Should Consumer Use of Drones be Regulated or Banned in the U.S.?

Forced sterilization at birth?

Won't stop the idot, maybe the idot's kids.

RT

While, like the OP, I am not a big fan of "Big Brother" regulations I believe drone usage should be controlled. We've had a number of instances here in Northern California where drones have interfered with firefighting planes. When some clown flies a drone in a fire zone it creates an idiotically dangerous situation for the planes attempting to control the fire.

It's dangerous for ANY plane. That why a restriction close to the airports and a maximum height elsewhere makes sense. But we do need to remember that the sky belonsg to everybody.

This seems to be a case where the introduction of new technology causes great problems to the existing system (air/space). When you look how many commercial flights are in the air at one time & the potential for a disaster, it's tough not to conclude that drones may well be restricted bigtime for safety reasons. We're talking hobbyists here, NOT people intent on causing destruction. That is an entirely different situation & will need a way to drop them out of the sky in restricted areas like airports.

Fred

Felony Endangerment, there also must be a bunch of Federal Charges that could be found aviation wise and others. Hit the dip with about $250,000 in fines and about 10 years in the Graybar Hotel, bet you'd see a drastic reduction in idiots. Just have a small maneuverable Helicopter with video and radio tracking equipment and wait for a "Drone Report.

They should be selling mini SAMs for personal use to shoot down unwanted drones...

LOL

People have been flying remote controlled models for years and there was no real concern. But it was a relatively expensive activity, it was primarily limited to hobbyists, and groups tended to be self-regulating. Now drones, quadcopters and similar devices are relatively inexpensive and they are available to the general public.

Unfortunately, self-control and self-regulation has been lost. There are regular reports of remote controlled devices interfering with air traffic, invading privacy, and hampering fire fighting. When an activity infringes on the rights or safety of others... that is when the government starts to regulate the activity.

That is what is happening with drones, and enthusiasts have to recognize the need for regulation and be willing to participate in developing those regulations.

Otherwise controls will be imposed with limited or no input.

A true "drone" doesn't need any remote control at all, as it operates on its own.

A remotely piloted aircraft on the other hand, does rely on a communications link.

The largest manufacturer of "hobby" drones, DJI (maker of the Phantom and Inspire series) already has built-in firmware that does not allow their drives to fly a) over 400 feet altitude, b) within 5 miles of any commercial airport, and c) within 15 miles of the White House. Since they have built-in GPS, these restrictions are accurate. The FAA already has a restriction to flying any hobby craft higher that 400 ft.

Other drone and RC craft manufacturers maybe should be as conscientious as DJI. And maybe the current laws and restrictions should be enforced.

I agree with Tuckahoemike that all hobby drone makers should be required to include firmware to prevent their products from flying in restricted areas.

I'm not sure how temporary restrictions would be handled though such as the drone ban in Philadelphia during the Pope's visit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-usa-pope-philad...

Why? If I want to fly a remote controlled aircraft INDOORS, somebody's firmware is going to try to stop that?

And I shouldn't be allowed to modify my firmware on my own devices?

The only reason for strict regulations is due to the few that ignore the law and that ruins it for everyone that does. It's the same with everything else.

Seems like there exists regulations that should be enforced, drones or not. Isn't it already against the law to fly into restricted areas or interfere with law enforcement or fire fighters. Do we need specific laws for planes, helicopters, gliders, remote model aircraft, balloons, ... .

Absolutely should be regulated. I haven't started yet, but I'm planning to build a few drones for fun.

What existing regulations are you referring to? Advisory Circulars are NOT regulations, not have they gone through any administrative law process that is required for all federal regulations.

the only reason for regulations is because of people who don't give a dam about any body else or people who are to stupid to use common sense !! ever go down a highway at 70 only to be passed by some body passing you like a jet plane ? and the sad part is a ban doesn't work !! like the one on drugs that worked well !! or how about the ban on guns in school we know how that one went !! its frustrating and at times it seems like no one cares !

Regulations and laws don't prevent anything nor do they stop people from acting. Look at how they are written. They only prescribe penalties for people or persons that fail to follow that particular rule.

There are some regulations regarding public safety in addition to those already in place for restricted air space. Although not specifically aimed at drones, these regs can be enforced when people and property are threatened.

A NYC teacher was arrested for crashing his drone into the seats at the US Open Tennis Tournament on Saturday. Luckily, no one was hurt.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/us/us-open-tennis-drone-arrest...

It will make for an interesting court case.

But please, ban stupid people.

For one thing, people need to stop calling them drones. They are either hobby grade or semi-professional quadcopters. The origin of the word "drone" isn't remotely close to aircraft other than by virtue of the constant sound that became associated with modern weapons like the V2 rocket.

Yes, you COULD use a hobby or larger quadcopter as a weapon. Just like the more common modern use of vehicles and pressure cookers have been used.

Let's ban them also while we're at it, yeah? Protect the homeland at all costs.

I just received my model aircraft hobby catalog today and it has seven out of 52 pages of quadcopters one can buy. The prices vary from $29.99 to $1500.00 plus shipping. The cheapest with a camera is $60.00 ready to fly.
Any one with the cash can buy one so to regulate this industry, the government would have to ban the sale within the country AND find a way to stop internet sales from foreign countries.
I can go to my Hobby store and buy all the parts to make my own.
If one can build a gun with a 3D printer then one can build a quadcopter.
The question is "how are you going to regulate this?"

The Washington Post says today that in the wake of rapidly increasing incidents in which drones are invading commercial and military airspace, federal regulators (presumably in the FAA and DOT) are planning to establish rules requiring owners to register their drones with the federal government. They are hoping this will make owners more conscientious. How they're planning to enforce registration on older drones or transfers of ownership, and what level of fines will be involved for failure to comply, has evidently not yet been determined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feder...
(paywall after clicking links to five articles per month)

I suspect all of the drug-running drone-owners have already hurried out and registered their drones!!!!!

"The crooks are still going to use them illegally." Sound familiar? Same problem as gun control.

RT

The question is what type of registration will be required? The idea is good but lets see how it is implemented.

Drones Face New Regulatory Push
Jack Nicas, The Wall Street Journal

U.S. regulators plan to require recreational drone owners to register their devices, an ambitious bid to rein in reckless users that faces a tight timeline and a thicket of legal and practical questions. The Transportation Department plans to announce that it wants to soon require registration for all unmanned aircraft “except for toys and those with minimal safety risk,” according to a draft news release reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-face-new-regulatory-push-...

I have a 9" heli that I can Velcro a cam on, is that a "Dron" or a "Toy"? All my heli's have Velcro so I can use them to take pic's or video, register them all?

Go after the "Stupids" and make a example out of them and the problem will not happen very often. I am sure there are enough Laws already, Say "Felony Endangerment" for example. If you fly a "Drone" near people its the same as pointing a firearm at them, if you lose control it could seriously hurt or even kill them.

I believe they will classify toys as being less than a certain size with either a Bluetooth or IR controller. Any unit weighing more than some set number of ounces (grams) will require registration at the time of sale. The biggest hurdle will be getting the registration process approved through the paperwork reduction act review. After all, it would be a new government form that requires the Office of Management and Budget to approve.

It's a shame that children (most in adult bodies) are ruining it for the rest of the enthusiasts.

Most of the news items are about people doing stupid stunts for "Bragging Rights" - too close to airports, etc. Totally without any concern about other's safety.

Next, I guess, we'll have the FAA or police using drones to track them back to the owner. Maybe they can force them down. Guess what happens when one helicopter hovers above another?

Edit:

If I remember correctly, this is the guy in Germany that started the craze. Micro electronics and dedicated chips reduced the cost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lvC9T83xmQ

…of the government's reaction to the CB radio craze of the 1980s. They required everyone to have a license because of the widespread abuse (mainly long-range skip communications and illegal transmission power) until there were so many applications the govt couldn't process them and wasn't able to enforce the regs. The requirement for licenses was abandoned.

Drones should be declared vermin and free to be used as target practice by anone capable of getting that deep out of the sky!

In addition to "Geo Fencing", it appears the FAA is looking into ways to jam the frequencies used for drone control in restricted areas.

http://www.businessinsider.com/faa-and-growing-problem-with-...

An interesting approach to the problem but it remains to be seen if this can be accomplished without affecting legitimate drone use in nearby areas.

Required registration will make it harder and more costly for make it harder for law abiding drone users to use drones.

Biggest issue is practicality issues associated with ensuring that users actually have permits. As always users with unlawful goals always comply with registration requirements.

then you would have a 1 1/2 lb hunk of plastic, metal and carbon fiber flying around out of control. Most will just keep flying at last setting, some even have self leveling if you release the controls. Those blades can slice you up.

They already have mandated height restrictions …
They already have mandated airport distance restrictions …
They already have mandated ‘no fly zones’ …
They already have firmware-controlled ‘no fly zones’ …
They already have many Manufacturer Generated serial number registrations.

The law-abiding users are following these requirements.
The crooks and idiots? “Ain’t now, ain’t gonna then”!

RT

A new way to roast a turkey using a drone!

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/8/9871732/drone-flamethrower...

This guy has entirely too much time on his hands. I only hope he doesn't become a terrorist.

that someone in the Federal Govt is investigating the use of radio transmissions that would interfere with control of drones & cause them to crash. One could see that as a protective mechanism for areas in which they should not be able to fly in.

Fred

I read somewhere a lot of drones transmitters are in the amature bands... Dont worry, the hand Will track em down n' hand em' over to the FCC....

What hasn't the govt tried to license?
Real drones should be licensed. Toys, I"m not so sure. And there is plenty of gray area for sure.

I wouldn't want to waste time licensing a 10 yr old kids toy remote control that will never leave the backyard. But a powerful one that has some range, probably not a bad idea??

You register and get a registration number that has to be easily seen without disassembly. Now if your flying a over 8 oz drone and no registration number they can do something to you. If you fly it illegally, the reg number will give a easier way to find and get you.

A 10 year old has no business flying a half pound drone the can be very dangerous!

The registration process does not register the drone itself.

The registration process registers the operator/owner of the drone.

As a side note, I would not equate "powerful one" with "one that has some range". Two different things.

How long before I have to be registered to throw my Frisbee?

Seriously though, I understand the governments need to control drone use but I fail to see how registration will keep terrorists and kids who can't shave yet from causing harm with them.

I can state as an RC pilot there are a great many things in error about the new process. There are questions which will have to be answered in court over the legality of the rule as the Congress Critters exempted model aircraft flown for hobby purposes from regulation by the FAA. That's the first hurdle. Another is if another procedure meets the FAA requirements, such as those used by the Academy of Model Aeronautics which has their members put their contact information and membership number on all their aircraft. This procedure has been in place for many years and was implemented as a means of helping lost (fly away) models being returned to their owner. It also shows the owner has insurance against damage or injury caused by the aircraft. The FAA procedure does neither.

The reading of the regulation shows it is targeted at "drones" which is a catch-all phrase meaning the camera equipped multi-rotor aircraft and not the fixed wing planes flown by many hobbyists. What the FAA has done is stretch the type of aircraft covered by the definition of unmanned aerial vehicle in the hobbyist ranks to include fixed wing and multi-rotor when the apparent problems they wish to address are caused only by one type of aircraft.

As there are no provisions in the regulation requiring a person to have a registration number before delivery or, any required serialization of the aircraft, the regulation is rather pointless in that a person wanting to fly irresponsibly would even consider obtaining a registration number to begin with.

IMO the entire process is an attempt to use a shotgun to kill a flea.

A commercial airliner struck a drone while on approach to London's Heathrow Airport:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/17/europe/london-heathrow-drone-s...

Surprisingly, it caused little damage and the plane was allowed to remain in service.

Agree with Boxcar & others that this is impractical, silly, feel-good legislation for those that think something MUST be done.

And, no end to the drama for media ..

Suspected, not confirmed. Big difference. And even if it is ever confirmed rest assured that if some idiot was flying his quadcopter that close to an airport it was a less than $1000 model that poses about as much harm as a large bird. Definitely could cause a serious problem if it was sucked into an engine, but certainly wouldn't break out a cockpit window or any of the other theoretical hype in the article.

People are stupid & irresponsible all over the world. Registering vehicles has inarguably cut down on some incidents that would otherwise happen, but in the overall scheme of things.. not a lot, imo.

Where is the hazard assessment that shows a remote controlled aircraft (including dense batteries) is equivalent risk to hitting a bird? How do you determine it couldn't break a window when hit at 250+ knots?

Same place as the assessment that it IS the same. You have a link?

Go to the pace that fires frozen chicken carcasses at plane windows to test them, and substitute drones for chickens.

Search the Mythbusters TV archives.

banned.

Whenever something doesn't have any legitimate purpose (wanting to see the neighbor sunbathing is not legit, though understandable), it should be disallowed.

people who do stupid and irresponsible things should be banned from {fill in activity here}.

The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. No one has figured out how to ban either one of them yet with a practical method of enforcement.