New FAA drone rule is a giant middle finger to aviation hobbyists

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,037
More than 34,000 people have deluged the Federal Aviation Administration with comments over a proposed regulation that would require almost every drone in the sky to broadcast its location over the Internet at all times.

The new regulations probably wouldn't kill the hobby of flying radio-controlled airplanes outright, but it could do a lot of damage. Owners of existing drones and model airplanes would face new restrictions on when and where they could be used. The regulations could effectively destroy the market for kit aircraft and custom-designed drones by shifting large financial and paperwork burdens on the shoulders of consumers
.

In many cases, it may not even be possible for people to upgrade their existing aircraft to the new standard. The FAA rule states that a compliant drone needs to have a serial number that was issued by the device's manufacturer in compliance with the new rules. Yet many RC aircraft are built by small companies who never intended to get into the commercial drone business. They might not have the technical resources to comply with the new standards or the legal resources to get FAA approval.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/new-faa-drone-rule-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-aviation-hobbyists
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,037
For a drone it is easy to add it to the software as many of them is already controlled trough a smartphone which presumeably has internet connection.

I'm looking forward to reports of police raiding fields where RC modelers play to see if they are all broadcasting their location.

Another example of why we can't have nice things.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,804
Did anyone read dilberts comment, is this true?
/quote
Dilbert Ars Legatus Legionis
Pilot here. You know what's really messed up? FAA are trying to regulate balsa wood RC planes and 1/2 lbs amazon drones. But real planes with no electrical system such as Piper Cub can still operate with no transponder, no radio, and no anticollision lights, with no plans to change that. Privately owned airplanes of all sorts are not required to use a radio except into large airports with class B C and D airspace, or have a transponder except in vicinity of large airports.

If you are thinking but those are flown by licensed pilots they know what they are doing. No they really don't, and besides pilot competency has little relevance to collision avoidance anyway. I don't want to freak out civilians but I have seen some shit....
/end quote
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,098
Same thing in gun restrictions, you have too many people that are unfamiliar with it, writing up the regulations for it. The weight restriction would include most 5" fpv freestyle or racing quads. These are not flown with any cell phone involved. My flight time is about 3-5mins per battery and am certainly far from any airport.

I get that it is becoming a problem, you see idiots all the time posting videos of their flights above the clouds, this recklessness just draws too much attention and becomes a poster child for the cause of restricting this hobby.

But seriously, as mentioned, you are hurting the the good ones to spite the bad ones, when they were already breaking the rules of altitude and proximity to airports.

Just gonna fly on my property from now on...
 

Dead Parrot

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
2,831
Mandating the connection of millions of low cost drones to the Internet as a measure to improve security? Guess the FAA hasn't been paying much attention to the whole IOT security debacle. Maybe Vegas should put up a betting line on the number of minutes before one of these connected drones is taken over by an unauthorized person and flown into a building.

Here is the link to the FAA site where you can post a comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...e-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems
Unless something changes, you have to post quickly as March 2nd is the last day to comment.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,148
Nanny State: Level 100

These regulations against hobbyist citizens are getting ridiculous.



It’s cute that you think they read those.

It's government. They probably created at least three positions for FAA Internet Comment Analysts, allocated $250K per year per position, and have just never "found qualified candidates" to fill those positions so the money gets routed...elsewhere.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,098
It's government. They probably created at least three positions for FAA Internet Comment Analysts, allocated $250K per year per position, and have just never "found qualified candidates" to fill those positions, so the money gets routed...elsewhere.

And when they do finally get the results they will have to have a scheduled session to discuss it but all available slots to have a discussion to schedule the meeting are booked for the next 10 months.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,148
And when they do finally get the results they will have to have a scheduled session to discuss it but all available slots to have a discussion to schedule the meeting are booked for the next 10 months.

And when those 10 months are up, some other "more prioritizing" meetings have cropped up to bump their meeting spot for another 2+ years. Rinse, repeat.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
677
The FAA mostly just sees this as a useful tool to distract the general public from the fact that Kobe Bryant's crash would have been prevented if the FAA had followed NTSB's equipment recommendations.

They also are using this as a power grab, as they neither have jurisdiction over model aircraft nor have jurisdiction over the majority of airspace where model aircraft are flown (football fields and backyards are not considered "navigable airspace").

Per the FAA's current regulations and re-interpretation of their own jurisdiction, the NFL is actually in violation of a significant amount of rules because:
  • Football fields and stadiums are now considered "navigable airspace"
  • A football meets the FAA's new definition of "UAV"
  • A football weighs 410g, which is above the FAA's declared 250g limit for unregistered aircraft
    • Side note: although baseballs, golf balls, and hockey pucks meet the FAA's new definition of UAV and violate the new 100mph limit for UAVs, they weigh less than 250g and therefore are deemed safe to launch at jetliners
  • Quarterbacks are not filing flight plans with the nearest tower before each throw or even each game
An extra funny thing is that if this backfires and doesn't kill off model aviation, the FAA is not actually equipped to handle this happening. Even further, the FAA neither has the budget available to handle it nor has even proposed a budget to do so. Meanwhile, automation of ATC for passenger flights piloted by onboard humans keeps getting shelved. So, again, this really is more about managing headlines than anything tied to actual safety.
 
Last edited:

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,836
Meanwhile the terrorist (because lets be honest, that's the trumpet call of legislation like this) couldn't give less of a fuck about having their drone swarm packed with C4 and/or incendiary devices broadcasting on the internet where they are.

That said, I don't get the whole broadcast to the internet bit, do pilots and other aircraft check the internet to see where stuff is?
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,836
Per the FAA's current regulations and re-interpretation of their own jurisdiction, the NFL is actually in violation of a significant amount of rules because:
  • Football fields and stadiums are now considered "navigable airspace"
  • A football meets the FAA's new definition of "UAV"
  • A football weighs 410g, which is above the FAA's declared 250g limit for unregistered aircraft
    • Side note: although baseballs, golf balls, and hockey pucks meet the FAA's new definition of UAV and violate the new 100mph limit for UAVs, they weigh less than 250g and therefore are deemed safe to launch at jetliners
  • Quarterbacks are not filing flight plans with the nearest tower before each throw or even each game
And the NFL regularly tries to squash and remove any instances when someone tries to post said flights on the internet (youtube)
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,148
The FAA mostly just sees this as a useful tool to distract the general public from the fact that Kobe Bryant's crash would have been prevented if the FAA had followed NHTSA's equipment recommendations.

They also are using this as a power grab, as they neither have jurisdiction over model aircraft nor have jurisdiction over the majority of airspace where model aircraft are flown (football fields and backyards are not considered "navigable airspace").

Per the FAA's current regulations and re-interpretation of their own jurisdiction, the NFL is actually in violation of a significant amount of rules because:
  • Football fields and stadiums are now considered "navigable airspace"
  • A football meets the FAA's new definition of "UAV"
  • A football weighs 410g, which is above the FAA's declared 250g limit for unregistered aircraft
    • Side note: although baseballs, golf balls, and hockey pucks meet the FAA's new definition of UAV and violate the new 100mph limit for UAVs, they weigh less than 250g and therefore are deemed safe to launch at jetliners
  • Quarterbacks are not filing flight plans with the nearest tower before each throw or even each game
An extra funny thing is that if this backfires and doesn't kill off model aviation, the FAA is not actually equipped to handle this happening. Even further, the FAA neither has the budget available to handle it nor has even proposed a budget to do so. Meanwhile, automation of ATC for passenger flights piloted by onboard humans keeps getting shelved. So, again, this really is more about managing headlines than anything tied to actual safety.

A football does not fall into the category of a powered and remote operated small unmanned aircraft system, per the FAA Certification Standards.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
677
A football does not fall into the category of a powered and remote operated small unmanned aircraft system, per the FAA Certification Standards.

It meets the definition of "aircraft" and it is unmanned. Being powered is not part of the base definition, otherwise gliders would not be under the FAA's jurisdiction.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
677
A football does not fall into the category of a powered and remote operated small unmanned aircraft system, per the FAA Certification Standards.

You're probably just mixing up "airplane" and "aircraft," which have different definitions per the FAA. An airplane needs wings and such whereas an aircraft is anything that flys (such as an airplane, helicopter, rocket, football, or frisbee).
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,037
I always put my phone in airplane mode when controlling my drone.
Makes sense, you don't want anything interfering with it. I just mentioned that it could be done without actually having to modify the drone.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Unenforceable.

Why do you say so?
I disagree, on the one hand, saying that it's unenforceable doesn't stop the government for fucking with those that they catch, that will certainly happen. On the other hand, if you mean that you can't prevent people from violating this regulation then I will offer that laws and regulations do not prevent anything. Laws and regulations are not preventative, they are punitive, which brings us back to the first hand.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,098
And which well funded and good with IT company will handle all this streaming data? Or is this just the first phase to move toward "look how crowded and dangerous the skies are with all these drones (points at screen full of dots)."
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Did anyone read dilberts comment, is this true?
/quote
Dilbert Ars Legatus Legionis
Pilot here. You know what's really messed up? FAA are trying to regulate balsa wood RC planes and 1/2 lbs amazon drones. But real planes with no electrical system such as Piper Cub can still operate with no transponder, no radio, and no anticollision lights, with no plans to change that. Privately owned airplanes of all sorts are not required to use a radio except into large airports with class B C and D airspace, or have a transponder except in vicinity of large airports.

If you are thinking but those are flown by licensed pilots they know what they are doing. No they really don't, and besides pilot competency has little relevance to collision avoidance anyway. I don't want to freak out civilians but I have seen some shit....
/end quote


(Related to the referenced comment); Nope, that's not what I'm thinking, I'm thinking that the small aircraft part of this is just fine because those aircraft are being operated in uncontrolled airspace, airspace outside of air traffic controller control. Apples and oranges mate, I'm not agreeing or defending the regulation, I just don't think that one has any bearing on the other.
 

Silentbob343

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
1,831
(Related to the referenced comment); Nope, that's not what I'm thinking, I'm thinking that the small aircraft part of this is just fine because those aircraft are being operated in uncontrolled airspace, airspace outside of air traffic controller control. Apples and oranges mate, I'm not agreeing or defending the regulation, I just don't think that one has any bearing on the other.
Not to mention anyone can walk in to a shop and buy a drone. Not everyone has the means to buy and maintain a plane or even the knowledge to fly. I'd have to agree with your apples and oranges assessment.

Like you, I'm not weighing in on the regulation. I tend shy away from increases in govt oversight, but I'm not up to speed on this to have a well informed opinion one way or the other.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
More than 34,000 people have deluged the Federal Aviation Administration with comments over a proposed regulation that would require almost every drone in the sky to broadcast its location over the Internet at all times.

The new regulations probably wouldn't kill the hobby of flying radio-controlled airplanes outright, but it could do a lot of damage. Owners of existing drones and model airplanes would face new restrictions on when and where they could be used. The regulations could effectively destroy the market for kit aircraft and custom-designed drones by shifting large financial and paperwork burdens on the shoulders of consumers
.

In many cases, it may not even be possible for people to upgrade their existing aircraft to the new standard. The FAA rule states that a compliant drone needs to have a serial number that was issued by the device's manufacturer in compliance with the new rules. Yet many RC aircraft are built by small companies who never intended to get into the commercial drone business. They might not have the technical resources to comply with the new standards or the legal resources to get FAA approval.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/new-faa-drone-rule-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-aviation-hobbyists


Nanny State: Level 100

These regulations against hobbyist citizens are getting ridiculous.





It's government. They probably created at least three positions for FAA Internet Comment Analysts, allocated $250K per year per position, and have just never "found qualified candidates" to fill those positions so the money gets routed...elsewhere.


This has been my argument all along, Americans need to stop looking to the Federal Government to solve all their problems and disagreements. Enough people cried and moaned over perceived threats to their privacy, or used it as an excuse to piss off their neighbors or people at the beach, and the FAA listened. What people don't ever seem to want to accept is that every time you ask the government to do more, it becomes another excuse to grow the government, extend it's reach, crawl farther into our lives, and take more of our money. All because we can't just learn to get along with each other and be a little civil, and because we let the government get away with this shit.

It would seem that some people just like it this way. I'd go further, but my comments would certainly take this into the realm of politics.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,148
It meets the definition of "aircraft" and it is unmanned. Being powered is not part of the base definition, otherwise gliders would not be under the FAA's jurisdiction.

For it's size, weight, description, and primary use, a football doesn't fall under FAA regulation. A recreational, research, or government glider, being meant for specific manned or unmanned flight falling into defined measurement metrics and intended usage, does.

You need to check with Tom Brady on that one. I'm sure he's figured out a way. ;)

He's the GOAT. He can do what he wants.

You're probably just mixing up "airplane" and "aircraft," which have different definitions per the FAA. An airplane needs wings and such whereas an aircraft is anything that flys (such as an airplane, helicopter, rocket, football, or frisbee).

A football is not an aircraft, per the FAA, based on its intended use and characteristics.
We, as humans placing subjective definitions to anything and everything, can define it as such, if we want on an individual basis.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,804
Unenforceable.
Easily enforced in China. snipped from a regular in another forum who is there right now and has been reporting on covid19.
“As we near the end of Feb here in Shanghai the "rolling into work"...
I went to one of the parks out here to see if it was open and of course it wasn't. I think they are all generally closed still. I just wanted to fly my drone around. I found an open area in front of the park and flew it. Got lots of people staring and questioned if I was allowed to do it. Of course I use a DJI and they geo fence in China. Plus I got my apps showing me where I can and I registered the thing with the government. So of course I could fly. I had to show this to a few of them to get them off my back. Some of the older folks sometimes still have that mindset of the evil westerner coming to spy on us.”


From geo-fencing to licensing and registration.
It’s folly to think the same thing won’t happen here in the good ole USofA.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
677
For it's size, weight, description, and primary use, a football doesn't fall under FAA regulation. A recreational, research, or government glider, being meant for specific manned or unmanned flight falling into defined measurement metrics and intended usage, does.

A football is not an aircraft, per the FAA, based on its intended use and characteristics.
We, as humans placing subjective definitions to anything and everything, can define it as such, if we want on an individual basis.

While that sounds reasonable, that is not part of the FAA's definition of an aircraft.
  • Per 49 U.S. Code § 40102: "“aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air."
  • Per 14 CFR § 1.1: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."
Have you seen that model aviation fields are also, per the FAA, under their jurisdiction?

So, ridiculous and overly broad definitions should help illustrate the FAA's intended overreach. But, also from 14 CFR § 1.1, we have
  • "Navigable airspace means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing."
The airspace in which model airplanes typically fly does not meet this definition (further outlined in Part III). The new model aircraft regulation does not have any exemptions for model aircraft which are not operating within the navigable airspace.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,148
While that sounds reasonable, that is not part of the FAA's definition of an aircraft.
  • Per 49 U.S. Code § 40102: "“aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air."
  • Per 14 CFR § 1.1: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."
Have you seen that model aviation fields are also, per the FAA, under their jurisdiction?

So, ridiculous and overly broad definitions should help illustrate the FAA's intended overreach. But, also from 14 CFR § 1.1, we have
  • "Navigable airspace means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing."
The airspace in which model airplanes typically fly does not meet this definition (further outlined in Part III). The new model aircraft regulation does not have any exemptions for model aircraft which are not operating within the navigable airspace.

A football does not attain lift and controlled flight, per physical design characteristics. It must be launched with adequate power to travel along a parabola, which, in and of itself, is not a navigable aircraft flight trajectory since there is no option for controlled flight
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
677
A football does not attain lift and controlled flight, per physical design characteristics. It must be launched with adequate power to travel along a parabola, which, in and of itself, is not a navigable aircraft flight trajectory since there is no option for controlled flight

None of those are requirements, per the FAA. In subsequent definitions, power is specifically mentioned as not a requirement.

What you're arguing is a reasonable definition. Nobody with a brain would disagree with your definition. Your definition, however, is NOT the definition laid out and used by the FAA. This is the basis of the issue.

Also, don't get hung up on the football. Substitute "frisbee" if you want since those make lift and can have a broader range of intentional trajectories.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
While that sounds reasonable, that is not part of the FAA's definition of an aircraft.
  • Per 49 U.S. Code § 40102: "“aircraft” means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air."
  • Per 14 CFR § 1.1: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."
Have you seen that model aviation fields are also, per the FAA, under their jurisdiction?

So, ridiculous and overly broad definitions should help illustrate the FAA's intended overreach. But, also from 14 CFR § 1.1, we have
  • "Navigable airspace means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing."
The airspace in which model airplanes typically fly does not meet this definition (further outlined in Part III). The new model aircraft regulation does not have any exemptions for model aircraft which are not operating within the navigable airspace.


Your issue here is that you have not addressed this concept within the bounds of the definitions set up by the FAA regarding the relevant regulations. The definition you are citing incorporates other definitions that can't just be set aside for the convenience of your argument. The word navigate is not simply thrown in to make the definition of aircraft sound smart, and has it's own definition;
"Air navigation is the process of piloting an aircraft from one geographic position to another while monitoring one’s position as the flight progresses."
FAA's Handbook on piloting

If a football is capable of navigation then it might be an aircraft, although I do not know what classification of aircraft it would fall into;
"The term “classification,” as used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means a broad grouping of aircraft having similar characteristics of propulsion, flight, or landing, that is, airplane, rotorcraft, glider, or balloon. "
FAA Definitions
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
None of those are requirements, per the FAA. In subsequent definitions, power is specifically mentioned as not a requirement.

What you're arguing is a reasonable definition. Nobody with a brain would disagree with your definition. Your definition, however, is NOT the definition laid out and used by the FAA. This is the basis of the issue.

Also, don't get hung up on the football. Substitute "frisbee" if you want since those make lift and can have a broader range of intentional trajectories.

Navigation is though.

Thunderbolt, time for a logic test;

If the FAA is responsible for regulating all aircraft, and a football is an aircraft, then why are they not regulated by the FAA?
 
Top