it is the operator they want to register, not the purchaser or the drone itself. When these things start hitting the Craigs list and Ebay market, used for a few bucks each, any chance of tracking them will be ridiculous. I know it is "free" now but once the regulation costs starts hitting budgets, I doubt that will last long if the plan survives very long. OTOH this is very likely to go the way of the CB and marine VHF license. These days I doubt more than 10% of these operators have any license at all and they might not actually remember the call sign. VHF went license free 25 years ago and CB has been a free fire zone for more like 40 years (KHFS-5589 here) That was probably in the last batch of CB licenses ever issued. FCC doesn't seem to remember it. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." Regulation favors big corporations and the "aviation groups" hate drones. They would require regular GA pilot licenses for them if they got their wish. I doubt I will ever buy one so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I do wonder how they actually plan on enforcing this since it is the operator they want to register, not the purchaser or the drone itself. When these things start hitting the Craigs list and Ebay market, used for a few bucks each, any chance of tracking them will be ridiculous. I know it is "free" now but once the regulation costs starts hitting budgets, I doubt that will last long if the plan survives very long. OTOH this is very likely to go the way of the CB and marine VHF license. These days I doubt more than 10% of these operators have any license at all and they might not actually remember the call sign. VHF went license free 25 years ago and CB has been a free fire zone for more like 40 years (KHFS-5589 here) That was probably in the last batch of CB licenses ever issued. FCC doesn't seem to remember it. The 'registration' can be enforced at AMA sanctioned flying fields by disallowing the flying of drones without the registration data attached. Easy. Except that the drones causing the problems are most likely not being flown from AMA sanctioned fields. And, they're cheap now. The quad I got for the grandkids to play with cost about $70. No camera or GPS though. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:53:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. The FAA will probably double its size over this. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." Regulation favors big corporations and the "aviation groups" hate drones. They would require regular GA pilot licenses for them if they got their wish. I doubt I will ever buy one so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I do wonder how they actually plan on enforcing this since it is the operator they want to register, not the purchaser or the drone itself. When these things start hitting the Craigs list and Ebay market, used for a few bucks each, any chance of tracking them will be ridiculous. I know it is "free" now but once the regulation costs starts hitting budgets, I doubt that will last long if the plan survives very long. OTOH this is very likely to go the way of the CB and marine VHF license. These days I doubt more than 10% of these operators have any license at all and they might not actually remember the call sign. VHF went license free 25 years ago and CB has been a free fire zone for more like 40 years (KHFS-5589 here) That was probably in the last batch of CB licenses ever issued. FCC doesn't seem to remember it. The 'registration' can be enforced at AMA sanctioned flying fields by disallowing the flying of drones without the registration data attached. Easy. Except that the drones causing the problems are most likely not being flown from AMA sanctioned fields. And, they're cheap now. The quad I got for the grandkids to play with cost about $70. No camera or GPS though. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Try frays.com http://www.frys.com/product/8465448?...H:MAIN_RSLT_PG Camera $60 |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:53:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. No you missed it, "Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names." Your grammar school aged son needs to register. If he is registered and then let's his buddy try it for a minute, the other kid better get on the phone and get registered or he will go to the big house. This makes it easy to be a Libertarian. The government is out of control. |
Drone rule draft
On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:40:21 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." Regulation favors big corporations and the "aviation groups" hate drones. They would require regular GA pilot licenses for them if they got their wish. I doubt I will ever buy one so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I do wonder how they actually plan on enforcing this since it is the operator they want to register, not the purchaser or the drone itself. When these things start hitting the Craigs list and Ebay market, used for a few bucks each, any chance of tracking them will be ridiculous. I know it is "free" now but once the regulation costs starts hitting budgets, I doubt that will last long if the plan survives very long. OTOH this is very likely to go the way of the CB and marine VHF license. These days I doubt more than 10% of these operators have any license at all and they might not actually remember the call sign. VHF went license free 25 years ago and CB has been a free fire zone for more like 40 years (KHFS-5589 here) That was probably in the last batch of CB licenses ever issued. FCC doesn't seem to remember it. The 'registration' can be enforced at AMA sanctioned flying fields by disallowing the flying of drones without the registration data attached. Easy. Except that the drones causing the problems are most likely not being flown from AMA sanctioned fields. That is a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place AMA fields are never going to be within 5 miles of an airport. I also doubt that .001% of drones are going to be flown on an AMA field and then it would just be to get pictures of model plane operation. Most are going to be flown within walking distance of the owner's house. And, they're cheap now. The quad I got for the grandkids to play with cost about $70. No camera or GPS though. If it weighs more than 8oz, they better get themselves registered. |
Drone rule draft
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:29:40 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. And if it's registered? What then? |
Drone rule draft
On 11/23/2015 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:29:40 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. And if it's registered? What then? Probably a warning to stop being an asshole. :-) |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:29:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. Not exactly, They are registering the operator from what is in the proposal. I am also not sure local cops can actually enforce a FAA regulation (it is not a law the way it is being proposed, just a regulation) You also will have the problem that if the drone is gone when the cop gets there, there would be little he could do anyway, even if there was a local ordinance. This is far from being solved with anything I have seen so far. We have not even established that spying from the air is illegal, or could be made illegal. The operator might be a minor, you probably have to establish exactly where the drone was flying etc,etc. I agree the FAA will be aggressive when these things interfere with regulated air operations but the nuisance operation may end up in civil court, assuming the operator has anything worth suing for. At the end of the day the HOA in that kind of community might be the biggest rock in the bag, assuming the operator doesn't live outside the fence. My wife's HOA has already acted on this, no drones without prior permission of the board. There is no "due process" in an HOA. An allegation is almost as good as a conviction. Owners can be fined and renters can be kicked out. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:07:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Probably a warning to stop being an asshole. :-) At a certain point, the "2d amendment solution" does have a simple elegance. Just be sure you fire from cover so you don't film your own crime ;-) |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:28:27 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:53:14 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. No you missed it, "Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names." Your grammar school aged son needs to register. If he is registered and then let's his buddy try it for a minute, the other kid better get on the phone and get registered or he will go to the big house. This makes it easy to be a Libertarian. The government is out of control. This is what FAA told the group: "1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. - Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. 2. Develop and recommend registration processes. - Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to be submitted for registration. 3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking. - Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner." In other words, register the aircraft and a means to identify same with the registered owner. Just like guns. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:29:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. Neighbor to police; "There's a toy helicopter flying over my back yard." Police: "So what?" Neighbor: "Well, it's interfering with my reasonable right to privacy." Police: "How?" Neighbor: "Because the owner can see what I'm doing in my back yard." Police: "Well, couldn't they do the same by looking over your fence out their bedroom window?" Neighbor: "Well, yeah, but isn't it illegal for someone to fly a toy helicopter over my back yard?" Police: "No." -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:35:10 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:40:21 -0500, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." Regulation favors big corporations and the "aviation groups" hate drones. They would require regular GA pilot licenses for them if they got their wish. I doubt I will ever buy one so I really don't have a dog in the fight. I do wonder how they actually plan on enforcing this since it is the operator they want to register, not the purchaser or the drone itself. When these things start hitting the Craigs list and Ebay market, used for a few bucks each, any chance of tracking them will be ridiculous. I know it is "free" now but once the regulation costs starts hitting budgets, I doubt that will last long if the plan survives very long. OTOH this is very likely to go the way of the CB and marine VHF license. These days I doubt more than 10% of these operators have any license at all and they might not actually remember the call sign. VHF went license free 25 years ago and CB has been a free fire zone for more like 40 years (KHFS-5589 here) That was probably in the last batch of CB licenses ever issued. FCC doesn't seem to remember it. The 'registration' can be enforced at AMA sanctioned flying fields by disallowing the flying of drones without the registration data attached. Easy. Except that the drones causing the problems are most likely not being flown from AMA sanctioned fields. That is a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place AMA fields are never going to be within 5 miles of an airport. I also doubt that .001% of drones are going to be flown on an AMA field and then it would just be to get pictures of model plane operation. Most are going to be flown within walking distance of the owner's house. Probably right, although we've several folks fly multirotors at the fields I go to. But, I'm sure that's just a small percent of the actual operators. Hell, who wants to fork over $125 for the privilege of a field if they can take off and land in their driveway, or from a picnic table in the back yard. And, they're cheap now. The quad I got for the grandkids to play with cost about $70. No camera or GPS though. If it weighs more than 8oz, they better get themselves registered. I suppose I'd have to register as the owner and then register all the grandkids that may be operators. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:07:11 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2015 7:50 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:29:40 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. And if it's registered? What then? Probably a warning to stop being an asshole. :-) So nothing really changes, except the feel good legislation. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:36:10 -0500, John H.
wrote: This is what FAA told the group: "1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. - Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. 2. Develop and recommend registration processes. - Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to be submitted for registration. 3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking. - Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner." In other words, register the aircraft and a means to identify same with the registered owner. Just like guns. It is a great dream for people who think the government can and should do everything but how does this translate to a $50 used drone sold at a garage sale? They expect to sell a million for christmas. Probably half of those will be used by kids. That doesn't include the home built machines and as far as I know none of them have serial numbers. The guy who works for my wife is pounding them out from parts, custom configuring them for his customers and selling them (at least one a week). These can't be confused with very specialized "model" aircraft and they certainly do not conform to anything else the FAA regulates. Again I am reminded of the CB radio or the marine VHF. Both exploded into the consumer market (after being a somewhat regulated niche) and the government just had to admit they were beyond their capabilities in trying to regulate them. I suspect they may just say the drones that can carry a couple of pounds (Amazon etc) are regulated and the rest will remain in the wild. They will still have a limited degree of success. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote: Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer would be registered also. -- That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register "operators". I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally realized the futility of it. The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator, not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives. |
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:43:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:07:11 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/23/2015 7:50 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:29:40 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote: On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote: On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote: Another useless government boondoggle. ********************** Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26 people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking out late last week. The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays. Can't fix stupid. -- Ban idiots, not guns! especially in Washington. Can't blame this on Washington or politicians. "The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday." The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already decided there *would* be a registration process. That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the problem. "The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while achieving a maximum level of compliance." More at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 -- Ban idiots, not guns! This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke. It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad. And if it's registered? What then? Probably a warning to stop being an asshole. :-) So nothing really changes, except the feel good legislation. Exactly. But the AMA will probably ask the RC clubs to check for drone registration at the RC fields. Oh, and the government gets bigger. I could see a whole new bureau just to keep track of the millions of multirotors and operators out there. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H. wrote: Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer would be registered also. -- That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register "operators". I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally realized the futility of it. The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator, not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives. Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted. http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 Go to page 2 and read para 1: 1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. -Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. " That seems pretty clear to me. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
On 11/24/15 11:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H. wrote: Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer would be registered also. -- That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register "operators". I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally realized the futility of it. The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator, not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives. Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted. http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 Go to page 2 and read para 1: 1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. -Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. " That seems pretty clear to me. -- Ban idiots, not guns! This thread is only worthwhile if it is going to create problems for you. Please advise. |
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:41:10 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H. wrote: Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer would be registered also. -- That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register "operators". I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally realized the futility of it. The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator, not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives. Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted. http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 Go to page 2 and read para 1: 1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. -Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. " That seems pretty clear to me. Don't go all Harry on me. Make sure you read all of the link you post The summary after the conclusion ************** Do owners need to register each individual UAS they own? No The registration system is owner based, so each registrant will have a single registration number that covers any and all UAS that the registrant owns. ************** Obviously, if the owner chooses to use the S/N of his drone as his number ... he can only have one (or all of them have the same S/N) This is a very flawed document |
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:06:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 11/24/15 11:41 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H. wrote: Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer would be registered also. -- That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register "operators". I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally realized the futility of it. The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator, not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives. Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted. http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 Go to page 2 and read para 1: 1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. -Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. " That seems pretty clear to me. -- Ban idiots, not guns! This thread is only worthwhile if it is going to create problems for you. Please advise. Since it is essentially an unfunded program (the fee is 0.1 cents) it affects you too as long as you pay taxes. |
Drone rule draft
On 11/24/15 12:42 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:06:29 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 11/24/15 11:41 AM, John H. wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H. wrote: Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer would be registered also. -- That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register "operators". I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally realized the futility of it. The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator, not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives. Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted. http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373 Go to page 2 and read para 1: 1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be registered. -Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other factors such as age of operator. " That seems pretty clear to me. -- Ban idiots, not guns! This thread is only worthwhile if it is going to create problems for you. Please advise. Since it is essentially an unfunded program (the fee is 0.1 cents) it affects you too as long as you pay taxes. You did notice the word "worthwhile" in connection with Herring, right? |
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to the powers to be. === You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about anything from a legally operayed plane or helo. |
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: None of this matters to me since I have zero interest in quads, drones model RC helicopters or airplanes. I respect the right for those who enjoy the hobby to own and operate them. My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to the powers to be. Fireworks are illegal in many states, including mine. The police don't go out of their way to enforce the law unless people are causing a nuisance, endangering others or as a result of a complaint but the fact that the law is on the books allows some degree of control. This legislation does not address that at all. I suspect it will end up being a local ordinance. That does make the most sense. What sounds logical in Massachusetts might sound silly out in Wyoming somewhere. HOAs are already moving on this. |
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0500, John H.
wrote: Yeah, I mentioned the kit problem before. There is nothing on a drone that can't be replaced, number or no number. Therein lies the problem with any kind of serialization. They would need to determine which part would be serialized. |
Drone rule draft
|
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:29:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to the powers to be. === You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about anything from a legally operayed plane or helo. Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra $100 can do it. Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to take the ambiguity out of the equation. I know some "RC" guys and I would not even try to compare them to the typical drone operator. I said, it would be like comparing "veteran hams" to "Smokey and the Bandit" CB users. |
Drone rule draft
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:29:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to the powers to be. === You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about anything from a legally operayed plane or helo. Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra $100 can do it. Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to take the ambiguity out of the equation. True, but the FAA has no business in establishing local nuisance laws. As I said before, I think that should be handled at the city level. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Drone rule draft
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:35:56 AM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:29:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 11/24/2015 5:40 PM, wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:44:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: My only issue is I think it should be illegal to fly them over other people's property without permission. How they enforce that is up to the powers to be. === You don't need permission to fly a private plane over other people's property except for FAA altitude restrictions. Why should a drone need permission? With the right cameras you can photograph just about anything from a legally operayed plane or helo. Because in most places the minimum altitude for fixed wing is 1500 ft and 500 ft for helicopters. The issue of "reasonable expectation of privacy" takes on a new meaning when $100, camera equipped drones can be purchased by anyone and flown 50 - 100 feet over your backyard. Flying something that low over private property is a nuisance, IMO, regardless of cameras or video capability and virtually any yahoo with an extra $100 can do it. Realistically, it probably isn't that big of a problem because *most* RC enthusiasts are sensitive to privacy and nuisance issues and don't screw around causing a problem with a neighbor. However, without any laws on the books, some people are going to take matters in their own hands when there is an issue. The purpose of a law or regulation is to take the ambiguity out of the equation. True, but the FAA has no business in establishing local nuisance laws. As I said before, I think that should be handled at the city level. -- Ban idiots, not guns! Or the state... www.wltx.com/story/news/2015/11/23/bill-would-ban-low-level-drone-flights-over-private-property-sc/76287598/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com