The comments here really surprise me. My dad's a pilot, and I've heard from him firsthand how drones are a very serious problem for airplanes. Comments like "this is just one more example of tracking" or "I can't believe I have to do this even if it's only for my house" seem to be said out of anger rather than from serious consideration of the issues with drones. Your $30 drone can very easily cause someone else's $1,000,000 airplane serious damage, and as drones get more sophisticated and more capable the danger will only increase.
I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". It's probably easier to say as follows: when you're playing in the sandbox, you play nice with other kids. Here, when you're playing in the air, you have to play nice with other things in the air. The fact your toy is tiny and easy to use doesn't change the fact that you're still playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.
I remember a great quote, "If you can get them to ask the wrong questions, then the answers don't matter."
Model airplanes have been a threat to airplanes since they became popular in 1915. Yes, 100 years ago. So why regulate them beyond the existing regulations now? A better question is "What changed?"
Anyone who owns a quad copter of the type they show on various stories about this, knows they are a pain in the ass to fly in high wind environments. Even with 9DOF IMU assisted station keeping a stiff wind will blow them around.
So why now? Why haven't people complained about 1:10 scale jets they fly around at RC plane meetups? Those things are fast and can fly straight through a gust of wind.
This program isn't about "danger to aircraft", this program is entirely about identifying the owner of a R/C model and being able to jail/fine people who don't agree to link their model to their identity. That ownership link is essential in prosecuting the right person when their model photographs something that someone else doesn't want photographed, whether it is a celebrity sunbathing topless in their back yard or police officers beating down protestors. Its about identifying the owner of one of these devices when they are used in the commission of a crime, whether it is unlicensed surveillance or simple burglary. Its about identifying the owner of the R/C model that just crashed into your sports car and scratched the paint.
None if the prosecutions can be cost effective if the perpetrator can argue that it is plausibly not their R/C model. And having hundreds of identical models sold? Sure anyone could have been flying that particular unit as it buzzed your beach house.
This program is about tying people's identities to the R/C models they operate so that they can be prosecuted when they do something that someone else doesn't like with them. It is couched in terms of "safety of aircraft" because that is a narrative that the general public can get their head around, however the risk to aircraft is already "priced into" the existing regulations.
To be honest, some of the bad things are really that dangerous, like jet engine damage. And while not as dangerous no one for example likes drones with cameras peeking into windows for a long time either and broken glass is even worse. Encouraging accountability like this is a good idea.
Yes, they are that dangerous, and that is why FAA regulations already make it illegal to fly a model airplane around an airport. When Moffett field was an active Navy Base you couldn't fly your kite at Shoreline without getting hassled by the MPs.
Those regulations have been around for a long time and have been effective at keeping planes safe. When people violate them, they do selective enforcement to remind folks the regulations are there. A good example of regulation that succeeds in its goal.
Adding the forced identification thing is the red herring here.
While I agree with a good deal of your argument I think a LOT has changed.
I have been flying all manner of R/C planes and helicopters for about thirty years. I have planes that will do 120 MPH with the motor off, weigh in the order of 8 lbs and have a wingspan of 2.4 meters. I have helicopters with 10,000 W power (peak) systems that come in at over 10 lbs. I used to have model turbine jets that could rip across the sky at nearly 200 MPH.
What's the difference?
The difference is that for as long as I can remember no model airplane hobbyist would even think about the idea of flying one of their aircraft anywhere near full scale aircraft, airports, around fire-fighting aircraft, over crowds, around buildings or at altitudes that could represent danger to full scale aircraft.
That is the difference. And it is huge.
The other is the American Modelers Association (modelaircraft.org). I have been a member for over 30 years. Which, among other things, also means I carry a one million dollar insurance policy covering any damage I may cause while flying my aircraft. My teenage son is an AMA member, he too is covered by a one million dollar policy.
In order for this insurance policy to provide coverage the modeler has to abide by AMA rules, which, among other things, requires you to fly at AMA sanctioned club locations. Clubs, just like the one where I fly, are located such that model aircraft activity will not pose danger to people an property. Clubs have rules beyond those of the AMA. We have safety officers, etc.
Oh, yes, the AMA requires you to label your aircraft with your AMA member number, your name and contact information. In other words, you are accountable for what you do.
You also needed training and skill to fly. At most clubs you can't just buy a plane and go flying, you have to be certified by the club instructor or established members or trained and then certified.
In other words, flying R/C aircraft has always had a degree of professionalism, care, consideration, responsibility and enough procedures and rules to not put anyone in danger.
What has changed, then, is that any moron can now buy a flying device that can be flown with almost no skill. As you indicated, it is hard to fly some of these models in windy or gusty situations. And that's not necessarily because of the model. I fly gliders in 50 MPH winds all the time. I fly my R/C helicopters in gusty Santa Ana conditions all the time. There's a dedication to training and skill building that comes with the hobby. Joe Quadcopter couldn't give a shit. He just wants to fly it over the beach and take pictures. He has zero interest in becoming a good pilot.
The manufacturers could not give a crap about how they are used, therefore, they do not educate their customers at all. And, of course, either out of ignorance or lack of caring, Mr. Joe Moron thinks nothing of taking his brand new DJI quadcopter up to 1,000 feet right above a park full of kids, neighborhood homes or the local news helicopter because, well, it's cool, it has a "return home" feature and it is perfectly safe, physics be damned.
So, yeah, if you ask me, those morons need to be identified and they need to be made responsible for their actions. Here's what's going to suck: These morons are the very people who will absolutely, positively NOT register and absolutely, positively NOT have any ID or registration number on the machines they fly. People like me, who have enjoyed the hobby for decades without placing anyone or anything at risk are the ones who end-up paying the price for the morons.
What I find really ironic is that this is EXACTLY, to the letter, the same scenario we have with guns. Law abiding citizens never hurt a sole. Criminals and crazies do. And everyone ends-up paying for it with the exception of those who truly need to be kept away from them.
I am not necessarily bothered by the registration. I am already 100% identified in every single one of my aircraft. If I crash one anywhere, whoever picks it up will have my AMA membership number, name and phone number. So, registering with the FAA is not a big deal. What pisses me of is that, just like guns, this is going to do exactly ZERO to stop the crazies, morons and criminals. Zero.
They could (and have), POV cameras in R/C planes have been a thing for a while now. It was just more expensive and so people didn't do it without consideration. It was more complicated to fly an R/C helicopter. (search for 'learn to fly an R/C helicopter' some time :-) ).
Now however you can put a camera on a quad-copter (or buy one with one) on an image stabilized mount, and take HD movies of areas you couldn't get too before. That has really irked / woken up some people. All without any training and only a bit of practice. That is what changed that people have asked the FAA to "fix."
> It was more complicated to fly an R/C helicopter.
God yes. This is so true. Learning to fly an R/C heli is such a huge time investment. Repairing your R/C heli when you jam parts of it into the ground wasn't cheap, either.
Because your aircraft is going to routinely buzz residential areas at sub-500-feet and is entitled to do so risk free because it costs a lot of money or something?
It's not like drones are risk free - quad copters are like hockey pucks floating in the air and can easily drift or fall.
But that said, considering how many of them are in private hands and what most owners actually do with them, the registration requirements are completely onerous.
You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park, you don't register to hit a baseball at the park, and it's accordingly totally not clear why you need to register to fly a small aircraft at the park when it's pretty much going to stay lower than maybe two and half telephone poles.
Yeah, H class requires level 1 certification from Tripoli or NAR. And for good reason I'd say. I just happened to launch an F-class yesterday - definitely not your kid-friendly little model rocket that you could launch from the baseball field nearby; that things goes far and carries quite a bit of mass. If something goes wrong and it shoots into a person, it could do some damage.
If I'm following your argument, you're saying, "drones are currently not that powerful, so they should be viewed as a toy." The problem is, that argument is destined to become false. Drones are only getting more and more capable. Intelligent legislation works not only for the current scenario but also future ones.
Additionally, there are many stories regarding how current drone operators either ignore common sense regarding where to fly, or make mistakes that put planes in danger, or whatever. You can simply google "airline drone near miss" to see examples. Just because people theoretically could act in an intelligent manner doesn't mean we can rely on them to actually do so.
Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss".
But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.
A "near miss" in aviation terms would be anything close enough to potentially compromise safety if anything else went wrong. This tends to be taken very seriously – for example, every such reported incident in the UK is investigated and a report issued – even when the distances involved seem very large for a ‘near miss’. The UK investigative authority cites an example where the aircraft involved were 3 miles apart horizontally, and yet it was still handled as a safety issue ( http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/default.aspx?catid=423&pagety... ).
I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant.
The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!
Google turned up 137,000 results for me for "airline drone near miss." Are you sure you're using it properly?
Many of the hits describe the specific near misses, thus answering your question.
But the question about how many actual problems we are talking about is missing the point. Drones are at an inflection point. People have been flying them for decades as a hobby (they were called "radio control airplanes" back then) without issue, but they're set to become far more popular, far more available, and far easier to use really rapidly. The question is not so much how many problems there are today, but what it'll look like in five or ten years, and how we can get ahead of any potential problems now.
But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.
close but no harm done
Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot of my airplane to be distracted by your asshat-ery no matter how much distance you think you have from the airplane.
Yes, I'm serious. As someone who thinks nothing of near-misses involving drivers dozens/hundreds of times daily with a head-on speed differential of >100 MPH missing by _feet_ , I understand the concern for impact yet still scratch my head over the angst indulged over a single miss by _miles_.
On my next to last landing at my home airport, I was warned of "remote controlled aircraft" on the final approach path, 1.5 miles from the runway. At that point on a 3* approach path, I'm a little over 400' above the touchdown zone and the land rises slightly in this direction, so I'm a little under 400' above ground.
Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?
As you yourself point out, birds outnumber drones a million to one. So obviously the available number of examples is much smaller. That doesn't, however, change the potential danger.
Perhaps not, but some of us would like to see more than "potential danger" to justify panicked, knee-jerk lawmaking. "Think of the airplanes!" is no better a rationale, in itself, than "Think of the children!" or "B...b...but terrorists!"
Or, rather, it's a great rationale if you have an agenda that needs more political support than it would otherwise be able to garner. It's not hard to imagine why governments would be utterly terrified of a civilian population with widespread drone ownership and ongoing development.
etc.. these are not hard to find. Now actual compendiums are being done, but I couldn't find the raw data. The FAA says it has gathered "more than 650" reports:
https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445
As a pilot, I do not see this as being surprising. People are doing dumb things with drones, just like pilots did dumb things with airplanes in the '20s and '30s, leading to the precursor of the FAA and the creation of the airspace system.
But the real reason for registration is so that when there is an accident involving a drone and someone on the ground, such as a person shooting down a drone, the owner of the drone can be identified.
Finally, if a drone gets involved in my airplane's propeller, it will probably be diced into chunks so small you'll never find all the pieces. However the propeller and engine will need to be rebuilt, at a cost of $20,000+, so you can bet that I'll be on the ground looking for those bits so I can stick that insurance claim.
The last time I saw the topic of drones and aircraft collisions on the front page (maybe a week ago), the entire comment thread was filled with people downplaying the dangers, casting doubt on whether it even mattered, saying a three-pound (!) drone wouldn't do any actual damage on impact, etc.
I find the community attitude here to be completely insane. Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway."
There are already many cases on the books of drones flying into approach paths of airliners in many airports, including several into JFK. Just last week there was a case of a police helicopter that had a very close call with a drone (the helicopter pilot did execute collision avoidance, and police on the ground tracked the drone operator.) Incidence is there and rising.
Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway."
This being HN, more likely it's "all regulation is morally evil".
Hand-in-hand, culturally: if there is a problem, it means an unregulated market didn't solve the problem. Since by definition unregulated markets can't have unsolved problems, the problem must exist and protecting the dogma requires demonstrating that the problem is a lie made up by sensationalist media.
If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc) and below 1,000 feet, and somehow an aircraft and drone collide then it is the aircraft pilot's fault. It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet except in an emergency or in controlled airspace.
If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules and I hope they get fined.
> It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet except in an emergency or in controlled airspace.
Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction.
Also, if an airplane pilot is flying below 1000' AGL, not only do they have a large, highly visible tail number that will identify them... they're also putting their own life at risk.
On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to. There was an incident in the news just a few weeks ago: http://kron4.com/2015/12/06/california-highway-patrol-helico...
> Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction.
They don't have a set "in stone" one like fixed wing aircraft, but if you go buzz a few homes for no reason the FAA will still throw a fine your way. Additionally whirlybirds don't want to operate too low as it substantially reduces their emergency landing sites even with auto-rotation.
> On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to.
Which is fine, if they're below 1000 feet, and aircraft aren't allowed to fly below 1000 feet then there is no issue.
The only issue with drones is when they exceed 1000 feet, or are in controlled airspace (airports, events, emergency situations, etc).
It's been pointed out elsewhere that your 1000' figure is incorrect.
I'll add that there are many airports inside class G airspace (the formal definition for what people call "uncontrolled airspace").
For approaches to any airport, there is an exemption to the FAR 91.119 minimum altitudes "except when necessary for takeoff or landing".
So by no means does being outside controlled airspace (in class G airspace) and under 1000' keep you separated from aircraft who are following the FARs.
Aircraft regularly operate below 1,000 feet in urban areas when taking off or landing. Not all airports are in the middle of nowhere!
Most of these "drone sightings" being reported are near airports since that's when aircraft are flying low. There have also been cases of idiots taking drones up several thousands feet and encountering aircraft further from airports.
And the reason pilots are confused about your argument is that controlled vs uncontrolled airspace is not a useful distinction. In many parts of the US, class G (uncontrolled) airspace extends from the surface to 14,500' MSL.
If a drone is flying within a certain distance from an airport (5 miles I think) or above 400 feet they are breaking regulations... The problem is that if a pilot breaks the rule that have a tail number and might very well die. If a done does there is no tracking number and the pilot is safe at home.
> If a done does there is no tracking number and the pilot is safe at home.
Thing is, model aircraft hobbyists have been -for the most part- safely and responsibly flying RC aircraft for nearly a hundred years. These fliers haven't had any FAA registration requirement, and have not been required to put identifying information in their aircraft.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around -and doing great good- since 1936. It has encouraged the development and nurturing of a culture within the model aircraft pilots' community that highly values safe, sane, and reasonable operation of model aircraft. One of the big ways that they do this is by chartering local model aviation clubs.
Every store I'm aware of that specializes in model aircraft will -when you purchase an RC aircraft from them- steer you towards your local model aircraft club. This lets you know that there are folks who can train you (and let you get hours or months of fun from your new toy, rather than seconds), and lets those folks train you so that you learn how to not a hazard to yourself and others.
It's a damn shame that so many retailers that sold "drones" failed to point their customers to their local model aviation club.
So, anyway. People have been -entirely legally- flying aircraft that are substantially heavier, substantially faster, and -potentially- substantially more dangerous than "drones" for many, manydecades. Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now is that the majority of folks then [0] were encouraged to learn how to operate their toys safely, and took the time to do so.
[0] And when I say "then", I don't mean to imply that this effort is not still ongoing. The AMA is still around, and doing its damnedest to reach the drone-flying yahoos who are endangering themselves and others with their reckless behavior.
My wife works in this field, and the AMA has done a great job so far. The issue isn't that they aren't doing a good job it's that the price point for model aircraft has dropped so substantially that they can't keep up with it anymore, and commercial drone operations is finally practical. It was AMA who kept these regulations at bay, but the increasing amount of people who are misusing them and Amazon, Google, etc. that want to create drone flight paths has forced the governments hand.
While I tend to side with the less regulations side of things, I can also see how there is a gap in the regulations here.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the AMA isn't currently doing a good job. They're goddamn great! :)
> ...[the issue is] that the price point for model aircraft has dropped so substantially that they can't keep up with it anymore...
I'm not entirely sure that that's true. If I'm remembering my prices correctly, you've been able to get started in the hobby for a few hundred dollars for a long while.
My theory: Helicopters are substantially cooler than fixed-wing aircraft, and can be flown in really small spaces. However, they are hard as fuck to fly [0], mechanically complex, comparatively expensive, fragile, and prone to breakage. Now, quadcopters with computer-controlled motors are substantially cheaper and more durable than RC helicopters, and can -crucially- be flown by anyone who has at least half a brain and one hand... just press the "up" lever and away you go! The time investment barrier to entry has dramatically been lowered, making the hobby approachable by every yahoo who lacks the patience to ask "Am I using my toy in a safe and sane manner?". [1]
It's very clear that the AMA hasn't been able to get major retailers to do what the downtown airplane store reliably does. It -IMO- isn't a matter of keeping up with demand, but rather influencing big players (who previously would never have stocked RC aircraft) to help steer newcomers into the preexisting training program.
> ...the increasing amount of people who are misusing them and Amazon, Google, etc. that want to create drone flight paths has forced the governments hand.
This seems like an ideal situation: Commercial operators are regulated by the FAA, and are required to register their craft, file flight plans and whatever. Commercial operators should always be subject to some degree of regulation and oversight. Hobbyist operators who are a member of a model aircraft club (or were a member in good standing for $A_WHILE in the past) are obligated to follow FAA, AMA, and club guidelines and are liable for violations of FAA general regulations regarding interactions between model and full-scale aircraft, but are not required to register themselves or their craft with the FAA. Hobbyist operators who aren't and have never been associated with a club? If the danger that the FAA is reacting to is real and not overblown media-driven hysteria, require them to register with the FAA and ID their craft until they can either pass a training course to demonstrate that they're responsible, or they join a local model airplane club and get trained.
Like I said, it's pretty clear that the training provided by model airplane clubs has enabled folks to safely and responsibly regularly fly substantially more dangerous aircraft than most any quadcopter. The training provided by these clubs works.
It's a shame that the FAA seems to feel that it suddenly needs to make folks who are part of a very successful, long-standing nationwide flight training program submit to pilot registration and aircraft identification.
[0] I mean goddamn _fucking_ hard.
[1] Don't get me wrong, here... making the hobby more accessible and lowering barriers to entry is good. Model aviation is fun, largely wholesome, and can be a gateway drug to things like woodworking and aerospace engineering. ;) However, it is -IMO- dreadfully important to leave the "learn how to operate your toy in a way that doesn't endanger yourself and others" barrier intact.
If drone operators had to go through even 1/5th the training and regulatory comprehension and code of conduct that licensed pilots have to accomplish in order to occupy shared airspace, this would be a lot more of a simple issue. However, whether it be high powered, unregulated lasers or steadily improving unmanned arial vehicles, people are consistently doing stupid things and putting other people in danger. Basically I think your vitriolic "rules rules rules!" chant directed towards pilots is laughable when the reason we're having this discussion is because drone "pilots" are doing stupid, dangerous shit and you somehow think it's not a problem.
But the two don't operate in the same airspace so there's no point. Fixed wings are over 1000 feet, drones are under 1000 feet (and typically under 500 feet).
Your assertions are extra annoying when they're factually wrong. See FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, it limits your drone, as well as all model aircraft, to 400 feet. You're off by 600 feet.
But thanks for the example of clueless drone advocates, who just want what they want because they want it.
At first I thought the various posts calling some drone operators morons were being harsh. Now I don't.
Where on earth did you read that? Yes, the rule is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2,000 feet when over a congested area, but when not flying over a city, minimum altitude is 500 feet.
Why did you ask me and then quote the exact regs back verbatim? Why ask a rhetorical question with the implication that I am wrong if your very next sentence is going to confirm that I am indeed correct?
As you yourself said, 1000 feet is the minimum allowed in most normal situations. You can go fly over the desert at 500 feet if you wish, but drones won't be an issue out there.
Can we get an elaboration on this? I understand pilots being very skittish about things moving anywhere too close (as in "if I can perceive it, it's too close"), but is there a brighter line between "objectively problematic" vs "hysterically paranoid"? I assume the Parrot Bebop drone I want is over 250g, and don't see the reasoning for registration when I'm not stupid enough to operate it anywhere close (however construed) to a potential manned aircraft flight path.
I live in Vancouver. Not too long ago we had someone flying their drone in coal harbor quite likely because they didn't realize it was an active airport and float planes take off and land from that exact location.
How sure are you that you know all the relevant things?
When flying, spotting anything from a higher elevation is very difficult - you essentially have to track the differential velocity of the bird / plane with respect to the ground. That's the reason why generally, the right of way in air goes to the airplane with higher elevation.
Adding additional things to spot in the air, especially slow moving objects like drones, demands focus and divert attention away from flying. Other airplanes in the air are fine to spot because they move quickly, and in unrestricted airspace, generally communicate on a universal radio channel. Drones have none of these capabilities and are essentially high flying birds to avoid.
In non-urban spaces, airspace above 500ft is always a potential manned aircraft flight path.
How does registration solve the problem of people flying in airspace though? It sounds to me like this would only be used after the fact to find out who was responsible.
If the drone is registered in your name, people will be more careful to make sure they don't break any laws. Some of the same reasons we register cars and have license plates. People tend to act shitty when they know they won't be held accountable.
It lets you know who's playing in the sandbox, to extend the analogy. You can then use that to require training or stay in touch regarding changes to restricted airspace or whatever.
In and of it self nothing. Though I have to say I have never registered for anything that didn't include receiving a set of rules. I would be really surprised if registering didn't get you a pamphlet on how not to get arrested while flying a drone.
A plane will smoke a civilian quadcopter every single time.
The only place where pilots should be close enough to the ground to hit a quadcopter are near airports, where quadcopters are already banned.
This is a non-issue. Pilots are complaining about nothing. They did the same thing with lasers a few years back. Civilian diode lasers have such a high divergence that they pose no risk to a pilot more than a few thousand feet off the ground, but pilots kept fear mongering and claiming that we needed to ban lasers everywhere. Again, the only vulnerable locations were airports.
I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly".
There is a subconscious line of reasoning a lot of people in The States (and I assume similar nations) get that goes something like: "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."
> "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."
That actually seems like a reasonable thought, despite the logical fallacy that "if I can't see any problem, there must not be a problem".
Unfortunately, another line of reasoning may soon be common, "X seems safe, but I better double check with the government to ensure I wont face several hundred thousand dollars in fines and years in prison if I do this."
I have flown kites higher than I ever would a model drone, and they are heavier and take up more space because of the string. Of course, I was a child at the time; kites are primarily a cheap children's toy. Even so, better watch out for those several hundred thousand dollar fines. Even if its safe and reasonable, better just double check.
An hour's earnings can destroy a decade's earnings. That tends to make some people understandably nervous to the point of lobbying lawmakers to threaten some with serious penalties for toy/hobby activities.
I think it is relevant to a point. $30 is an incredibly low barrier to entry. It means you're much more likely to have an issue than you would be if the cheapest drone you could buy or make was measured in thousands of dollars instead.
For most people it should be close to a non-issue.
Learn the rules of operating safely, don't be dumb, you'll be fine. If all you do is play with drones recreationally you're not going to run afoul of the rules.
The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high (which isn't easy for a lot of off the shelf drones to start with), or flying in areas where they obviously shouldn't be to start with (rescue situations, controlled airspace, etc.)
The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high
The people flying the drones aren't getting themselves into trouble. They're getting others into trouble. They themselves are perfectly safe. They're dumping a huge externality onto anyone who flies in an airplane.
<devil's advocate> How is that different from the externality people choosing to fly in airplanes are dumping on anyone else's use of airspace? Why should _your_ right to fly your Cessna/JetRanger/A380 trump _my_ right to fly a drone/kite/model-rocket?
If these two activities are incompatible, it's going to be because drone pilots refuse to be bound by regulations that pilots observe.
We live in an open society. If we need to choose between these two activities, we can have a referendum or plebiscite. The general public can decide. Some people will vote in favour of a small, entitled minority who want to play with a dangerous toy without responsibility. Others will vote in favour of the continuation of general air transportation, which we have had for about 100 years. We'll see how that goes.
While I get your point of view, I'm not entirely happy with it's assumptions.
1) The "regulations pilots observe" by default give them absolute priority over _all_ airspace without limitation, even though the vast majority of "general air transportation" does not require that. Why is the airspace at 500 feet above my local park "reserved" for "general air transportation"? Sure, maybe once a decade or so a police or news helicopter ventures into that space, but only because they're coming from the assumption that nobody else has any right to be there. I question that assumption.
2) "The general public can decide" has a similar problem. "The general public" couldn't care less whether _my_ choice of potentially dangerous hobby is deemed illegal or not. How many of "the general public" voted in favour of, say, knitters being allowed to carry "potentially dangerous knitting needles" on commercial flights? Are grandmothers a "small entitled minority"? Claiming that public votes for things small groups of people want to be allowed to continue doing are the "right and democratic way" to decide regulations is shortsighted and demonstrates ignorance of the way people are.
I don't claim there are _zero_ risks associated with "drones", but I'd like the discussion and regulation to be a lot more driven by the actual risks and their relative likelyhood and seriousness compared to many other perfectly acceptable things.
To be precise, it's not pilots claiming the airspace. There's a Federal law that grants the FAA oversight over all the navigable airspace in the US.
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
The FAA is doing exactly what that law directs and compels them to do. Don't like the law? There's a process to change the laws.
I'm a pilot, and I'm not happy about the proposal to register all drones, but I certainly understand the FAA response to the large increase in drone popularity and increased conflicts between drones and aircraft.
> Failure to register can result in a hefty penalty, including civil fines of up to $27,500 and criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and three years in prison.
> "The goal is not to be punitive but to get people into compliance," FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said.
These two sentences don't seem to mesh for me. Even if they don't plan to actually prosecute any violators (yet), just the threat of that is ridiculous. I guess it's just another tool in the arsenal of prosecutors if they decide they don't like you.
Edit: The second quote was removed from the article.
I think the idea is that you can achieve compliance through fear of punitive action without ever actually having to punish anyone (in an ideal world).
Before law: "I'll just fly my drone around this airport, it's not like I'll get caught or anything."
After law: "Crap, now if anything happens this is gonna get traced right back to me and my life is gonna be ruined, maybe I shouldn't fly around this airport like a moron."
After law: "Crap, now if anything happens this is gonna get traced right back to me and my life is gonna be ruined, maybe I shouldn't <register my drone> like a moron."
People willing to break one aspect of the law are generally willing to break other parts as well.
Sure, but this means you now can't fly in a park or any public space without the risk of a police officer coming by and asking to see your registration. I'm assuming police would be empowered to do that?
If I'm in a park or public space where it's legal to fly and I'm not a hazard to the public, the police shouldn't come over and ask to inspect my paperwork. The government should not assume I'm breaking the law by default.
If I'm at an airport where it's not legal to fly, it doesn't matter if I have a registration or not, I'm already breaking the law.
I must have missed the bit in the article where they explained how all local cops are going to receive training in "drone inspection" and access to an up-to-date database of registration numbers.
That line of reasoning seems to be in line with the ATF's firearm laws. I am not sure it solves the problem, if someone is planning to commit a crime they will use a unregistered drone just like gun crimes.
The target isn't people intentionally trying to down planes with drones, it's people ignorantly flying in restricted airspace without actually meaning to do any harm to anyone.
Seems to be sort of like the FCC. They generally don't fine you if you're misbehaving, they'll send out warnings first.
If you're an absolute massive jerk, on the other hand ... yeah, you're not going to be on anyone's good side, and you can end up pulling some really massive fines.
Does the FAA have a track record of doing the same? You have to consider that most people flying these will be enthusiasts doing it for a hobby and they might not be aware of all the regulations or have the resources to handle such a charge. Having huge default punishments like this has a potential for abuse: Say you record bad cop activity and they find you didn't register, bam they have huge leverage on you. This works out disproportionately for the FAA rather than the average joe who might be bothered by creeps or people being reckless. The only way I can see the FAA try to offset this is if they dutifully educate people about the registration requirement. Even then I still don't see a reason for such a harsh punishment.
What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams. That's well below a weight that could reasonably be considered a danger to aircraft or people.
Just for comparison purposes, a McDonald's Big Mac weighs 215-240 grams without wrapper, so with a wrapper if you turned a Big Mac into a drone, it would likely require registration.
The real question is, what is their endgame here? Just send out notifications? It isn't like drones have transponders yet(?).
I like the FAA but this seems misguided and unworkable. Plus $5 is significant when some drones this impacts only costs $30.
Hopefully the FAA has birds 250+ grams register too, just for consistency. In particular as birds kill an order of magnitude more pilots than drones have (have drones ever taken down a plane?).
Here's what the industry task force that came up with the suggested registration requirements said in their report:
The Task Force spent considerable time discussing and deliberating about what the appropriate weight threshold should be. While general agreement was ultimately reached on the 250 gram weight, there were Task Force members who believed it was too conservative, as the weight could negatively impact the credibility of the sUAS registration program and thus lessen compliance levels because it would require registration of somes UAS generally considered to be in the “toy” category. Others took the opposite view that there should be no registration exemption for UAS of any size.
A half pound is enough to damage something when you're going 150 mph. I have seen bird strikes that were in that weight range and blew out a windshield.
I imagine the FAA is going to find out how many people in the United States are unable and unwilling to put up with their more onerous requirements. I think it will begin a real conversation through Congress about whether or not "The FAA has jurisdiction on everything above the surface of the earth". The reason they won't implement rules about flying indoors is not because they are nice guys, but because they cannot have a legislative opinion written that supports this as an area they can control.
And yet people are perfectly happy to assume the risk of birdstrike without grounding every aircraft or needing to regulate or sue birds and bird owners.
Why the hysteria about drones? Does anybody _really_ think xmas drones are going to outnumber birds? What's the real marginal increase in risk for aviation here?
Or is this just a case of "Someone seems to be having fun doing something I don't care for, so I'll invent risk scenarios to justify stopping them from doing it... Because reasons..."?
Sure, but they can't - and it doesn't matter (obviously, because we still all get in airplanes in spite of an identifiable but uncontrollable risk).
Just because they _can_ write a FAR about drones, should they? Does it matter any more or less than the risk of birdstrike? What _is_ the risk? If there were a real quantifiable and indisputable number there, surely we'd all know about it and be able to look it up and evaluate it in comparison to other risks we accept?
Is allowing my neighbour to fly a drone in the local park more or less dangerous than riding a bicycle? Or climbing a ladder? Or riding a horse?
Yes. That's why so many FARs exist in the first place. Most are the result of incidents or accidents.
One of my favorites is 91.119a
"Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
It's one I do not think drones or their operator should be exempt from.
>What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams
Why does this surprise you?
If the assumption is that the FAA is altruistic organization that seeks nothing but the public benefit, I suppose I can see how this is surprising. But if we take a more realistic assumption of what the FAA is--a governmental bureaucracy full of self-interested individuals who pursue their own interests (greater authority, promotions, increased budgets, increased compensation, etc.)--it's not very surprising that they reach beyond "reasonable" restrictions and seek additional ways to benefit themselves.
Also, governmental regulators have strong incentives to be incredibly risk averse. This is best exemplified by the FDA. If they approve a drug that turns out to have an unknown side effect that harms people, this result is easy to observe and likely carries significant consequences for the FDA employees involved. However, if their delay in approving a drug causes 100,000 unnecessary deaths, this result is difficult to observe and likely carries no consequences. This creates perverse incentives that push regulators towards being excessively cautious.
Serious question: what is the incentive for the FAA to create regulations for the sake of creating them (or to creating overly conservative ones to the point of impacting industry)? I could understand a new or very small regulatory body, but the FAA isn't going anywhere.
New branch, new area of regulation, more personnel & resources needed to administrate & investigate ... typical self-serving bureaucracy growth incentives. Like with firearms, the governing agency is tasked with regulating anything that can, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as risky.
I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds don't weigh a lot either, but run into one and you could have a major problem on your hands.
> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true?
Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time, it doesn't cause a "major problem."
It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades. Whereas a couple of Canadian Geese could clog up an engine causing it to stop.
While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. It is more smaller single engine aircraft and helicopters that are at risk from drones flying into them (in particular during take-off/landing).
Larger drones definitely need some kind of moderation. But as I said above 250g is too small, a pigeon weighs over 350g by comparison. How are you going to regulate them?!
PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.
>While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is "unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat.
You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of similar weight.
>PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be taken down a peg or two.
Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson - one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese in New York:
>To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating 1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of air.[118]
So there's just under 3000 fewer Canadian Geese than there would have been otherwise?
I wonder what that is as a percentage of the total Canadian Goose population, and the population of large birds generally?
We've recently here had hysterical calls to "cull the sharks!!!" after a few shark attacks. It stinks to me of politically and more likely profit motivations - local politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something" (never mind the pointlessness or futility of their chosen "something"), and politicians friends who can be rewarded with fat government contracts to buy themselves new boats and guns and go playing with them on the public purse, while making a completely insignificant change to the total shark population or the risk of swimming in the ocean.
I think most people would exclude air and water from "anything getting sucked into a jet turbine". On the other hand, particulates can be a problem depending on scale, as evidenced by volcanic eruptions spewing ash that grounds planes.
Also, pedantic nitpick, the species is "Canada Goose." A "Canadian goose" is a goose of any species that happened to be born in Canada. A Canada goose could also be a Canadian goose, but if my experience growing up in Ohio is any indication, many of them lay their eggs (and are thus many are born) outside of Canada.
To be extra pedantic, Canada assigns birth nationality by both jus soli and jus sanguinis to the first generation born elsewhere.
So a Canadian goose could also be a goose born to a parent that was hatched in Canada, or naturalized there.
A Canada goose born from one American Canada goose parent and one Canadian Canada goose parent would have dual citizenship, regardless of its hatching location, but it would have to be hatched in Canada in order for its own offspring to be Canadian Canada geese, if its mate is not jus soli or naturalized Canadian.
Jet engine manufacturers run tests, one of which is throwing a chicken at high velocity into the engine. You can find videos[1][2] on YouTube; "bird ingestion test" is what these are called, it seems. (Also, my understanding is that they test with whole chickens, which I hope you're not very likely to run into with an aircraft.)
I'm not an expert here, so I'm not sure how bad these really are in practice. Judging from the videos, a chicken looks like anything from not-a-problem (video 1) to something that's not going to crash the plane, but still would appear to be of concern, and perhaps a "okay, time to land then." (video 2).
See also the hilariously named Wikipedia aritle, "Chicken gun"[3].
No, that's not true at all. Jet engines can typically handle many birds. The AA flight that landed in the Hudson was unique in that it went through a large flock of Canadian geese, which are very large birds.
I sat next to a naval pilot on a plane once and he wasn't scared of drones at all. The jet engine would tear it right up.
It doesn't surprise me that military pilots aren't afraid of drones. They're not even afraid of flying into a 1000 pound airplane. Maybe if his plane didn't have an ejection seat...
Guess I need to go weigh my cheap little toy quad. Pretty sure it's lighter than that but I'd rather not deal with any fines if somehow I'm playing around with it in the park and the quad-cops get a complaint.
Either that or I may just stop flying it and wait until I eventually (someday, dammit!) get around to building that little 250 racer I keep price-shopping parts for.
Edited to note that the FAA FAQ has a PDF about most items in the toy category; they say that most devices under $100 are under the weight limit. https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/media/UAS_Weights_...
However, all drones with cameras that it lists do require registration.
Suppose a 250g drone fails mid-air, hypothetically at a height of 100m, and falls freely. At terminal velocity, it's a lethal projectile.
Have no illusions about the damage that can be done by small things falling from a great height, or travelling at a high speed in general. The 250g weight is entirely reasonable -- I would actually claim that it is quite generous.
Even in the worst case of a quadrotor - which can't glide or autorotate or fly with a missing rotor - a 250g one is not going to become a lethal projectile at terminal velocity. Even the heavy batteries from larger multirotors seem to survive a 100m fall uneventfully, they just make a soft thud when they land. A softball weighs something like 200g and getting hit in the head with one of those at 85 mph doesn't kill you.
In order to get a 250g rock up high enough to reach it's terminal velocity before hitting the earth again, you'd need some kind of launcher (e.g. catapult, trebuchet, Slingshot, etc) which are regulated. For example, New York made Slingshot a Class-4 misdemeanor.
Perhaps in some urban areas, but I seriously doubt there are federal regulations about throwing rock projectiles into the air with no intent to hit or harm a person.
FAA says that pilots may drop objects from airplanes, but puts the onus on the pilot to ensure "no hazard is created". And, once the object touches the ground, it becomes subject to local laws. So dropping a rock onto someone's property could be quite a few violations depending on the outcome and the property.
It seems like a LOT of people here didn't read the actual report. I'm skimming through it, but the most interesting thing in here is that the limits are based on only one line of reasoning: "what would cause death or serious injury due to a UAS (drone) and a person on the ground." They said that there wasn't enough data to support a rule based on anything else.
"The Task Force ultimately agreed to use a mass-based
approach to determine an appropriate category of sUAS to
recommend for exclusion from the registration requirement.
This was based upon the probability of a catastrophic event
occurring (i.e., death or serious injury) due to a
collision between an sUAS and a person on the ground.
Because of the lack of data on UAS-aircraft collisions,
engine ingestion, propeller, and rotor impacts by UAS, the
probability of a catastrophic event occurring due to those
events was not part of the consideration. This approach
best satisfied the Task Force’s concerns about safety and
provided a minimum weight threshold for registration that
is easy to understand and apply and would therefore
encourage compliance. The formula considered was
identified to the group as a standard aviation risk
assessment formula used in consideration of manned aircraft
safety."
So now, model airplane hobbyists who've been doing the same thing for decades can be penalized with "fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three years," if they don't realize they have to register their balsa wood RC airplanes.
Not just register, but register every single one of them.
I've got 4 or 5 rc gliders in my garage and half a dozen or more kits or collections of parts to build more, as well as 5 quad copters that'd all fall under these rules.
At the height of my slope combat phase, I was probably averaging building 2 or 3 new slope soaring gliders every weekend. And I had friends who were _way_ more prolific than I was.
I wonder just how scalable their new "drone registry" is? It's easy enough to keep track of 747s and A380s, but whatever system they use for that was unlikely to be designed/specced for "webscale" type growth (and given their "$5 is the same price as we charge airliners!" comment, I wouldn't bet against this being exactly the same system/database)
Rules change. That's why you have organizations like the AMA, who can educate their members. (And you need to be an AMA member to use many of the model aircraft fields, anyway.)
And even ignoring that, this topic has been on the national news quite a bit recently.
Knowing model airplane enthusiasts, I bet getting a real registration number that they can put on their models will only add to the fun of making the model as realistic as possible.
I guess I'm glad they're taking some kind of action. As a pilot of both single engine airplanes and "drones", I definitely see the argument from both sides.
Let's see how that website holds up at lunchtime on Dec 25th!
Model airplanes have been around for ages and are generally used by very responsible operators. Local airports and the FAA often have a good working relationship with the local model aircraft club.
The issue with "drones" (which are really just a type of model aircraft) is a wave of irresponsible operators.
The regulators aren't looking to regulate the space because they were bored and looking for something to do. They are looking to regulate the space because there are too many idiots out there causing problems at the moment. If people are going to get upset at someone they should be upset at the people breaking all sorts of existing regulations and causing the FAA to step in to try and get things under control.
I see very little wrong with this simple registration step. As a drone owner, it costs me a minimal charge, doesn't impair my drone's operation with onerous rules. (Some were considering things like geofencing being MANDATORY!) It merely asks me to tag my drone with a number, which isn't a big deal at all.
I'd argue this has been actually a fantastic example of the government working in moderation. They involved drone manufacturers, commercial operators, and hobbyist groups directly in the discussion process, you can see it throughout their documentation. The community was well-invested in this entire process.
They've avoided any sort of crazy burden that would kill the drone industry, but they've offered a clear step to say that they're watching, and put in a basic framework that, while imperfect, gives them a starting point in an investigation.
Is there any verification of the registration? Here's a hypothetical situation: a guy with a drone has a pesky neighbor he doesn't get along with. So he "registers" his drone in the neighbor's name; takes it to a nearby airport and lets it fly around over there and crash. Now the neighbor's in trouble, and has to defend himself from these hefty fines.
Well, you have to pay the registration fee with a credit card. My guess is, they keep enough of that information on file to prove whose card made the payment.
Can't a credit card processor determine if a card is a prepaid or not? If they're using it as a verification step, they'd probably want to disallow those.
Adult's credit card, probably? I assume the FAA would like to tie drones owned by minors to responsible adults somehow. We haven't seen the form yet though, mind you.
Same thing that prevents someone from driving without a license. If you get caught, there are fines. That doesn't mean you'll get caught, but it's enough to dissuade most folks.
Damn, I thought the model clubs won this debate 50 years ago. What's the excuse this time? Terrorists making remote controlled bombs? Creeps taking aerial photographs? Kids having fun outside instead of doing their homework? Bloggers keep bringing up interference with air traffic, but that's completely irrelevant. Models are required by law to stay under 500 feet, and civil aviation is required to stay above. Even if there was a collision, it would do no more damage than a bird strike. And birds don't know they're supposed to stay away from airports. Kites, model rockets, and laser pointers are all more dangerous to commercial aircraft than model aircraft.
I gather many drone operators have flagrantly violated the 500 foot flight ceiling.
Perhaps it's more of an issue now because in the days of RC planes operated line-of-sight, you inherently had a tougher time flying high & far than today with live video feed and long range controls.
It also used to be a requirement that you knew how to fly the aircraft, which wasn't much easier than flying a real airplane, and in the case of R/C helicopters was actual harder than flying a full-sized manned helicopter. With the latest multicopters and even some of the electric fixed-wing craft, any moron can keep the thing in the air. Hence the current wave of trouble.
Fixed-wing models have been idiot-proof for a long time. You can buy a beginner's kit at any hobby store, and they're much easier to fly than a multirotor. I don't think accessibility is responsible for the recent popularity of multirotors, I think they're just more interesting because they're unlike anything full-sized.
Models these days are generally built of durable and reparable foam, and the thrust/weight ratio is often over 1:1. Stalls are easy to avoid, and most beginning-level planes can be safely glided down without power (that is, just enough to power the servos without running the prop). If you're lucky, you should be able to repair your way through a few crashes.
That being said, my wife has flown a quadcopter with zero experience (but careful supervision of the owner). My impression is that a high quality multirotor will be easier to fly than a fixed-wing.
Birds are not made of metal and drones absolutely can be vastly more dangerous to aircraft than a bird. Besides which, bird strikes absolutely can be devastating to aircraft and they've caused numerous crashes and many fatalities. Millions of dollars a year is spent keeping birds away from airports.
One thing I haven't seen discussed is that the registration process is only open to US citizens. Am I misunderstanding something, or did the FAA just make citizenship a requirement for flying a $20 quadcopter in your backyard?
No, it seems like anyone can do it, without any relevance to your citizenship. I think the fancy new website is the only part that currently limits to US citizens, but that seems only temporary until they fix it.
> Q. Who is required to register on the new online UAS registration website?
> A. Only individual recreational or hobby users who meet U.S. citizenship requirements are able to register their unmanned aircraft using this new streamlined web-based process. This new, faster and easier system will be available for other UAS owners soon.
Later on they say that for foreign nationals it's only a certificate of "ownership" , not a certificate of "recognition of registration". I'm not sure what the difference is.
However it looks like permanent residents are lumped with citizens when it comes to being allowed to register.
Yes, it applies to all RC aircraft. The AMA was part of the task force. They were upset that their members (largely fixed wing and heli pilots) would have to register since the AMA is big about informing their members of the rules and safety regulations.
The number of rotors, and their configuration. Multi-rotor aircraft are a bit more nimble and easy for a newbie to control than an RC helicopter, though a plane is even easier and (typically) slower.
Multirotor - 3+ rotors working to balance the craft, typically use fixed pitch props.
Helicopter - 1-2 main rotors, and optionally one sideways one on the back to counter the torque of main rotors. Typically use a swashplate to change the pitch of the rotors.
Airplane: 1-2 main rotors, pointing forwards, with wings and control surfaces on those wings.
Quadcopters ("drones", ugh) are unable to maintain their altitude if there is a power failure. If one or more of the motors fail, it falls like a brick.
Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily glide back to earth after a motor fails.
> Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily glide back to earth after a motor fails.
Yes, the whole way to the scene of the crash.
I'm with you that these two things should be classified and treated very differently, but let's not pretend that if the power dies on a model airplane there's no danger.
So, assuming you are a safe flier of quadcopters, you are NOT flying over people to start with. Quadcopters fail fairly straight down when they fall. RC Airplanes can continue flying after engine failure and possibly cross over people. Of course, both are a danger for fly-aways which would concern me a whole lot more than an engine failure.
Is motor failure that frequent of a failure mode? I feel like complete electric failure (out of range) is much more likely in which case it will still fall like a rock?
Models (non-FPV) are typically flown until they deplete their power supply, which happens rapidly. For small electric models this is usually 6-8 minutes. Larger electric models and gas (usually nitromethane) models can sometimes stay up for 15 minutes or more, depending on how hard you're hitting the power.
Gas models use a separate battery pack for running the receiver and servos. Electric models usually use the same pack (via "battery eliminator circuit"), but there's a low-voltage cutoff that cuts the motor power off while there's still enough power to run the electronics. There's typically a "soft-cutoff" feature that allows you to restart the motors if you need power to land - you get maybe a 10 second burst of low power or 5 seconds at medium power before the cutoff trips again. It can help to stretch out an approach if you're downwind and not going to make the field.
Either way there is no technical problem with making a power-off landing. Such "deadstick" landings are very standard in the RC world, and most fields will want to see trainee pilots make several of them on a "buddy box" system under the control of an instructor before they will approve you to fly alone. They're no big deal as long as you're being responsible with where you're flying.
Radio range is essentially "as far as you have a line-of-sight". Typical radios will have a range of 1.5-3 miles but you'll lose visual on the aircraft at a fraction of that distance. Some micro-sized parkflyer aircraft have less sensitive receivers, but since they're smaller you'll lose visual at shorter ranges too. Some radios have longer range, particularly amateur radio operators who can operate with greater transmitter power. These are popular with the FPV crowd, but to operate on these bands you must have your callsign and address on the plane.
The long range can actually be a bit of a problem because the signals really will go quite far, and can result in intermittent loss of control if someone else is operating on that frequency. AMA-licensed fields have a pinboard (if you don't have the clothespin with your frequency on it, you can't turn your radio on), and the fields are spaced out far enough to avoid this (typically a minimum of 5 miles). You're supposed to check before you just go fly somewhere, but some people don't. 2.4 GHz spread-spectrum radios are getting very popular nowadays because they're largely immune to these radio hits.
Control surfaces don't lose power just because you don't have enough power left to drive the main motor. Also, non-toy class helicopter models can control rotor pitch, so they can autorotate if they lose power just like the real deal.
A drone is not a model aircraft, it is a full-sized aircraft without a provision for a human pilot. They're mostly used by the military (for target practice, aerial surveillance, etc) but more recently they have been put to use for weather research, etc. Drones must already be registered with the FAA. This article does not concern them.
I appreciate your attempt to move the definition back to where it rightfully belongs, but it's too late for that I'm afraid. All R/C aircraft are now "drones". Whether they have autonomous flying capability or not, regardless of size. :(
The anger you are feeling is the screws being tightened a little tighter. Everything nowadays is regulated, controlled and monitored, we in the west are not free, especially in "the land of the free"
And some beuracrat(s) at FAA just guaranteed themselves job security for long time
I got some family members some $25 dollar quadcopters for Christmas. Nobody in my family is especially interested in RC's of any kind, but for $25 bucks I thought it would be a fun and unexpected gift, and it was a quick impulse buy by me from Amazon.
My Christmas morning just went from "here's a fun little gift, lets try it out" to "first we have to figure out the government bureaucracy and register this thing or face $300,000 in fines and 3 years in jail, merry Christmas everyone!" Honestly, I'll probably just return them and get something else.
I know why it angers me - it's effectively executive action, taken long after the deadline given to the FAA by Congress. Furthermore, the FAA appears to have completely ignored industry and hobbyist input with this absurdly low registration weight.
Try driving your car or getting into amateur radio. Not only do you have to register, you have to take tests to show your proficiency.
It's a limited space, there have been multiple, highly public incidents; registering via a website and agreeing that you know the basics of how to fly your toy safely is pretty lax compared to what I was expecting to come out of it.
As someone who enjoys flying drones, I don't mind registration- I just want clarity.
Recently I was going out with some friends to the Boston Harbor Islands. I wanted to take a small Parrot AR drone out there, to fly around 25 feet in the air, to capture some group photos and check out some neat angles of military ruins. Yet, I find things like this (https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=1...) on the FAA site that indicates I can't fly anything Class B airspace.
There's stuff about applying for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, which seems needlessly heavy. I find things that say things like, "Community-based guidelines require recreational operators to give notice for flights within 5 statute miles of an airport."
I attempt to contact Logan's tower, and get bounced around between literally 10 different people... all equally confused. It feels really odd to call an airport about this, and I have a sinking feeling that this is a good way to get on some watch list, so I'm quite careful with my words.
Eventually, I get in touch with the Assistant Director Airport Operations Airside who responds that 'Massport does not have jurisdiction of that area and cannot give approval for the use of the drone. That approval must come from the FAA local ATC since the area you are looking to operate the drone in falls within their Airspace.'. I spoke with him on the phone as well, and he was super nice and indicated that he was hoping they'd figure all of this out soon as well, because he owns a drone too.
Class B airspace covers basically every major city in the US. Additionally, I couldn't fly because all national parks have had a ban since mid-2014... so even if the FAA allowed it, the Boston Harbor Islands (which are technically a national park, through a joint venture with Massachusetts) I couldn't have legally flown.
I am 100% about safety for these things. I think there should be height limitations, but also reasonable allowances. I wouldn't mind if the GPS lock on the drone kept it below 50 feet (treetop level) in places like this.
Anyway, I had to spend a few hours realizing not only that I couldn't fly on the islands, but legally I couldn't fly almost anywhere around here... including my own back yard which is 4.5 miles from Logan.
I wish it was clearer when/how/where to fly. I envision an app soon that lets you 'report' your planned flight activity in advance which notifies the appropriate ATC facility based on your GPS, and logs that you've notified the appropriate agency.
It makes lots of parks and open areas in places that people don't think of as being near airports into unintuitive no fly zones. Or take a city like Tucson where nearly everything is within 5 miles of an air force base. Which I'm sure every university student realizes.
It's not a total restriction. You can fly at the airport if you tell ATC and they clear you. Though that specific scenario is unlikely, I've seen emails from hobbyists to ATCs asking permission to fly within the limits and they approved it with certain hight restrictions (below the trees in one case).
I can literally manufacture an unregistered firearm in my garage, but now anyone with a flying toy heavier than eight ounces must register with the federal government?
I've read a few pages on this, and everything still seems pretty unclear. Does this mean anything airborne, no matter how small and low-power? Exactly what counts as a "drone"? A paper airplane? How about a balsa-wood glider? The little quad-copter toy drones - they're powered, but don't seem like they'd be able to go over 100ft or so.
It seems pretty reasonable to register the ones that can fly reliably over a few hundred feet, out of easy eyesight of the operator, maybe faster than 10-20mph or so, that sort of thing. But I'm a little disturbed by the apparent lack of a lower limit. It may sound absurd to be fined for not registering a paper airplane, but exactly what part of this says explicitly that it's not required? I'd hope we know better than to trust Government agents not to over-reach in ways that go against all common sense.
I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". It's probably easier to say as follows: when you're playing in the sandbox, you play nice with other kids. Here, when you're playing in the air, you have to play nice with other things in the air. The fact your toy is tiny and easy to use doesn't change the fact that you're still playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.