GrouchoDuke
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,693
- Reaction score
- 1,537
I will miss flying r/c slope gliders on remote mountaintops on BLM land.
New FAA rules for unmaned aircraft systems UAS.
- Thread starter jazzviper1
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 569
The "SAFETY" aspect of this is really just eyewash for the public to sell them on the idea of un-maned aircraft regulation. The REAL reason is push for commercial delivery drones and the like which must have these regulations in place to operate. The FAA is just as corrupt of an organization as any other and are interested only in money and power.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,387
- Reaction score
- 7,907
Also, keep in mind this is a proposed rulemaking, not the final rule. You can write in to request changes. FAA has to read every comment and respond to them.
Your comments are more likely to be heard if you are:
(a) Specific about what needs to change and why it should be changed, and
(b) Polite and professional
Comments that tell the FAA that they're a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes will be pitched in the round file, as will ones that say that everything about the process is wrong and they need to start over. You will get bonus points if you read the NPRM and address how the concerns FAA raises as the reasons for making the rulemaking change will be better served by your changes.
If you care about this issue by writing in a comment. You can do it in about 5 minutes (though you can also take more time), and the NPRM will tell you how to submit comments. It's like voting--don't complain about the results if you didn't raise your voice during the process.
Your comments are more likely to be heard if you are:
(a) Specific about what needs to change and why it should be changed, and
(b) Polite and professional
Comments that tell the FAA that they're a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes will be pitched in the round file, as will ones that say that everything about the process is wrong and they need to start over. You will get bonus points if you read the NPRM and address how the concerns FAA raises as the reasons for making the rulemaking change will be better served by your changes.
If you care about this issue by writing in a comment. You can do it in about 5 minutes (though you can also take more time), and the NPRM will tell you how to submit comments. It's like voting--don't complain about the results if you didn't raise your voice during the process.
gldknght
Well-Known Member
After further research, I don't believe this new rule is about regulating the drone hobby. I think it's about killing the RC hobby altogether. The Faa must know that no hobbyist if going to be able to afford to comply with the RID transponder requirements. The following is a very well written article posted on Facebook yesterday:
Remote ID Proposal Outlaws Home-built RC Aircraft
PATRICK MCKAY·MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2019·
I want to clear up a myth about the FAA's proposed remote ID rules that I've been seeing floating around. People think that amateur home-built model aircraft will be largely unaffected by this, since they can just fly at AMA fields. Or people think that to build and fly model aircraft outside of AMA fields, all they would have to do is slap some kind of transponder on their model and they are good to go. This is completely wrong. This proposal will effectively outlaw home-built model aircraft as most people actually build them.
The reason for this is the production standards. The proposal contains two completely different types of rules: operational rules and production rules. The operational rules allow UAS without remote ID to be flown at a FRIA site. The production standards prohibit anyone from producing a UAS that does not comply with the remote ID rules, regardless of whether it is even flown. Just building a UAS for private use that does not comply with remote ID is a violation of the law, unless one qualifies for an exemption from the production rules.
Many people (including the AMA apparently) read that amateur-built models are exempt from the production requirements and think that means they're fine. However, the devil is in the details, which in this case is the definition of amateur-built, which "means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
The FAA's proposal clarifies that this means more than 50% of the total components in the Unmanned Aircraft System (which includes the ground control station) must be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Home-built models using mostly parts that are pre-fabricated and purchased separately are expressly excluded from this exemption:
UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F. (NPRM p. 152.)
We’ll leave aside the fact that the proposed regulation provides no way to quantify parts. Raw number of all components down to individual chips on circuit boards? Number of black-boxed components like receivers and flight controllers? Total mass? As currently written, the amateur-built exception to the production requirements would not apply to the vast majority of modelers.
Even assuming parts are quantified by black-boxed components, most amateur model aircraft would fall into the pre-fabricated, rather than amateur-built category, as most people assemble model aircraft from a collection of pre-fabricated parts they buy separately from various manufacturers. They might buy the airframe as a pre-cut styrofoam body (for planes) or carbon fiber sections (for quads), then glue/screw it together and mount and wire up motors, flight controllers, speed controllers, receivers, and cameras and video transmitters for FPV craft.
The most anyone ever fabricates themselves is the aircraft body. Nobody is fabricating their own receivers, speed controllers, lithium batteries, motors, or remote controllers, so virtually no model aircraft hobbyists would actually qualify for the amateur-built exception which requires more than 50% of parts (however that is quantified) to be fabricated and assembled by the builder.
The vast majority of RC hobbyists would fall under the category of using more than 50% prefabricated parts that do not come as a single kit with 100% of the parts necessary to fly. The proposed regulation would treat such modelers as UAS producers, and would require them to comply with all the production standards to produce and certify a UAS as RID compliant. This process is long and convoluted, and is clearly contemplated to only be used by large corporations developing mass produced UAS to be sold to consumers (the proposal estimates this process would only ever be used by a few hundred corporate entities).
Let’s assume a hobbyist could even comply with the technical requirements to equip a model with remote ID (doubtful given the tamper-resistant requirement which would at minimum prohibit the use of open source flight controllers and could be interpreted to require the person who built the model to somehow prevent himself from bypassing the remote ID system). The certification process requires the purchase of multiple standards that could cost hundreds of dollars to even read, and the filing of extensive forms and reports with the FAA that is estimated to exceed over 50 pages and take hundreds of man hours to produce. It would be completely impossible for any individual hobbyist to comply with these procedures for their home-built model aircraft.
Thus as written in the currently proposal, building your own home-built model aircraft the way the vast majority of hobbyists actually do that would be illegal. It doesn’t matter where you fly them, or even if you fly them at all. Merely building a UAS without equipping it with remote ID and following the process to certify it with the FAA would be an independent violation of the law. It goes without saying that this would be completely unenforceable, but that’s not the point.
Legally at least, this proposal will completely outlaw home-built RC model aircraft as they are actually made by hobbyists. The FAA attempted to disguise this by putting in the amateur-built exemption, and then defining it in such a way as it will be impossible to actually qualify for. I fully expect the AMA to fall for this trick and act like everything is fine because of the amateur-built exemption and the FRIA sites, because they have always sucked at statutory interpretation and anticipating how regulations affecting model aircraft will actually be applied (Sec. 336 anyone?). That’s even without considering that the FRIA exemption for AMA fields is only intended to be temporary and will be phased out over time, leaving hobbyists with nowhere to fly where they are not subject to the operational remote ID requirements.
No matter what the AMA says, this regulation will be the death of amateur home-built model aircraft, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a quadcopter or traditional RC plane, flown by an AMA member or not. We’re all affected by this equally, and all RC hobbyists have a duty to oppose this regulation wholesale as bringing about the extinction of our hobby.
Remote ID Proposal Outlaws Home-built RC Aircraft
PATRICK MCKAY·MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2019·
I want to clear up a myth about the FAA's proposed remote ID rules that I've been seeing floating around. People think that amateur home-built model aircraft will be largely unaffected by this, since they can just fly at AMA fields. Or people think that to build and fly model aircraft outside of AMA fields, all they would have to do is slap some kind of transponder on their model and they are good to go. This is completely wrong. This proposal will effectively outlaw home-built model aircraft as most people actually build them.
The reason for this is the production standards. The proposal contains two completely different types of rules: operational rules and production rules. The operational rules allow UAS without remote ID to be flown at a FRIA site. The production standards prohibit anyone from producing a UAS that does not comply with the remote ID rules, regardless of whether it is even flown. Just building a UAS for private use that does not comply with remote ID is a violation of the law, unless one qualifies for an exemption from the production rules.
Many people (including the AMA apparently) read that amateur-built models are exempt from the production requirements and think that means they're fine. However, the devil is in the details, which in this case is the definition of amateur-built, which "means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
The FAA's proposal clarifies that this means more than 50% of the total components in the Unmanned Aircraft System (which includes the ground control station) must be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Home-built models using mostly parts that are pre-fabricated and purchased separately are expressly excluded from this exemption:
UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F. (NPRM p. 152.)
We’ll leave aside the fact that the proposed regulation provides no way to quantify parts. Raw number of all components down to individual chips on circuit boards? Number of black-boxed components like receivers and flight controllers? Total mass? As currently written, the amateur-built exception to the production requirements would not apply to the vast majority of modelers.
Even assuming parts are quantified by black-boxed components, most amateur model aircraft would fall into the pre-fabricated, rather than amateur-built category, as most people assemble model aircraft from a collection of pre-fabricated parts they buy separately from various manufacturers. They might buy the airframe as a pre-cut styrofoam body (for planes) or carbon fiber sections (for quads), then glue/screw it together and mount and wire up motors, flight controllers, speed controllers, receivers, and cameras and video transmitters for FPV craft.
The most anyone ever fabricates themselves is the aircraft body. Nobody is fabricating their own receivers, speed controllers, lithium batteries, motors, or remote controllers, so virtually no model aircraft hobbyists would actually qualify for the amateur-built exception which requires more than 50% of parts (however that is quantified) to be fabricated and assembled by the builder.
The vast majority of RC hobbyists would fall under the category of using more than 50% prefabricated parts that do not come as a single kit with 100% of the parts necessary to fly. The proposed regulation would treat such modelers as UAS producers, and would require them to comply with all the production standards to produce and certify a UAS as RID compliant. This process is long and convoluted, and is clearly contemplated to only be used by large corporations developing mass produced UAS to be sold to consumers (the proposal estimates this process would only ever be used by a few hundred corporate entities).
Let’s assume a hobbyist could even comply with the technical requirements to equip a model with remote ID (doubtful given the tamper-resistant requirement which would at minimum prohibit the use of open source flight controllers and could be interpreted to require the person who built the model to somehow prevent himself from bypassing the remote ID system). The certification process requires the purchase of multiple standards that could cost hundreds of dollars to even read, and the filing of extensive forms and reports with the FAA that is estimated to exceed over 50 pages and take hundreds of man hours to produce. It would be completely impossible for any individual hobbyist to comply with these procedures for their home-built model aircraft.
Thus as written in the currently proposal, building your own home-built model aircraft the way the vast majority of hobbyists actually do that would be illegal. It doesn’t matter where you fly them, or even if you fly them at all. Merely building a UAS without equipping it with remote ID and following the process to certify it with the FAA would be an independent violation of the law. It goes without saying that this would be completely unenforceable, but that’s not the point.
Legally at least, this proposal will completely outlaw home-built RC model aircraft as they are actually made by hobbyists. The FAA attempted to disguise this by putting in the amateur-built exemption, and then defining it in such a way as it will be impossible to actually qualify for. I fully expect the AMA to fall for this trick and act like everything is fine because of the amateur-built exemption and the FRIA sites, because they have always sucked at statutory interpretation and anticipating how regulations affecting model aircraft will actually be applied (Sec. 336 anyone?). That’s even without considering that the FRIA exemption for AMA fields is only intended to be temporary and will be phased out over time, leaving hobbyists with nowhere to fly where they are not subject to the operational remote ID requirements.
No matter what the AMA says, this regulation will be the death of amateur home-built model aircraft, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a quadcopter or traditional RC plane, flown by an AMA member or not. We’re all affected by this equally, and all RC hobbyists have a duty to oppose this regulation wholesale as bringing about the extinction of our hobby.
Drone flyers have brought this upon themselves and, unfortunately, the rest of RC Hobbyists.
The types of activities depicted in numerous YouTube video's and the ease of adaptation and misuse by "criminal elements" ( drug-smuggling, as only one example ) has attracted the unwanted attention of the "alphabet agencies". If they can't "regulate it to death", they will, eventually, ban it outright, taking RC Hobbyists down with it.
Dave F.
The types of activities depicted in numerous YouTube video's and the ease of adaptation and misuse by "criminal elements" ( drug-smuggling, as only one example ) has attracted the unwanted attention of the "alphabet agencies". If they can't "regulate it to death", they will, eventually, ban it outright, taking RC Hobbyists down with it.
Dave F.
gldknght
Well-Known Member
I resent your generalization about drone pilots. It's this kind of emotional over-reaction that is bringing about this new rule making. I have never flown my drone in an unsafe or illegal manner. I don't believe I am the exception to the rule, either. There are plenty of videos online showing safe fun drone flying. Of all my friends who fly drones, do you know how many have used their aircraft to spy on neighbors? None. Do you know how many have gotten their drones in the way of other flying aircraft of any kind? None. Do you know how many have mounted weapons on their drones? NONE. Do you know how many of us have lost any of our drones in crashes? NOT A SINGLE ONE IN OVER THREE YEARS OF FLYING TOGETHER!!!
I dare you to take a look at some of the multiple videos on youtube like this one, then come back here and cry about how dangerous drones are!!
Drug smugglers were using R/C aircraft long before drone technology ever existed. 99% on drones on the market don't have the operational range for this anyway)
Since no one here seems to want to hear me, I'm just going to say this one more time. This new rule is NOT GOING TO PREVENT THE CRAZIES OUT THERE FROM DOING STUPID OR ILLEGAL THINGS!!!! And the crazies are just an excuse for the Faa to kill the R/C hobby.
If it was really only about safety, "they" would be working on ways to enforce existing laws.
jmuck78
Well-Known Member
The reason why the FAA is allowed to regulate "air space" in the first place is because the traffic lanes for airplanes are (mostly) interstate in nature, and therefore arguably covered by the "interstate" commerce clause. Consumer drones don't generally fall into the "interstate" commerce realm, so the FAA shouldn't have any power to regulate airspace that isn't interstate travel. FAA regulation of Helicopters may have been necessary because Helicopters can interfere with Airplanes, but the idea that because the FAA regulates helicopter lanes, helicopters can land anywhere, therefore the Federal Aviation Administration can regulate any airspace that can interfere with Helicopters is scope creep and crosses the line for even the massively broad commerce clause (literally "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...").
If somebody would like to take the factual elements described above about why the proposed regulations are inappropriate and cause an undue burden to a relatively harmless and low-risk hobby, I would be happy to forward it on to my own legislators. As well as reply specifically via the instructions to the proposed legislation. Obviously it would have to be factual and succinct to the point in order to have any impact but even though I don't fly RC other than tiny drones inside my own house, I would be happy to push back on these overreaching regulations. I don't think that I know enough about the details to compose my own reply so I would prefer to just forward a well-informed one that somebody else wrote.
(1) Either you are part of the problem or part of the solution, whether that "triggers" you, or not. Simply because YOU have never intentionally done anything "unsafe or illegal" is not "blanket amnesty". ONE shooter in Las Vegas got "bump stocks" banned for EVERYONE, whether they were using them "safely and/or legally".
(2) I already posted YouTube links and other URL's, which a Moderator saw fit to remove. No one, in the video's you alluded to, intentionally crashed their RC aircraft or attempted to "weaponize" them or intentionally fly them in an "unsafe or illegal" manner.
(3) Your argument about the "range" of Drones is moot, since it is only a matter of changing the Receiver and using a Quality Transmitter ( FRSKY have Receivers with a 10 + KM range, for example ) . . .
https://www.frsky-rc.com/product/r9-mini/
SPECS :
- Dimension: 16*10*2.8mm (L×W×H)
- Weight: 1.1g (including antenna)
- Number of Channels:
Non-EU Version: 4/16CH (Telemetry)
EU Version: 4/8CH (Telemetry) / 4/16CH (Telemetry) / 4/16CH (No Telemetry)
- Operating Voltage Range: DC 3.5V – 10V
- Operating Current: 100mA@5V
- Operating Range: Up to 10km or above
- Compatibility: R9M and R9M Lite
(4) There are, currently, few "existing laws" governing Drones . . . But, don't worry, because I'm sure that they are coming, soon . . . Believe that ! The "alphabet agencies", in a "knee-jerk" reaction, will likely "slam the door" on RC, in general, in the process.
The "idiots" are always the ones who screw things up for everyone else !
BTW - This Drone can lift more than 75 Kg / 165 lb. ( Is it still a "Hobby", at this point ? Maybe, maybe not )
Dave F.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,398
- Reaction score
- 2,290
I would agree about RC aircraft. They don't appear to have been tied to near collisions/collisions with aircraft as drones do. I would have to thank regulations and an adherence to them for that.
KC3KNM
Probably Wrong
I can match your anecdotal stories of responsible drone pilots with my own anecdotal stories of idiots who have flown their drones over parties and hit people, hit cars in traffic, slapped them into peoples houses... I have no problem with drones but before our club field was shut down we had a few guys flying drones that didn’t care for the rules. They’d buzz across the field when people were landing, fly over the pits, hover unnecessarily close to pilot stations. Again, all anecdotal, not sure it proves anything either way. It’s also pretty hard to crash when you’ve got a flight controller doing most of the work
.What does that video show? There’s plenty of videos of giant scale aircraft crashing... at a club field, outside of the pits likely because they were following safety guidelines. I don’t care if a drone crashes, the point is that most drone pilots aren’t flying at club fields in a safe manner so when things go wrong the risk of damage is significantly higher. Model Aviation has been around for quite some time and has had no real issues with the FAA. I mean, look at the safety record cross country soaring has regardless of how wild it is to follow a glider in a truck. The issue arises when the barrier to entry is low enough to allow people who don’t care about the hobby to affect it on a level that’s visible to the general public. When you can head to any Walmart and pick up a drone that flies itself you’re going to have some poor results. I think the tech is cool, we use pixhawk controllers at work for testing our scale models so I’m not completely removed from it, but I don’t think people are going to treat that with respect. Which isn’t fair to the people that do, but it’s also not fair to see a hobby with a wonderful history get regulated out of existence because of drones. It’s fairly obvious the catalyst to these changes were drone incidents. I’m not buying the conspiracy theory that Amazon is in bed with the FAA just yet.
The issue I see is that “THE CRAZIES” had a harder time in the past to do stupid things.
Your operational range statement is pretty ignorant, also. You can get decent range with a quad but its not always about range. A quad can be maneuvered in ways that allow for it to be flown into tighter areas than a conventional plane or heli, plus the consumer grade quads basically fly themselves allowing any idiot to fly them wherever they’d like. The use of R/C in drug smuggling was pretty rare before the rise of drones, I’ve seen this discussed many times on RCG. Are you basing the drug smuggling argument on facts or just assuming? It doesn’t mesh with the vast amounts of drones being used for this vs the pathetically few conventional R/C aircraft reported over many years.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wa...n-drug-cartels-using-drones-to-smuggle-heroi/
Last edited:
gldknght
Well-Known Member
Fine, I'm part of the solution, then, because I fly safely and insist anyone flying with me also must fly safely.
How can you say pilots in these videos do not crash intentionally when you can clearly see them doing things like flying through huge fireball explosions and aircraft coming down in flames?
How can you say they are flying safely when that one guy hit HIMSELF with his own airplane?
By definition, a 25 pound r/c aircraft hitting the ground out of control is DANGEROUS!
I personally know a guy who unintentionally flew his r/c airplane right across the flight path of a Cessna on final approach years ago. So don't tell me that doesn't happen!
Drones are not inherently any more dangerous than any other r/c activity!
Stop blaming me and other safe drone flyers for the mistakes, illegal activities, and errors in judgement made by a very small percentage of idiots!
Go after and prosecute those idiot!
There should be very few regulations and laws on the books regarding r/c hobby aircraft. Enforce the laws that do exist, don't pile on more and more regulation and eventually ban the hobby!
At best, on a good day, my drone only has about 25 minutes of flight time, so it won't fly more than roughly 15 miles (I've never actually had a reason to clock it's top speed). It's not the receiver or the transmitter range I was talking about.
We have a perfectly fine delivery system by several different organizations.
Companies like Amazon wanting to deliver by drones SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
As society, we are not there yet. No where near it.
If they want to deliver to their customers, let them buy a fleet of trucks and hire drivers.
Put American's TO work, not put them Out Of Work!
That is just insane! Whom ever wants to do this needs to be line up a wall and.....Paint Balled!
I can see people shooting them down with CO2, Air and Pellet guns to robe what they carry.
No, No way, should not be done. Maybe in another 500 years or so when everything moves by Air Travel.
It's a hobby, and it's used for Scientific Research and other useful things.
It's like they want to skip unmanned person vehicles, ships and planes (which I don't agree with either).
Companies like Amazon wanting to deliver by drones SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.
As society, we are not there yet. No where near it.
If they want to deliver to their customers, let them buy a fleet of trucks and hire drivers.
Put American's TO work, not put them Out Of Work!
That is just insane! Whom ever wants to do this needs to be line up a wall and.....Paint Balled!
I can see people shooting them down with CO2, Air and Pellet guns to robe what they carry.
No, No way, should not be done. Maybe in another 500 years or so when everything moves by Air Travel.
It's a hobby, and it's used for Scientific Research and other useful things.
It's like they want to skip unmanned person vehicles, ships and planes (which I don't agree with either).
I refuse to enable your histrionics, any further . . .
Fact : The problem exists . . . ( The intentional misuse of Drones ).
Fact : Drones are not the problem, but the Idiots misusing them are ( "Free Will" ).
Fact : You can only control yourself and not the Idiots, who will do as they please ( For a while ).
Fact : The "Authorities" will address the problem . . . ( Regulation, Licenses / Fees, Bans, if necessary ).
Fact : The results of that will,likely, impact RC flyers, in all genres of the Hobby . ( "Collateral damage" ).
Dave F.
gldknght
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="KC3KNM, post: 1949138, member: 27873"The issue I see is that “THE CRAZIES” had a harder time in the past to do stupid things.
Your operational range statement is pretty ignorant, also. You can get decent range with a quad but its not always about range. A quad can be maneuvered in ways that allow for it to be flown into tighter areas than a conventional plane or heli, plus the consumer grade quads basically fly themselves allowing any idiot to fly them wherever they’d like. The use of R/C in drug smuggling was pretty rare before the rise of drones, I’ve seen this discussed many times on RCG. Are you basing the drug smuggling argument on facts or just assuming? It doesn’t mesh with the vast amounts of drones being used for this vs the pathetically few conventional R/C aircraft reported over many years.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wa...n-drug-cartels-using-drones-to-smuggle-heroi/[/QUOTE]
If the problems pointed out in that video are so widespread, why don't we ever hear about it in the mainstream news. I don't get HBO, so this is the first I've heard of it.
It is a relatively simple matter to prevent drone fly-overs of prisons. Make the area around prisons be no-fly zones, the same way the FAA already does with most controlled airspace airports. Not that hard or expensive to do, and doesn't punish law abiding types.
My consumer grade drone won't fly into those types of airspace, and if I'm already in flight and try to, the drone just stops and hovers till I make it turn around.
Your operational range statement is pretty ignorant, also. You can get decent range with a quad but its not always about range. A quad can be maneuvered in ways that allow for it to be flown into tighter areas than a conventional plane or heli, plus the consumer grade quads basically fly themselves allowing any idiot to fly them wherever they’d like. The use of R/C in drug smuggling was pretty rare before the rise of drones, I’ve seen this discussed many times on RCG. Are you basing the drug smuggling argument on facts or just assuming? It doesn’t mesh with the vast amounts of drones being used for this vs the pathetically few conventional R/C aircraft reported over many years.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wa...n-drug-cartels-using-drones-to-smuggle-heroi/[/QUOTE]
If the problems pointed out in that video are so widespread, why don't we ever hear about it in the mainstream news. I don't get HBO, so this is the first I've heard of it.
It is a relatively simple matter to prevent drone fly-overs of prisons. Make the area around prisons be no-fly zones, the same way the FAA already does with most controlled airspace airports. Not that hard or expensive to do, and doesn't punish law abiding types.
My consumer grade drone won't fly into those types of airspace, and if I'm already in flight and try to, the drone just stops and hovers till I make it turn around.
gldknght
Well-Known Member
Well said!
KC3KNM
Probably Wrong
I find it odd you ignored about 90% of my post, but there’s plenty of instances of this being brought up in the mainstream news.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-45980560
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/ohio-jail-drone-contraband.amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.governing.com/news/headlines/Drones-Dropping-Off-Packages-Pose-New-Threat-to-Prisons.html?AMP
Far from isolated. Have you actually researched any of your talking points or are you just going by feel? I understand your hobby is effectively being attacked, but that doesn’t excuse blatantly making things up or basing your arguments solely off feelings...
You can defeat the geofencing on consumer drones extremely easily.
Last edited:
grouch
Well-Known Member
Drones have ruined the party of a lot of folks pure and simple. To argue otherwise because you don't fly in such a reckless manor is moot. My wife hates drones, namely because she saw one hovering outside our 4th floor apartment window. Show me a 1/4 scale warbird pilot that is going to attempt that.
This Drone could actually carry out a prison escape, if the person weighed less than 75 Kg. / 165lb. Look up video " I7x95DPa9po " on YouTube.
Dave F.
KC3KNM
Probably Wrong
I didn't write that. I was posting from my phone and was too lazy to fix the broken quote tags.
I didn't write that. I was posting from my phone and was too lazy to fix the broken quote tags.
I didn't link directly to that YouTube video . . . I edited to only provide the "ID" for it.
Dave F.
gldknght
Well-Known Member
You miss my point entirely. I did not say illegal drone activities aren't happening. My point was that out of the thousands of hours of drone activity, the illegal ones make up a very small percentage. And digging out a few obscure news reports online it not mainstream news. Since those activities are already illegal, obviously new rules hurting the rest of us are not going to make much difference to the criminals.
Why not make geofencing hard wired into every drone control board sold? Make it so if tampered with or removed, the control board no longer functions. If it can be done with an ID transponder it can be done with geofencing! I think that would eliminate most of these problems.
As Stated by others and by the wording in the actual new rule, this isn't about making drones safer. It's going to apply across the board to every r/c aircraft.
I am done with this thread. It's not going any where and suggest the moderators should think about locking it?
KC3KNM
Probably Wrong
I'm not sure that BBC or Fox News are considered obscure news sites, but if you give it a quick google you'll find more than a handful of reports from the big news outlets.That illegal activity from the drones makes up the lion's share of people doing dumb things with R/C aircraft. That's the point here.
That sounds impractical at best and if you look at the experiences with geofencing regarding the DJI system it's not as simple as "hard wiring" it in... A reliable geofencing system isn't trivial.
Yes, that's exactly the issue some posters here are frustrated with. The fact that lack of responsibility on the part of drone pilots is hurting a hobby that's been around for over 100 years is absurd.
I think there's been plenty of good discussion here. I'm not sure that having people disagreeing with you is a valid reason to close a thread.
grouch
Well-Known Member
AKA...I'm taking my ball and I'm out of here!
Like Tripoli and NAR, AMA is a hobby organization that provides value to its members by adopting rules which help ensure that overreaching government regulation isn’t necessary. They are also an organization that has many times more members than the strictly rocketry organizations and they have always been very supportive of model rocketry, even providing insurance coverage to its members for model rocketry activities.
We have to stand by them or we can count on rocketry being targeted as well someday. As people have said, it’s the actions of a very few that create a perception that “the government needs to step in.” That could also happen to us.
We have to stand by them or we can count on rocketry being targeted as well someday. As people have said, it’s the actions of a very few that create a perception that “the government needs to step in.” That could also happen to us.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 569
Again this has less to do with safety and more to do with corporations securing nearly ALL low altitude airspace for themselves. This will eventually effect civil aviation as well. Ultralights and powered parachutes do not have collision avoidance systems and barely show up on radar how are amazon delivery drones going to avoid colliding with them?
grouch
Well-Known Member
I have not read anything about free flight planes. Rubber powered or otherwise...I wonder if they are going to be "safety regulated" as well.
I think about all the things I learned by modifying, building and designing RC planes. Poor little kids growing up on the other side of this new world order. Sheeesh.
I think about all the things I learned by modifying, building and designing RC planes. Poor little kids growing up on the other side of this new world order. Sheeesh.
Steve,
What is the official, "in writing", position of Tripoli on Rockets launched from Drones, provided that "safe launch angles" can be provided ?
It's only a matter of time . . .
Dave F.
Again, what's needed here is for someone to soberly sum up what's wrong with the proposed rules point by point, showing that it's an over-reach that won't actually stem the problem, then get all the hobbyists that care to sign on and forward to their lawmakers, then get the anti-government types to make it go viral and get 100x the number of people to protest. I'm not much of an RCer but for gosh sakes soon even flying a kite will be off limits due to Amazon and others' desire to control the airspace. I'm not into the details enough to author it, but I will submit commentary someone else supplies if it is done in a positive and productive manner.
Similar threads
