[HN Gopher] FAA releases TRUST: Free online training required to...
___________________________________________________________________
FAA releases TRUST: Free online training required to fly drones
recreationally
Author : asix66
Score : 146 points
Date : 2021-06-24 13:33 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dpreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (dpreview.com)
| dahart wrote:
| Since the title * can be mis-interpreted to mean that you've
| never needed a license, I can forgive some commenters here from
| forgetting that just a few years ago, the only legal way to fly a
| drone was with an actual aircraft pilot's license. Drone
| operators, rightly, thought that was pretty silly, but it took a
| number of years before the FAA crafted drone-specific rules and
| allowed drone flights under 400 feet without a license.
|
| Having to attend a short online training course about what the
| rules are and to stay away from people and out of the airspace of
| manned aircraft seems pretty reasonable, and perhaps necessary
| given the growing number of drone accidents in the recent past
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UAV-related_incidents
|
| * edit: the HN title has been changed for the better. To clarify
| for anyone reading this now, my comment was referring to the
| previous HN title: "Effective Immediately: You need a drone
| license before you fly in the US"
| swiley wrote:
| >the only legal way to fly a drone was with an actual aircraft
| pilot's license.
|
| That must have been a rather large drone (or maybe what you
| mean is "fly a drone near an airport or city") since you don't
| even need a pilot's license to fly small planes in the US.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You don't need a pilot's license* to fly _ultralight_
| category aircraft in the US, but for the category commonly
| called "small planes", you do.
|
| Ultralights are governed by Part 103 and limited to: single-
| seat, day-only, VFR-only, weighing less than 254 pounds,
| carrying 5 US gallons or less, and having a top speed of not
| more than 55 knots [calibrated].
|
| * - Technically "certificate", but practically the same.
| swiley wrote:
| Yes, to people who don't fly though an ultralight and
| Cessna both look like "small planes."
| tinus_hn wrote:
| The only reason I see for drones not being compliant with
| that is that they lack the single seat.
| beerandt wrote:
| The commercial use aspect also came into play- if you
| were hired to use the drone to do something (like take
| pictures), or were a company using a drone as part of a
| product/service, it would arguably fall under a different
| set of rules. Which is another reason clarification was
| needed.
| ptero wrote:
| One part commonly overlooked is "see and avoid". That is,
| under VFR, a pilot should look out the window and avoid
| hitting other things. Which, strange as it sounds, has
| been a sticking point for some drone flight approvals.
| labcomputer wrote:
| It's not strange at all. Drone pilots have more limited
| visibility.
|
| The bigger issue is that drone pilots have no skin in the
| game. If they cause an mid air collision resulting in
| fatalities: opsie daisy!
| sigstoat wrote:
| only the most psychopathic individuals say "oopsie daisy"
| after causing accidental death.
|
| for everyone else the result is usually a lot of sobbing.
|
| that doesn't mean they're not blase about taking risks
| ahead of time. but that's more because they misevaluate
| the risk, and can't clearly imagine the negative
| outcomes.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Does a person need to be sitting in the seat? Or could I
| just put some plastic Lego seat on my drone and qualify?
| sokoloff wrote:
| You'd fail 14 CFR SS 103.1.a:
|
| "Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in
| the air by a single occupant;"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Huh, so if I build a remote control system for an
| intended-to-be-manned ultralight, I could use it as a
| drone without a certificate, but not an actual purpose-
| built drone?
| sokoloff wrote:
| So long as you could successfully argue in front of an
| FAA Administrative Law Judge that you "used or intended
| to use it" as a manned aircraft.
|
| Since it sounds like you're doing so with the specific
| intention to use it as an unmanned craft, the Part 103
| rules would not apply (and would not permit it). (The law
| is "is" rather than "was originally built to be".)
| TheFreim wrote:
| You don't? Multiple people I know who fly regularly say
| they're required to fly a certain amount or else they'll lose
| the license to fly.
| briandear wrote:
| They won't lose their license. They'll just be out of
| currency. Which means they can't fly passengers until they
| get current which is as single as three takeoffs and
| landings.
| 34679 wrote:
| I appreciate the new system. When the first set of rules
| requiring certification went through, I called all 3 of the
| training locations the FAA had listed in my state and none of
| them had any idea what I was asking about. I ended up not
| flying my drone for over a year, until I brought it to Mexico.
| syshum wrote:
| If I remember correctly that legal requirement was rejected /
| nullified by legal challenge to the FAA n federal court,
| dperfect wrote:
| > ...just a few years ago, the only legal way to fly a drone
| was with an actual aircraft pilot's license.
|
| As I understood it, small unmanned aircraft flown for hobby or
| recreational use had long been excluded from the full authority
| of the FAA (except for some basic rules for respecting the
| airspace of manned aircraft), or the need for a pilot's
| license. They were essentially treated like RC airplanes, which
| of course have not required a pilot's license to operate,
| albeit with some of those basic rules (I believe the AMA was
| involved in establishing some of those guidelines).
|
| Of course, when drones became more popular, there was a lot of
| misunderstanding when it came to the interpretation of current
| regulations (e.g., line-of-sight operation vs FPV), and it was
| debatable whether or not the FAA even had the authority to
| regulate the operation of small hobby aircraft, including
| drones. Commercial operation was and still is clearly regulated
| by the FAA and requires a license.
|
| Basically, what I'm saying is that in this category of aircraft
| (for recreational use), the FAA has become _more involved and
| restrictive_ over the past few years, not less so. In my
| opinion, that 's generally been a good thing (some people do
| foolish things with drones), but the regulation should also be
| balanced in maintaining some of those reasonable freedoms of
| operation.
| asix66 wrote:
| OP here. The original title was not really wrong nor misleading,
| however I'm not opposed to it changing.
|
| Prior to TRUST, you did NOT need a license to fly any drones for
| recreational purposes.
|
| The FAA has had Part 107 in place for a while, which is a drone
| license, but only needed if you fly drones for commercial
| purposes.
|
| Now we have both. Part 107 for commercial drone flying. TRUST for
| recreational drone flying. I'm not opposed to either, and given
| that the TRUST test is very easy, I don't see any downside.
| airhead969 wrote:
| Effective immediately: You need a license before you can throw an
| American football in the US because it might break a window.
|
| How many decades were R/C planes and helicopters operating
| without a problem? Instead of police work, it's collective
| punishment with privacy invasion and barriers as the answer to
| salve MIC-generated paranoia. Firearms aren't even tracked this
| absurdly.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| Many decades. My grandfather was an avid RC aircraft
| enthusiast.
|
| They are simply not comparable to the drones that are being
| sold nowadays. 30, 40 years ago, RC aircraft were a seriously
| difficult and expensive hobby to get into. You generally had to
| build the plane yourself, including fitting the electronics and
| servicing the gasoline engine. They were huge and difficult to
| fly, too, so, after putting in all that investment, you
| generally wouldn't even consider flying it yourself without
| finding a mentor in the hobby to show you how it's done. And
| you'd generally have to do it out of an RC airstrip that was
| operated by an RC aviation club that was very interested in
| self-policing. Hijinks would get you kicked out.
|
| So, yeah, 30, 40 years ago you didn't _need_ something like
| this, because it was not a, "Some grandparent trying to Win
| Christmas can just blow $200 at Wal-Mart and give one of these
| to a 4-year-old," kind of thing. There were some much-needed
| barriers to entry back then. Nowadays apparently any idiot can
| have one, and yes, it is creating a legitimate problem. A
| couple years back I almost took a drone to the face when
| someone was whizzing it around at night, with the light off,
| trying to startle passersby for laughs. Thankfully I took it to
| the shoulder instead.
| _hyn3 wrote:
| This doesn't fit with my experience at all. They were
| somewhat expensive, yes, but only a bit more than a nice Lego
| set (which I got for Christmas one year). I don't even know
| if there was an aviation club nearby, but there were tons of
| RC airplane people that would just launch from their lawns.
| heelix wrote:
| Ironically enough, this is what drove me into real airplanes.
| As a kid, did the line and rc models. Very easy to turn
| hundreds of hours of build time into... trash. The cost of
| the better RC stuff was darn near what you might spend on an
| ultra light for manned flying. It is amazing how cheap drones
| became (and the corresponding... how much general aviation
| has gotten to be).
| airhead969 wrote:
| America solve gun violence with regulation. Look how well
| it's working!
| marcinzm wrote:
| The US has basically non-existent gun regulation by
| developed world standards. Go compare the gun violence
| rates in the US with any country that actually regulates
| guns.
| airhead969 wrote:
| "Basically non-existent [sic]" like backgrounds checks.
|
| How would nanny state regulations work or be comparable
| when Americans already possess many guns? Cow / barn
| door.
| handrous wrote:
| What's the "[sic]" for? I don't see an error.
| marcinzm wrote:
| You made an implicit argument that regulation doesn't
| work, I simply pointed out that it does in many many
| place.
|
| You now argue that it doesn't work because the item being
| regulated is in wide spread possession. Drones are not.
| Thus by your own chain of reasoning it is perfectly
| reasonable to enforce very strong regulations NOW if we
| wish to have any chance of managing drones.
|
| I guess, thank you for making such a great argument for
| strong regulation from the onset.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| That's perhaps a true fact, but also, maybe a bit of a
| rhetorical own goal?
|
| I don't think that the gun lobby having been so
| successful at achieving a sort of crony capitalist vendor
| lock-in with the American public implies in any way that
| this is a good thing, which is what you'd have to
| demonstrate for this analogy to really help the case
| you're trying to present.
|
| I mean, if you're trying to say that regulation doesn't
| work, then pointing out that the the gun lobby has
| secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in
| the USA, so now Americans already own a lot of guns and
| shoot each other a lot and there's nothing that can be
| done about it anymore, is perhaps doing more to
| illustrate the case that you're trying to argue against.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| > now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each
| other a lot
|
| Your analysis of the data may vary, but:
|
| Between 1998 and 2019, there have been more than
| 391,897,875 background checks for gun purchases in the
| U.S.[1].
|
| It is unknown which of those were for rifles; it is also
| unknown what percentage of those background checks were
| for multiple firearm purchases in a single transactions.
|
| The AR-15 is the most popular rifle by far, so it seems
| entirely plausible that there are perhaps vastly more
| than 100 million AR-15's in private ownership in the U.S.
| (An interesting point is that it is rather unlikely that
| most people would be so unwise as to advertise
| ownership.) (Of note, there is no legal definition of
| assault rifle, and the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Armalite,
| one of the first manufacturers of the AR-15.)
|
| In total, less than 400 killings (including murders,
| self-defense, suicide etc) per year committed with _all_
| types of rifles[2]. (In fact, more people are killed each
| year with blunt objects like clubs, hammers, etc.)
|
| Those who wish to increase ownership of handguns would do
| well to note that many, many people in the U.S. own
| handguns for personal defense, and a very tiny fraction
| are used for killing in any given year. By far the
| largest handgun numbers are from people taking their own
| lives, and most of the others are from criminal
| activities, typically in large cities. Those criminal
| activities are committed by people who, by definition, do
| not obey the law.
|
| This is obviously a politically fraught topic; just
| wanted to provide some actual, if somewhat surprising,
| data. Again, your analysis and politics may vary, but
| that's the data.
|
| 1. https://www.fbi.gov/file-
| repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_mo...
|
| 2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-
| the-u.s.-...
| [deleted]
| frockington1 wrote:
| Why do you consider it unwise to advertise ownership of
| an AR-15? Why would anyone care? Where I live the
| response would be "cool, can I shoot it next range trip"
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Depending on where you live in the country, you might
| experience any of the following things:
|
| 1. social response / cancel culture
|
| 2. theft
|
| 3. legal liability
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| (Sorry, too late to edit.. I meant "increase regulation
| of handguns" in case the mistake wasn't obvious)
| EricE wrote:
| "the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit
| firearm regulation in the USA"
|
| The gun lobbies didn't secure laws that severely limit
| firearm regulation. They didn't have to. It was
| enumerated as the 2nd amendment in our constitution - and
| for damn good reasons.
|
| The difference between the American and French
| Revolutions - the American Revolution started from the
| place that the people have all rights and our
| constitution restricts governments ability to infringe
| upon those _inalienable rights_. The French Revolution
| came from the perspective of the states rights and in
| turn grants rights to the people. I think I prefer the
| former over the latter.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Given the events of the last year and the historical
| opposition of groups like the NRA to minorities having
| gun access I feel the greatest threat to continuing free
| democracy in the US (for everyone) is not the government
| but the same group that owns the majority of guns.
| 34679 wrote:
| >America has an 18 to one advantage over Brazil in the
| number of guns, yet proportionally, Brazil suffers six
| times more deaths by guns than America.
|
| >In Brazil, all firearms must be registered with the
| state. Minimum age for owning a gun is 25 and
| restrictions make it virtually impossible to have a carry
| permit. Owners must pay a $40 tax every three years. As a
| result of these and other restrictions, it is very
| difficult to own a gun in Brazil much less carry one.
|
| https://www.tfp.org/what-about-gun-violence-in-brazil/
| mumblemumble wrote:
| The data are high variance, so you can't just pick
| individual cases and then only look at selected facets of
| them. That's classic cherry picking.
|
| You've got to look at large scale trends if you want to
| see a large scale pattern, and, if you want to dig into
| the particulars, you need to look at _all_ the
| particulars. For example, that article you cite fails to
| consider the different levels of organized crime between
| the two countries. Perhaps because including that detail
| might necessitate acknowledging that Brazil and the USA
| have different gun crime problems with different causes
| that might therefore require different responses.
| 34679 wrote:
| "Go compare the gun violence rates in the US with any
| country that actually regulates guns."
| marcinzm wrote:
| Given that the first sentence mentioned developed nations
| I figured it was clear I meant any developed nation.
| Furthermore, regulates guns generally means actually
| regulates guns and not "has laws for regulating guns."
| The two are not the same except in countries that have
| stable governments, enough money to pay for law
| enforcement and low amounts of corruption. Unless you
| actually believe the state of the US government and
| economy is akin to that of a country like Brazil?
| 34679 wrote:
| Brazil has the world's 9th largest GDP. Does this look
| like an undeveloped country:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo
| briandear wrote:
| When a football brings down an airplane, then we can have that
| discussion. Don't know anyone throwing footballs at 500 feet in
| the approach course of an airport. There has to be a level of
| common sense involved in this discussion.
|
| As far as the decades where R/C planes operated without a
| problem, you didn't have millions of people flying those
| things. You also didn't have the readily-available ability to
| fly them outside of line of sight.
| chriswwweb wrote:
| I had similar thoughts, you don't need a permit to buy a gun
| but your kids need one if they want to fly their small toy
| drone, well that makes totally sense :D
| handrous wrote:
| Not commenting on whether the regulation is helpful or
| reasonable, but quadcopters are _in practice_ different, pretty
| clearly.
|
| I lived a long time before quadcopters became A Thing. I drive
| by a place (empty, rural field) where sometimes people fly R/C
| 'copters and airplanes. Lived lots of places. _Nonetheless_ I
| bet I 've seen at least 3x as many quadcopters in my life as
| other R/C aircraft, almost all in the last 6 or 7 years. I'm
| not sure I've ever seen those traditional R/C aircraft flying
| in a neighborhood, or out in a public area, or a small public
| park (not one with _acres_ of empty space). Maybe a helicopter
| once? While that 's the _only_ place I see quadcopters.
| Indoors, at parks, at outdoor gatherings of all kinds,
| weddings, trails, _everywhere_.
|
| Whether this difference warrants the regulation, I dunno, but
| there clearly _is_ a difference.
| ckoerner wrote:
| I'm on the opposite end of experience than you and find a
| drone is often unpredictable in its flight. I just got a
| small (DJI Mini 2) drone in March and have been learning and
| flying as a recreational flyer as often as weather and time
| permits. According to the logs I have flown a mere 8 hours
| and 40 odd miles over 40 some flights. This small drone is
| easy to move quickly in nearly all directions while having 4
| swiftly rotating blades that do not care what they touch and
| with no easy way to avoid. Wind gusts over 20 mph (easy to
| find over even just 75ft) can cause the craft to struggle to
| control, much less move in the direction intended.
|
| Not to mention while I paid the smart sum of $600 for my kit
| (a high bar for many to spend on getting started in a hobby),
| DJI now has an even more approachable model at $299. Making
| the ability to get into the hobby more accessible is great,
| but it does come with a greater risk of even well-intentioned
| but under-educated people (or just knuckleheads) sending a
| drone up for a quick flight and smashing into
| someone/something without even reading the manual.
|
| I'm a pretty cautious guy. I took a MSF course before buying
| a motorcycle, wear a helmet and gear, etc. I was very careful
| on my first few flights with my drone, but even then managed
| to crash into a stationary bird house. All this to say I am
| happy to take a simple test to prove to myself, much less
| those around me, that I know what the heck I'm doing and to
| keep myself and others safe because these things are very
| different from model aircraft and most consumer electronics
| that include a camera and gyroscopes. :)
| jvolkman wrote:
| 20+ years ago when I flew models as a kid, the various clubs
| all required an AMA membership and a certain amount of flight
| time with a trainer. Seems like the hobby self-regulated a bit
| more back then.
| letterlib wrote:
| I mimic the top comment here. I used to be an aerial photographer
| in the Northeast about 7ish years ago when drones were still
| relatively new. You still had to build you own back then, you
| couldn't just BUY them.
|
| The regulations were super confusing. I even had cop sending me
| an email in case I ever needed anything, but I'm pretty sure at
| the time I wasn't really supposed to be flying because I didn't
| have a license. Regardless, regulations were ridiculously
| confusing so it's nice to see some clarity after all these years.
| wil421 wrote:
| It's a 30 minute class and probably a no brainer for most people.
| Sometimes you have to take these for a fishing licenses or to
| ride a Jet Ski without a license. Hunter education courses are
| usually mandatory. In Florida you have to take certification
| course if you plan to Shark fish.
| macksd wrote:
| And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to
| rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the
| Makhaira group. Some students were unable to hit an 8.5x11
| sheet of paper with a .22 bolt-action rifle at a distance of 5
| yards (which is absolutely pathetic for someone who thinks they
| can hit a deer at even 100 yards with a hunting rifle). These
| individuals were granted their credentials because they failed
| this exercise while not breaking any of the gun safety rules
| (I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely
| when you're that inaccurate, but that's my point).
| ctdonath wrote:
| For all those disagreeing, I'll agree with you. Inability to
| hit a large target at very close range belies cognitive
| inability to perform safely. Knowing rules of the road
| doesn't matter if you can't drive on the road for a mere 100
| feet without going over the curb.
|
| That said, methinks this FAA training is abusing rent-seeking
| to harass & discourage small drone use (just as most legally
| obligated "gun safety" courses are designed to hinder
| ownership via imposing undue cost & time burdens).
|
| [LFI-IV][Gunsite/Cooper]
| barbazoo wrote:
| How would a free 30 minute class considered "rent-seeking"?
| dv_dt wrote:
| Considering the number of drone flying incidents that ground
| fire fighting equipment, or cause concerns around airports -
| I think the drone operation education is one of the cheaper
| ways to reduce incidents
| _jal wrote:
| Licensing is only tangentially about competence. The point is
| to have a revokable permission.
| dylan604 wrote:
| How many people continue to drive a car after having their
| license revoked? When they do, they are capable of far
| greater damage than a revoked drove license. People that
| have to respect for the law are not going to follow the
| law. How many criminals carry weapons even though there are
| laws?
|
| The point of laws are to give guidance to know what
| is/isn't allowed, and to allow for punishiment when broken.
| [deleted]
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| Selective enforcement of rules and legal discretion ought
| to be banned through constitutional amendment.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to
| rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the
| Makhaira group. Some students were unable to hit an 8.5x11
| sheet of paper with a .22 bolt-action rifle at a distance of
| 5 yards (which is absolutely pathetic for someone who thinks
| they can hit a deer at even 100 yards with a hunting rifle).
| These individuals were granted their credentials because they
| failed this exercise while not breaking any of the gun safety
| rules
|
| Gun safety is the point, not marksmanship.
|
| In this case the point is safe drone use. There have been
| incidents of people flying drones in controlled airspace
| around airports, which is dangerous. The FAA doesn't give a
| shit about some dude and his drone, they care about the
| safety of the general public. A simple course like this will
| cut down on the number of people doing things that endanger
| others.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| At a certain point, inability to hit a target becomes a
| safety issue.
| lootsauce wrote:
| You don't shoot in any direction where missing the target
| is a problem. If there a a house near-by or a busy road
| and the path of a bullet not hitting its target may
| encroach that space you don't even point your gun let
| alone shoot. For deer hunting an elevated position in a
| stand makes it more likely you see a deer but also makes
| it far less likely that a miss will go somewhere you
| don't want.
| craftinator wrote:
| > You don't shoot in any direction where missing the
| target is a problem.
|
| Hoping that the class included that nugget of wisdom.
| That being said, being wildly inaccurate with a hunting
| rifle isn't usually a problem, especially if the sights
| are calibrated correctly. A handgun however, is pretty
| dangerous when you don't know how to aim it.
| GeneralAntilles wrote:
| It's one of the core gun safety bullet points, so any
| class covering gun safety certainly should have. . . .
| ctdonath wrote:
| Missing by a couple minutes of angle is understandable,
| and factored into safe use.
|
| "Unable to hit the broad side of a barn" (American
| aphorism) isn't a miss, it's functional/cognitive
| inability to abide by safety rules.
| triceratops wrote:
| > I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely
| when you're that inaccurate,
|
| Isn't "be aware of what's behind your target" one of the
| rules of gun safety?
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| If your aim is off enough that could be an issue. You'll
| never know what's beyond your sight, so if your aim is too
| high...
|
| There are places on my property I could use for
| inexperienced shooters, and those would be different from
| places I could use.
|
| My friend brings people to his family's gravel pit for that
| reason - huge "walls" when you're in the pit.
| ska wrote:
| Was the certificate on marksmanship, or safe handling of a
| firearm?
|
| Firing a weapon inaccurately in the correct general direction
| isn't high risk, this isn't how people get hurt in hunting
| accidents. You shouldn't even have your rifle up (let alone
| firing) at all unless you have a clear idea of what will
| happen when you miss, and a good view of the field.
|
| I doubt the licensing body gives any thought to your
| probability of a successful hunt.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I'd argue that the point isn't to enable rent seeking (though
| some parties definitely benefit from that), the point is to
| add bureaucratic red tape to discourage the activity.
|
| >I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely
| when you're that inaccurate, but that's my point
|
| The NYPD probably has a well practiced answer to this
| question.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Usually, these aren't expensive classes nor is the licensing
| expensive. And generally, those funds are earmarked towards
| paying either for the education or enforcement.
|
| As for the actual shooting education... I mean, I think I
| care more about someone being safe with a gun than I care
| about them being a good shot. Missing the side of the barn
| matters less than making sure someone's not standing next to
| the barn when you are shooting.
| macksd wrote:
| My point was more that the class was just plain garbage and
| that's the most objective measure of how terrible it was
| that I can think of. There were people repeatedly and
| absent-mindedly pointing rifles at the person next to them.
| You know why they still got the hunter's safety card?
| Because they didn't do it on their last shot, so obviously
| they learned their lesson. The in-person instruction was
| also just a slide-show of the instructor's previous hunting
| trip.
|
| That said, I stand by my suggestion that an inability to
| hit a standard sheet of paper at 5 yards with a training
| rifle is bad enough to qualify as a safety issue. Doing the
| math here, these people would be unable to hit a 60' target
| at typical deer ranges in my state. You can't be sure of
| your target and what's behind it at that point, and that's
| one of the 4 fundamental rules of gun safety. You should be
| measuring your ability to hit the vital organs of an animal
| in a low number of minutes of angle - so we're talking
| INCHES at the same ranges. If you can't do that you have no
| business hunting. If you're off by 60' you're just plain
| being reckless.
| madcow2011 wrote:
| I didn't know about the shark fishing one. That's neat. Does
| that include tourists that hire a charter, or is it for the
| charter captains themselves?
| wil421 wrote:
| Looked it up and it's only for shore based shark fishing
| because you're taking the shark out of the water.[1]
|
| In some states the Captain's fishing license will cover
| everyone on board for most types of fishing (including
| sharks) in state waters, except certain Tuna IIRC based on
| federal laws/permits.
|
| [1] https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/FLFFWCC/bulletin
| s/2...
| syshum wrote:
| One big difference here, is that for these other recreational
| activities the license is only required if you doing them on
| public lands, however on private land you do not need a hunting
| license, or fishing license at all
|
| From what I understand these FAA rules apply even if i am
| operating a drone in my back yard.
| rhinoceraptor wrote:
| Yes, because there is no such thing as unregulated airspace.
| The FAA governs all navigable airspace, and a drone has no
| minimum flight altitude, so literally any outdoor flight is
| within their purview.
| bigdubs wrote:
| It follows because you may be taking off from private land
| but you're operating in federal airspace (all airspace is
| federal in the US)
| _hyn3 wrote:
| _All_ airspace? Not even airspace above, say, 500 feet?
|
| Am I literally walking through federal airspace right now?
|
| The U.S. Constitution is pretty explicit about physical
| space that is allocated to the federal government and the
| reasons (post offices and post roads, military
| installations, and that's about it), so laying claim to
| every square inch of "air" above that land seems to be
| quite a stretch.
| sithadmin wrote:
| Yes, all airspace. If you're out walking, driving, or
| erecting a structure, you're entitled to its usage
| provided you're not creating an air navigation hazard.
| The general understanding is that you're entitled to
| airspace on your property, and to a limited extent on the
| property of others, insofar as the usage of that airspace
| is necessary to use the land itself. Flying _anything_ is
| not, from a legal and regulatory perspective, understood
| to be a usage related to the land itself.
|
| This issue has been settled for quite some time in US
| law. The main grey areas that exist are debates over what
| sorts of exceptions should be made for reasonable use of
| UAV/drones at low altitudes.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| I've always wondered about the edge conditions.
|
| Would flying a drone indoors require permission from FAA?
| What about a daredevil jump on a motorcycle?
| sithadmin wrote:
| As long as there's a roof, you can fly whatever you want
| indoors without the FAA's interference.
|
| As for airborne ground vehicles - it's difficult to
| imagine a situation where it would legitimately be a
| concern, which is why it's a grey area :)
| cameronh90 wrote:
| I'm actually in the UK and it appears until relatively
| recently, the CAA did assert control over indoor
| airspace. But recently they've relaxed the rules and said
| if there's no possiblity of escape, you can do what you
| want.
|
| That does mean technically that if you're flying a drone
| indoors, the legality depends on how wide you open the
| windows.
| chrischattin wrote:
| You need a license to hunt/fish on private land.
| wil421 wrote:
| Not in Georgia if it is your land or your
| wife/brother/sister/dependent of you and you all live in
| the same house hold. You're still required to get a free
| deer harvest record or free Turkey stamp etc.... No hunter
| ED required. [1]
|
| [1] https://georgiawildlife.com/licenses-permits-
| passes/choose
| syshum wrote:
| Not in my state... I am not sure where you live but in
| every state I am aware of this is not true, though I tend
| to only live in area's where freedom is respected so...
|
| Edit: I am rate limited but a comment below claims KY does
| not allow hunting with out a license, yet Offical KY
| government web sites says you can
|
| "if you are a Kentucky resident hunting on your own
| property, then neither you, your spouse nor your dependent
| children need a license or statewide deer permit to harvest
| a deer. "
|
| https://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Pages/Deer-Season-FAQ.aspx
|
| This is the regulations I am aware for most states, if you
| are on your own private land you do not need a license to
| hunt and fish
| pomian wrote:
| That's very interesting. Worth moving to Kentucky!
| Everywhere else I have visited you need a license, and to
| follow bag limits. Except for non licensed animals:
| rabbits, squirrels, gophers for example; or predators:
| cougars, wolves, bears.
| yaur wrote:
| I'm not aware of any state where you can hunt wild game
| on private land without a license. Including states where
| you would expect that to be the case if it were true
| anywhere... ND, SD, MT, and KY to name a few. Non-game
| species and preserve "hunting" are a different matter.
| sithadmin wrote:
| The key difference is that if you're flying anything, you're
| not operating 'in [your] back yard' - the FAA has purview
| over that airspace.
| syshum wrote:
| Yes I am aware that the FAA claims to have full control
| over everything down to the ground, I am also aware there
| is not much case law supporting that position, and in fact
| the case law seems to indicated the Supreme Court could be
| in a position to limit the FAA's authority to 100ft and
| higher, anything lower than that being consider private
| property.
|
| IMO it is clear unconstitutional taking for the FAA to
| seize ownership of all the air above my property, with out
| limit
| peteyPete wrote:
| Your backyard or 100 acre plot, doesn't change a thing,
| isn't restricted airspace. A plane can fly over it, and
| the one in a million chance that you're flying your drone
| high enough to impact a plane or helicopter exists.
|
| Say people just start launching rockets and drones
| literally anywhere, at any time... How are flight paths
| supposed to be know ahead of time to avoid collisions?
| With 45,000ish DAILY commercial flights handled by the
| FAA, almost 20,000 airports in the US, how exactly do you
| think you can safely co-exist without catastrophes if
| people can just start putting stuff up there?
|
| My reaction to this whole "unconstitutional" rebuttal to
| everything in the US is literally jaw dropping, confused,
| and wtf... If you're smart enough to not do something
| stupid, or not put yourself in a position to make
| mistakes that affect others, thats great. Good for you.
| There's 350 million other peeps just in your neck of the
| woods and I can guarantee you that same innate sense of
| logic and common sense doesn't apply to everyone else.
| When a stupid move can put the lives of 100s of others at
| risk, or cost a ton of money every time they need to
| intervene, I'm not sure you get to just throw around "me
| myself and I and my constitution" and actually come out
| not sounding like a 1 year old throwing a tantrum because
| he's told to not wipe poop on everything and everyone.
|
| How many hundreds of millions or billions would have to
| be wasted in downtime, planes crashes, car crashes, lives
| lost, random injuries, before we ask people to do the
| equivalent of reading the dumb ass common sense
| instructions that came with the toy that is way more than
| a toy?
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > A plane can fly over it
|
| Maybe it shouldn't. Ground vehicles need to purchase land
| to operate, maybe planes needn't have right of way over
| private property.
|
| > I'm not sure you get to just throw around "me myself
| and I and my constitution"
|
| You absolutely get to. Planes are operated at profit -
| "me, myself an I" for a private corporation.
| syshum wrote:
| >>My reaction to this whole "unconstitutional" rebuttal
| to everything in the US is literally jaw dropping,
| confused, and wtf.
|
| Well the constitution is where the Government derives is
| power from, I know it is a concept most people (even US
| Citizens to not ) understand. The Constitution is a
| document that explicitly outlines what the government can
| do, if the constitution does not grant the authority than
| the government has no power over that thing.
|
| This is far different than most government organization
| where constitutions apply more to the people not the
| government, meaning the constitutions in many nations
| assume the government is all powerful and simply grants
| some rights to the people for which the government is
| barred from infringing.
|
| This is not true for the US, as the founder of the US
| recognize that our Rights are natural rights bestowed
| upon us by our creator, we are self governing for which
| we organized a government and granted that government a
| very LIMITED amount of power.
|
| >>Say people just start launching rockets and drones
| literally anywhere, at any time... How are flight paths
| supposed to be know ahead of time to avoid collisions?
| With 45,000ish DAILY commercial flights handled by the
| FAA, almost 20,000 airports in the US, how exactly do you
| think you can safely co-exist without catastrophes if
| people can just start putting stuff up there?
|
| That is easy, as my other comments have laid out I am
| talking about low altitude situation, not many planes
| under 100ft or even 500 feet, there should be no issue
| with the FAA only regulating things above say 500ft
|
| >>the one in a million chance that you're flying your
| drone high enough to impact a plane or helicopter exists.
|
| So 1:1,000,000 is the statistical floor for you? You
| might want to rethink that because if that is your risk
| tolerance that more or less makes everything illegal.
| Hopefully you have at least some respect for freedom, and
| are not a complete totalitarian, pretty sure you said in
| another comment "you are all for freedom" but if you want
| to outlaw everything that has a 1:1,000,000 chance of
| unsafe event well I dont think you have any respect for
| freedom at all
| phkahler wrote:
| You might be right. But this isn't about who has control.
| It's about making sure drone operators know where their
| wild-west airspace ends and the FAAs begins. How many
| people have purchased a drone and decided to see how high
| they could go without even knowing there are rules about
| that? The point isn't to track you or regulate you, it's
| to make sure you've at least read the rules even if you
| have no intention of flying beyond your back yard.
| sithadmin wrote:
| I'm not sure I'm convinced the FAA's claim to airspace
| above private property is unconstitutional. Just as
| there's not a lot of precedent firmly establishing the
| FAA's purview in low altitude airspace, there's also not
| much precedent that land ownership conveys a right to
| airspace usage beyond the right to place structures upon
| the land that happen to occupy that airspace. Further,
| there's a clear parallel here to the FCC's purview over
| EM spectrum usage that _does_ have significantly more
| precedent backing it, so I would expect that to set the
| groundwork for any future case law on the airspace
| matter.
|
| In any case, it's an area that certainly needs much
| greater clarity than there is today.
| prawn wrote:
| You have to watch a video and answer basic questions before
| they give you a permit for Fiery Furnace in Arches National
| Park too. I have done that a couple of times, as well as
| Australia's simple drone test, and they're both no-brainers.
| airhead969 wrote:
| Let's say you're in America rather than Australia, because
| context matters.
|
| If it happens a few people cannot operate domestic lawnmowers
| correctly and chase crowds down with them out of acts of
| terrorism because they slip a gasket, should we have
| licenses, certifications, and tracking of all lawnmowers? Is
| that a "no-brainer" too? Maybe we should think first before
| trying to regulate or educate ourselves out of every edge-
| case risk.
| peteyPete wrote:
| I hear you, but this is apples and peanuts, not even
| oranges. There's little risk you're going to accidentally
| launch your mower into a car, building, a person. It stays
| on the ground. A small mistake or moment of inattention, or
| mower failure won't cause it to drop from hundreds of feet
| down onto who ever is below.
|
| There's also awareness of where you can and cannot operate
| drones and people should know this. You are after all
| occupying air space. If drones could only fly up 30 feet it
| would be a different story but they can go quite far.
| People fly them over protected airspace, crash them in
| random places... Last thing you want is people flying them
| over airports, over busy streets or highways where they can
| crash into planes, get sucked in to engines, crash into
| cars and cause accidents, etc etc...
|
| They're not asking people to take hundreds of hours of
| flight to get certified, just a short awareness course for
| those who have no common sense... You don't need to blow a
| gasket to have a drone accident. It's not like drones are
| crash proof and all aware of airspace restrictions. Just
| don't want to have accidents in places that can affect
| others or have people fly them into places that will
| automatically trigger an emergency responses and disrupt
| operations and waste time and money... Like a drone over an
| airport where they'll dispatch security to take down the
| drone and interrupt all flights taking off or landing.
| Thats a LOT of money for one person's ignorance or
| stupidity.
|
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/2190096-drones-are-
| caus...
|
| I'm all for freedom as long as your 10 minutes of good
| times don't cost others a ton of money and the reality is
| there's a ton that can go wrong even with no intent on
| doing anything wrong.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| This is ridiculous because the default use for a lawnmower
| is solely your own yard, and it doesn't fly. Most literally
| power down if they leave your hand.
|
| And the reality is that drone testing and licensing isn't
| based on hypothetical risks, but real world incidents which
| have disrupted public safety and caused injuries. So if you
| have sources for lawnmowers threatening the public safety
| and injuring anyone outside the owners' household, let me
| know.
| [deleted]
| airhead969 wrote:
| Lawnmowers have aren't shopping carts. They don't know
| the boundaries of a yard.
|
| You haven't seen "The Lawnmower Man?" Carry or swing a
| running lawnmower upside down through a dense crowd, and
| it will injure many people.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I think the idea with drones is that it's much easier to
| cause great harm to a great number of people
| _accidentally_. A lawn mower has very obvious risks: a
| spinning blade. A drone has many non-obvious risks:
| scaring wildlife, power lines, planes, restricted
| airspace, falling out of the sky onto people, etc.
| prawn wrote:
| "No-brainer" is purely my describing it as a simple test.
| If you have an issue with the licensing itself, that might
| be better as a top level comment.
| snypher wrote:
| This particular analogy in the US lead to a whole variety
| of safety measures, eg you can't mow with a riding mower in
| reverse without holding down a override switch, and there
| still dozens of children a year being reversed over by an
| inattentive operator.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Unless things have changed recently that's a California
| only thing.
|
| My coworkers were recently pontificating about how "not
| for sale in California" is practically a marketable
| feature on anything with a blade or engine after one of
| them suffered the misfortune of buying one.
| snypher wrote:
| The blade brake on a walk behind was mandated in 1982 at
| a federal level by the CPSC. Riding mowers were mandated
| by ansi 2003 standard, including everyone's favourite
| 'operator presence control's aka the seat safety switch.
|
| Most everything safety can be disabled if you really
| want, but anyone pontificating about CA compliant
| emissions on small power equipment can go sit with the
| coal-rollers as far as im concerned.
|
| Edit: to stay on topic, if people start getting
| frequently maimed by drones then I'd expect to see some
| crazy CPSC action like an altitude safety switch or
| something...
| verelo wrote:
| I'm curious why this context matters?
| airhead969 wrote:
| Because most former British colonies tend to welcome
| education and regulation with open arms as a panacea
| instead of with suspicion of onerous, unnecessary
| drudgery and expense.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Which matters in terms of a non emotion based discussion
| on an international forum why exactly?
| kube-system wrote:
| The air is a public thoroughfare. We have a long and
| established history of licensing for activity that require
| public cooperation on publicly shared resources: driving,
| boating, hunting, fishing, radio operation, etc.
| FlyMoreRockets wrote:
| Flying lawn mowers have existed for decades:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNWfqVWC2KI
| frankhhhhhhhhh wrote:
| RC car owners will also be required to have a state issued
| drivers license.
| sithadmin wrote:
| Unlike drones, the average RC car doesn't carry a risk of
| killing/maiming people when they drop out of the air at near-
| terminal velocity. If a bus hits your RC car, at worst it gets
| a scratch or dent before the RC car is destroyed. Even a tiny
| drone, on the other hand, could easily take out a prop or
| turbine on an aircraft and lead to the death of the occupants
| or bystanders.
| handrous wrote:
| I don't get how people in this thread are failing to see that
| this is _reactive_ , and pulling out ridiculous examples as
| equivalencies. Guess what? If people driving RC cars started
| causing problems like drones are, those would be regulated
| too. "Well next they'll require a license for RC cars, or
| lawn mowers!" Well... yeah, they will, if enough people cause
| serious-enough problems in public with those.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| ... and yet gun laws never seem to get any harsher...
| briandear wrote:
| They're pretty harsh already. Shoot someone with a gun
| and you can spend 20+ years in prison. Assuming a
| district attorney does their jobs.
| handrous wrote:
| Get one of the two major political parties to adopt
| protecting the right to fly drones as an unquestionable
| and heavily-promoted plank of their platform, then throw
| many millions of dollars behind interest groups
| supporting that message and activity, and the same thing
| will happen there. Oh, and maybe get an amendment passed
| about it.
|
| Guns are special in America.
| makerofspoons wrote:
| This is great news. About a month ago a scofflaw drone pilot
| wiped out an entire generation of elegant terns:
| https://news.yahoo.com/generation-seabirds-wiped-drone-o-110...
|
| More training and harsher penalties need to be proportional to
| the amount of damage recreational flyers can do.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Is there a reason that someone couldn't do the same damage just
| running around among the terns' nests?
| groby_b wrote:
| It's significantly more work to run around the nest, and it
| requires more intentionality than piloting a drone and being
| stupid about it. There's also usually signage warning you to
| not do the running-through-the-nest thing.
|
| For obvious reasons, we can't hang warning signs in the air.
|
| I have my doubts that a license will prevent people from
| doing stupid things, but that is (at least part of) the
| reasoning for having a license - so the government can say
| "told you so".
|
| It's on par with immigration forms asking you if you're
| planning to be a terrorist. It's a useless question, but it
| establishes a paper trail that somebody has told you not to
| do that.
|
| It's like rooted in _Lambert v. California_ , which stated
| that you can't convict a person of violating a law if there
| was no probability they could've know the law existed. A
| question, or a sign, or a license establishes that there is a
| probability.
| saint_abroad wrote:
| > There's also usually signage warning you to not do the
| running-through-the-nest thing.
|
| "No drones, no dogs, and no bikes. Those are the posted
| rules in the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve in Huntington
| Beach." https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/after-
| thousands-o...
|
| Indeed, licences won't stop stupidity but they do help
| establish penalties.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Current law already has penalties.
| _hyn3 wrote:
| There's also no question or sign indicating that you have
| to take a drone license course, effective _immediately_.
| How would someone even find out about this new regulation?
| By hanging out on hacker news waiting for it?
| airhead969 wrote:
| Stop that. It's illegal thinking against loyalty to the
| agenda.
|
| Also, this exposes that we will need to regulate, educate,
| license, and certify wearers of trainers so that they can't
| be used in a way we don't like. No running!
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I'm not sure how this changes that. The fact is that pilot was
| already flying in an area where it was not allowed and already
| in violation of current law. You can't really legislate your
| way out of this.
| airhead969 wrote:
| That sounds terrible, but "more education" won't, and never
| will, change attitudes or behavior. Psychopaths will always do
| what they want. Going Big Mother on a particular sport for the
| actions of a few independent persons doesn't address anything
| other than destroy that sport. Wishful thinking does nothing.
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| Education is aimed at people who are well-intentioned but
| _unaware_ , which is a vastly larger population than those
| who are intentionally causing harm.
|
| How will requiring people to take a 30 minute class "destroy
| the sport"?
| handrous wrote:
| Really, this seems like an effort to _save_ "the sport". If
| a few people keep doing enough damage with these things, or
| generally behaving like jackasses, they're gonna receive a
| lot more regulation than just requiring a brief class,
| guaranteed.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Psychopaths will not do bad things, if they fear real
| consequences.
|
| The course is very simple but basically a reminder of the
| rules. Now potential violaters are more aware of it. Combine
| that with real consequences - and the number of idiots flying
| close to airports or peoples bedrooms will get lower.
| briandear wrote:
| Most drone "pilots" aren't psychopaths. They just might not
| realize the hazards of flying their drone without airspace
| awareness.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| ... and yet I can buy an AR-15 and ammunition with no such
| requirements.
| cronix wrote:
| They need to put drones in the constitution.
| briandear wrote:
| I don't recall ever having a near-miss with an AR-15 when on
| final approach. But I and many other pilots that fly frequently
| have many stories of drone near-misses.
|
| How many legal AR-15 owners are shooting at airplanes? How many
| drone "pilots" have interfered with air traffic? Drone
| incursions are a very big deal. Not a single case I have ever
| heard of in the US where an AR-15 has brought down an airplane.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UAV-related_incident...
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Speaking about AR-15s bringing down airplanes is a false
| equivalence-- it would be more apt to compare drone
| incursions to incidents from negligent discharge or improper
| gun storage.
| jaywalk wrote:
| This applies to ALL drones, including ones under 250g that don't
| need to be registered.
| carapace wrote:
| A few bad apples spoil the barrel, eh?
|
| Twice now I've had drones flying over my house with the operators
| nowhere to be found. I wouldn't mind so much if I could find the
| operator and ask them not to fly over my house but I can't.
| That's the fundamental problem with drone: the asymmetry.
| cronix wrote:
| You will by 2023 when all drones need to have Remote ID
| transmitters installed, which shows the drone location, bearing
| and speed as well as the location of the controller. Mine
| already has it.
|
| https://www.engadget.com/faa-final-drone-rule-dates-18453896...
| carapace wrote:
| Thanks for the tip. It's a start.
|
| But I don't see how this would work for me in the situation I
| described. Would I call the police or the FAA or what?
|
| > Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal
| agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be
| flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly.
|
| > Authorized individuals from public safety organizations may
| request identity of the drone's owner from the FAA.
|
| https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/remote_id/
| cronix wrote:
| You'd call either.
|
| Just like if there is other suspected illegal activity, you
| contact the branch of gov't that handles it and not involve
| yourself. If you see someone speeding, it's not legal to
| speed to catch them. You call the cops and let them deal
| with it.
|
| Personally I don't see this working at all, or at least
| won't have much of an effect. Most drone pilots aren't
| sitting there for hours in the same place waiting to get
| caught, especially if they are knowingly doing something
| bad. They usually fly for 15-30 minutes and go somewhere
| else. By the time the cops/faa get to you, the drone, pilot
| and all their "remote id" data are long gone. In a lot of
| major US cities, cops aren't even responding to anything
| but the most serious of crimes due to budget cuts and
| personnel shortages. I don't see how they will even have
| the time to follow up given the list of priorities they
| have, maybe unless the report included a weapon mounted on
| the drone (which has happened). And people intent on
| breaking the law just won't register or get a drone with
| Remote ID anyway. They'd build their own (it's a fun hobby
| and how all this drone stuff got started to begin with -
| the first ones just used arduinos with appropriate sensors
| [see ardupilot project]) or use some of the millions
| already in existence built in the last 15 years that don't
| have the capability.
| carapace wrote:
| Thanks for the information. I really appreciate it.
|
| Both of these drones were flown multiple times (five or
| six times per month) over dense residential areas. I
| doubt these folks were serious scoff-laws, just
| inconsiderate. Like I said, I wouldn't mind so much if I
| could see and talk to the operators. I like drones and I
| have seven or eight myself.
| eulers_secret wrote:
| You do know you don't own the airspace over your house, right?
| The drone operator is operating within the law and you do not
| have a _right_ to talk to them.
|
| I'd stop flying over your place, but I have friends who would
| laugh and tell you to pound sand - then they'd fly over your
| place a few more times for fun.
|
| Remote ID won't solve this either, it doesn't apply to drones
| <250g. You're going to have to just deal with it.
| carapace wrote:
| > If you fly over private property, this is trespassing, and
| you can receive a punishment of up to $2,500 in fines. If
| it's a second-time offense or more, you can actually face
| jail time in addition to large fines. If you use your drone
| to harass someone, the victim can file a restraining order
| against you. Again, drone laws by state can be quite
| different, this is strictly California's regulations.
|
| https://www.thedronelogic.com/drone-laws-by-
| state/california...
|
| > Keep your drone within sight. If you use First Person View
| or similar technology, you must have a visual observer always
| keep your drone within unaided sight (for example, no
| binoculars).
|
| https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=2.
| ..
|
| > The drone operator is operating within the law
|
| No. I checked and the law is that they must be within line-
| of-sight. These two drone were both flying all over a
| residential neighborhood and the operators aren't in line-of-
| sight.
|
| > you do not have a right to talk to them.
|
| That makes no sense. Of course I have a right to talk to
| anyone.
|
| > I have friends who would laugh and tell you to pound sand -
| then they'd fly over your place a few more times for fun.
|
| Then we would have a _serious problem._
|
| > You're going to have to just deal with it.
|
| No one wants that.
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| > You do know you don't own the airspace over your house,
| right? The drone operator is operating within the law and you
| do not have a right to talk to them.
|
| A landowner in the United States owns the air space above
| their land up to the height that the FAA has classified as
| Navigable Airspace in that area, generally either 500ft or
| 1000ft. Flying over someone's property below that height is
| trespassing, and after a good faith effort to identify the
| trespasser and inform them to stop trespassing, the landowner
| is entitled to destroy the drone (for example with buckshot)
| or report the trespassing to the police for investigation.
| cronix wrote:
| > A landowner in the United States owns the air space above
| their land up to the height that the FAA has classified as
| Navigable Airspace in that area, generally either 500ft or
| 1000ft.
|
| > the landowner is entitled to destroy the drone (for
| example with buckshot) or report the trespassing to the
| police for investigation.
|
| Citation?
|
| > But today the FAA in response to my questioning confirmed
| that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited 18
| USC 32. That statute makes it a felony to damage or destroy
| an aircraft.[1]
|
| > the statute also prohibits interfering with anyone
| "engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft" and
| carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Since drones
| are considered aircraft, threatening a drone or a drone
| operator, according to Ms. Alkalay, would also be a federal
| crime subject to five years in prison under this same
| statute.[1]
|
| [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/04/13/faa-
| confi...
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| From the cited (18 U.S.C. 32):
|
| > Amendments to 18 U.S.C. SS 32 enacted in 1984 expand
| United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to
| include destruction of any aircraft in the special
| aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil
| aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate,
| overseas, or foreign air commerce.
|
| The special aircraft jurisdiction in question requires
| the aircraft to be "in flight", where the definition of
| "in flight" oddly enough depends on the aircraft having
| "doors".[1]
|
| A plain reading of the statute indicates that it does not
| apply to unmanned aircraft unless they are engaged in
| interstate commerce. But I am not a lawyer.
|
| > engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft
|
| Perpetrating a crime like criminal trespass or harassment
| is by definition not an authorized operation of any
| aircraft.
|
| An FAA advisory on the topic [2] claims broad authority
| to supersede local regulation, but is careful to refer
| only to "navigable airspace", and notes that
|
| > Laws traditionally related to state and local police
| power - including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass,
| and law enforcement operations - generally are not
| subject to federal regulation.
|
| I should have been more careful in my wording in the
| above comment. What you can and cannot do to a
| trespassing unmanned drone operating below the navigable
| airspace ceiling on your property is going to depend on
| the applicable state and local laws. For example, most
| municipalities have laws against use of firearms within
| city limits.
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-
| resource-manual...
|
| [2] https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/medi
| a/UAS_F...
| prawn wrote:
| This is inline with recent changes in Australia. Here, there is
| an in-person training/accreditation process (costs a few thousand
| dollars) required for large drones and flying near controlled
| aerodromes, etc. Otherwise, you undertake a very simple online
| test that is just about impossible to get wrong. I dislike many
| impositions but it's not taxing at all for anyone making money
| with their drone.
|
| There'd be virtually no checks/enforcement though. I have flown
| thousands of times and never been chased up over anything. I know
| 10+ commercial drone operators and only one of them has ever been
| queried about his flying, and that was by marine parks
| authorities because they thought he'd flown in a conservation
| area (he knew the area very well and was a couple of metres
| outside it...).
| airhead969 wrote:
| The US isn't and doesn't work like Australia. No nanny state,
| TYVM.
|
| Fly a low-mass, little toy around, the government wanting you
| to get a license and track you like you're operating a nuclear
| reactor is absurd.
| enticeing wrote:
| Remind me in which way the licensing/permitting process for
| drones is at all similar to the licensing/permitting process
| for a nuclear reactor. I'm certain that a nuclear reactor
| takes much more than a 30 minute course to operate.
| bdamm wrote:
| The requirements for nuclear plant operators are quite a bit
| more burdensome than the new rules for drone operation.
| Flying a drone doesn't even require a drug test! Not the same
| at all.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Can't reply to parent, so I'll add my response here to
| illustrate what "quite a bit more burdensome" looks like.
|
| I don't know the requirements for operating a nuclear
| reactor, but here's the requirements to operate a water
| treatment plant:
|
| * A degree in engineering, environmental engineering,
| chemistry, physics from an accredited school.
|
| * Pass a licensing exam
|
| * For operating larger plants, a minimum of X years
| experience working at smaller plants first.
|
| * After getting your license, you're required to have N
| hours of continuing education requirements before you can
| renew your license. Something like 10 hours / year.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I might as well as an off topic questions here:
|
| 1. I recently moved and now have a sizable chunk of land attached
| to a much larger sized chunk of city-owned land which includes a
| huge open field. Seems like the perfect place to fly a drone.
| Will it be fun doing this or is this a thing that I would get
| bored from shortly after dropping serious money on it?
|
| 2. Are drones that follow you any good? Would love to do a video
| of myself riding a motorcycle while a drone follows me.
|
| 3. Any recommendations for a good beginner drone that isn't
| $1000?
| nanidin wrote:
| I think of my drone less as something fun to do, and more as a
| flying camera. Photography can be fun, but it involves a bit of
| planning. You will most likely get bored of flying in the same
| location over and over.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| 3) get a tiny-whoop style micro. They are generally under the
| weight requirement around a 100 bucks but are super great
| platform to learn on.
|
| They don't have all the fancy stabilization and idiot proofing
| that you might get with a dji style drone, these drone types
| came more from the RC/Racing community.
| wantsanagent wrote:
| This is just to build a national database of drone users right?
| plank_time wrote:
| You already have to register your drone after purchase.
| somehnguy wrote:
| No you don't. You were required to register _once_ as an
| operator, but the same ID number can be placed on any number
| of drones.
|
| I have been building & flying for about 6 years now,
| personally I don't bother with any of this stuff. Instead I
| just follow what should be common sense rules and have yet to
| have any issues.
| theli0nheart wrote:
| You only need to register with the FAA for drones that weigh
| over 250g.
|
| https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/register_drone/
| airhead969 wrote:
| _You only need to register knives longer than 2 "._
|
| is still an absolutely absurd imposition.
| [deleted]
| theli0nheart wrote:
| Not absurd at all. There are good reasons for it. People
| don't throw knives outside in random directions--nor do
| they "malfunction" in the way an electronic device can.
| Nor do knives require a manual to understand how to use
| them.
|
| At some point, a line _does_ need to be drawn. Drones can
| be dangerous in unpredictable ways, outside of the
| control of the operator.
| yellowfish wrote:
| more likely it's so there's a legal ability to prevent someone
| from flying drones around if they are causing problems
| RIMR wrote:
| How _Orwellian_ /s
| bgorman wrote:
| This is worrying. The FAA was never created to regulate drones.
| Hobbyist pilots have been safely flying RC planes for decades. We
| need to return regulatory power to legislators, not unelected,
| unaccountable bureaucrats. Another example is the FCC- an agency
| created to regulate radio is now attempting to regulate internet
| service providers!
| DiffEq wrote:
| They were created to regulate airspace and when you have people
| flying drones into planes and helicopters at airports then
| someone needs to step in.
| bgorman wrote:
| If someone wants to intentionally fly a drone into restricted
| airspace, this will not stop them.
|
| Furthermore, your claims about the FAA being created to
| restrict airspace is revisonist at best.
|
| https://www.faa.gov/about/history/brief_history/
| DiffEq wrote:
| So it is not revisionist. Airspace rules, in large part, is
| what creates the safety. And of course it is not going to
| stop malicious people. But it will create cooperation so
| accidents risk is reduced and it allows for one to be
| punished if they disregard the rules and are caught.
|
| It is against the law for people to play on the Interstate
| highway and I am sure you would have a problem with it if
| it wasn't and some kids decided to go build a fort in the
| middle of one.
| FlyMoreRockets wrote:
| The FAA grew out of the Air Commerce Act of 1926 to ensure
| commercial development of aviation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_role_...
| bgorman wrote:
| How are recreational drone pilots "commercial aviation"?
| pininja wrote:
| The course can be found here [1]. The FAA designated 16
| organizations to make materials for it, and we can take it from
| any one of them.. I look forward to reviews comparing them and
| finding the best one.
|
| [1]
| https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/knowledge_test_u...
| kfarr wrote:
| I just did this one in about 20 mins after seeing this post:
| https://trust.dronelaunchacademy.com/
|
| It was genuinely helpful to understand the regulations and the
| multiple choice test was easy. It did not however create a
| certificate so I did a pdf screenshot to save on gdrive in case
| I need it sometime later.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-24 23:02 UTC)