Model airplanes have been a threat to airplanes since they became popular in 1915. Yes, 100 years ago. So why regulate them beyond the existing regulations now? A better question is "What changed?"
Anyone who owns a quad copter of the type they show on various stories about this, knows they are a pain in the ass to fly in high wind environments. Even with 9DOF IMU assisted station keeping a stiff wind will blow them around.
So why now? Why haven't people complained about 1:10 scale jets they fly around at RC plane meetups? Those things are fast and can fly straight through a gust of wind.
This program isn't about "danger to aircraft", this program is entirely about identifying the owner of a R/C model and being able to jail/fine people who don't agree to link their model to their identity. That ownership link is essential in prosecuting the right person when their model photographs something that someone else doesn't want photographed, whether it is a celebrity sunbathing topless in their back yard or police officers beating down protestors. Its about identifying the owner of one of these devices when they are used in the commission of a crime, whether it is unlicensed surveillance or simple burglary. Its about identifying the owner of the R/C model that just crashed into your sports car and scratched the paint.
None if the prosecutions can be cost effective if the perpetrator can argue that it is plausibly not their R/C model. And having hundreds of identical models sold? Sure anyone could have been flying that particular unit as it buzzed your beach house.
This program is about tying people's identities to the R/C models they operate so that they can be prosecuted when they do something that someone else doesn't like with them. It is couched in terms of "safety of aircraft" because that is a narrative that the general public can get their head around, however the risk to aircraft is already "priced into" the existing regulations.
Those regulations have been around for a long time and have been effective at keeping planes safe. When people violate them, they do selective enforcement to remind folks the regulations are there. A good example of regulation that succeeds in its goal.
Adding the forced identification thing is the red herring here.
I have been flying all manner of R/C planes and helicopters for about thirty years. I have planes that will do 120 MPH with the motor off, weigh in the order of 8 lbs and have a wingspan of 2.4 meters. I have helicopters with 10,000 W power (peak) systems that come in at over 10 lbs. I used to have model turbine jets that could rip across the sky at nearly 200 MPH.
What's the difference?
The difference is that for as long as I can remember no model airplane hobbyist would even think about the idea of flying one of their aircraft anywhere near full scale aircraft, airports, around fire-fighting aircraft, over crowds, around buildings or at altitudes that could represent danger to full scale aircraft.
That is the difference. And it is huge.
The other is the American Modelers Association (modelaircraft.org). I have been a member for over 30 years. Which, among other things, also means I carry a one million dollar insurance policy covering any damage I may cause while flying my aircraft. My teenage son is an AMA member, he too is covered by a one million dollar policy.
In order for this insurance policy to provide coverage the modeler has to abide by AMA rules, which, among other things, requires you to fly at AMA sanctioned club locations. Clubs, just like the one where I fly, are located such that model aircraft activity will not pose danger to people an property. Clubs have rules beyond those of the AMA. We have safety officers, etc.
Oh, yes, the AMA requires you to label your aircraft with your AMA member number, your name and contact information. In other words, you are accountable for what you do.
You also needed training and skill to fly. At most clubs you can't just buy a plane and go flying, you have to be certified by the club instructor or established members or trained and then certified.
In other words, flying R/C aircraft has always had a degree of professionalism, care, consideration, responsibility and enough procedures and rules to not put anyone in danger.
What has changed, then, is that any moron can now buy a flying device that can be flown with almost no skill. As you indicated, it is hard to fly some of these models in windy or gusty situations. And that's not necessarily because of the model. I fly gliders in 50 MPH winds all the time. I fly my R/C helicopters in gusty Santa Ana conditions all the time. There's a dedication to training and skill building that comes with the hobby. Joe Quadcopter couldn't give a shit. He just wants to fly it over the beach and take pictures. He has zero interest in becoming a good pilot.
The manufacturers could not give a crap about how they are used, therefore, they do not educate their customers at all. And, of course, either out of ignorance or lack of caring, Mr. Joe Moron thinks nothing of taking his brand new DJI quadcopter up to 1,000 feet right above a park full of kids, neighborhood homes or the local news helicopter because, well, it's cool, it has a "return home" feature and it is perfectly safe, physics be damned.
So, yeah, if you ask me, those morons need to be identified and they need to be made responsible for their actions. Here's what's going to suck: These morons are the very people who will absolutely, positively NOT register and absolutely, positively NOT have any ID or registration number on the machines they fly. People like me, who have enjoyed the hobby for decades without placing anyone or anything at risk are the ones who end-up paying the price for the morons.
What I find really ironic is that this is EXACTLY, to the letter, the same scenario we have with guns. Law abiding citizens never hurt a sole. Criminals and crazies do. And everyone ends-up paying for it with the exception of those who truly need to be kept away from them.
I am not necessarily bothered by the registration. I am already 100% identified in every single one of my aircraft. If I crash one anywhere, whoever picks it up will have my AMA membership number, name and phone number. So, registering with the FAA is not a big deal. What pisses me of is that, just like guns, this is going to do exactly ZERO to stop the crazies, morons and criminals. Zero.
Now however you can put a camera on a quad-copter (or buy one with one) on an image stabilized mount, and take HD movies of areas you couldn't get too before. That has really irked / woken up some people. All without any training and only a bit of practice. That is what changed that people have asked the FAA to "fix."
God yes. This is so true. Learning to fly an R/C heli is such a huge time investment. Repairing your R/C heli when you jam parts of it into the ground wasn't cheap, either.
It's not like drones are risk free - quad copters are like hockey pucks floating in the air and can easily drift or fall.
But that said, considering how many of them are in private hands and what most owners actually do with them, the registration requirements are completely onerous.
You don't register to shoot off a model rocket at the park, you don't register to hit a baseball at the park, and it's accordingly totally not clear why you need to register to fly a small aircraft at the park when it's pretty much going to stay lower than maybe two and half telephone poles.
Actually, you do if you'll exceed a certain height or if your rocket engine is larger than H (or perhaps I) class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_rocket_motor_classificat...
Additionally, there are many stories regarding how current drone operators either ignore common sense regarding where to fly, or make mistakes that put planes in danger, or whatever. You can simply google "airline drone near miss" to see examples. Just because people theoretically could act in an intelligent manner doesn't mean we can rely on them to actually do so.
Ok, that's a bit pedantic - search for "airliner drone near miss".
But what are we talking about re: "near miss" here? The phrase itself defines as no actual impact. How many actual problems are we talking about here, vs "close but no harm done"? I'm just trying to bracket the issue.
I expect the absolute distances considered critical for drone operations to be smaller, but still significant.
The level of scrutiny involved in aviation safety is very impressive. I’m not actually involved in the field myself, but find the human factors and systems engineering involved in keeping the skies safe to be very interesting. NTSB and CAA incident reports make fascinating reading!
Many of the hits describe the specific near misses, thus answering your question.
But the question about how many actual problems we are talking about is missing the point. Drones are at an inflection point. People have been flying them for decades as a hobby (they were called "radio control airplanes" back then) without issue, but they're set to become far more popular, far more available, and far easier to use really rapidly. The question is not so much how many problems there are today, but what it'll look like in five or ten years, and how we can get ahead of any potential problems now.
close but no harm done
Are you serious? This is an airplane we're talking about. I don't care how close you think you are or aren't when you're flying your toy around the airport. I don't want the pilot of my airplane to be distracted by your asshat-ery no matter how much distance you think you have from the airplane.
Care to guess whether that was a zero or non-zero distraction as I passed the affected area?
Drones, not so much.
Or, rather, it's a great rationale if you have an agenda that needs more political support than it would otherwise be able to garner. It's not hard to imagine why governments would be utterly terrified of a civilian population with widespread drone ownership and ongoing development.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/03/drone-sighting-jfk-ai... http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/14/politics/white-house-drone-arr...
etc.. these are not hard to find. Now actual compendiums are being done, but I couldn't find the raw data. The FAA says it has gathered "more than 650" reports: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=83445
As a pilot, I do not see this as being surprising. People are doing dumb things with drones, just like pilots did dumb things with airplanes in the '20s and '30s, leading to the precursor of the FAA and the creation of the airspace system.
But the real reason for registration is so that when there is an accident involving a drone and someone on the ground, such as a person shooting down a drone, the owner of the drone can be identified.
Finally, if a drone gets involved in my airplane's propeller, it will probably be diced into chunks so small you'll never find all the pieces. However the propeller and engine will need to be rebuilt, at a cost of $20,000+, so you can bet that I'll be on the ground looking for those bits so I can stick that insurance claim.
I find the community attitude here to be completely insane. Regulation isn't necessarily the answer, but the general theme here seems to be "regulation isn't the answer, because there's no risk of collision, and a small aircraft colliding with a 3lb drone at 150MPH won't suffer any damage anyway."
The incidence does need to be looked at. I think we blame drones for all sorts of things that are not drones these days.
This being HN, more likely it's "all regulation is morally evil".
If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules and I hope they get fined.
Also, this is why most aircraft have insurance...
Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction.
Also, if an airplane pilot is flying below 1000' AGL, not only do they have a large, highly visible tail number that will identify them... they're also putting their own life at risk.
On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to. There was an incident in the news just a few weeks ago: http://kron4.com/2015/12/06/california-highway-patrol-helico...
They don't have a set "in stone" one like fixed wing aircraft, but if you go buzz a few homes for no reason the FAA will still throw a fine your way. Additionally whirlybirds don't want to operate too low as it substantially reduces their emergency landing sites even with auto-rotation.
> On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to.
Which is fine, if they're below 1000 feet, and aircraft aren't allowed to fly below 1000 feet then there is no issue.
The only issue with drones is when they exceed 1000 feet, or are in controlled airspace (airports, events, emergency situations, etc).
I'll add that there are many airports inside class G airspace (the formal definition for what people call "uncontrolled airspace").
For approaches to any airport, there is an exemption to the FAR 91.119 minimum altitudes "except when necessary for takeoff or landing".
So by no means does being outside controlled airspace (in class G airspace) and under 1000' keep you separated from aircraft who are following the FARs.
Most of these "drone sightings" being reported are near airports since that's when aircraft are flying low. There have also been cases of idiots taking drones up several thousands feet and encountering aircraft further from airports.
The very first line of what I said is: "If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc)."
Your insurance quip is rather ridiculous, unless they've come out with a whole new class of life insurance.
It was a response to the above about the cost of repairs, nobody said anything about someone dying (except you).
Thing is, model aircraft hobbyists have been -for the most part- safely and responsibly flying RC aircraft for nearly a hundred years. These fliers haven't had any FAA registration requirement, and have not been required to put identifying information in their aircraft.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around -and doing great good- since 1936. It has encouraged the development and nurturing of a culture within the model aircraft pilots' community that highly values safe, sane, and reasonable operation of model aircraft. One of the big ways that they do this is by chartering local model aviation clubs.
Every store I'm aware of that specializes in model aircraft will -when you purchase an RC aircraft from them- steer you towards your local model aircraft club. This lets you know that there are folks who can train you (and let you get hours or months of fun from your new toy, rather than seconds), and lets those folks train you so that you learn how to not a hazard to yourself and others.
It's a damn shame that so many retailers that sold "drones" failed to point their customers to their local model aviation club.
So, anyway. People have been -entirely legally- flying aircraft that are substantially heavier, substantially faster, and -potentially- substantially more dangerous than "drones" for many, many decades. Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now is that the majority of folks then [0] were encouraged to learn how to operate their toys safely, and took the time to do so.
[0] And when I say "then", I don't mean to imply that this effort is not still ongoing. The AMA is still around, and doing its damnedest to reach the drone-flying yahoos who are endangering themselves and others with their reckless behavior.
While I tend to side with the less regulations side of things, I can also see how there is a gap in the regulations here.
> ...[the issue is] that the price point for model aircraft has dropped so substantially that they can't keep up with it anymore...
I'm not entirely sure that that's true. If I'm remembering my prices correctly, you've been able to get started in the hobby for a few hundred dollars for a long while.
My theory: Helicopters are substantially cooler than fixed-wing aircraft, and can be flown in really small spaces. However, they are hard as fuck to fly [0], mechanically complex, comparatively expensive, fragile, and prone to breakage. Now, quadcopters with computer-controlled motors are substantially cheaper and more durable than RC helicopters, and can -crucially- be flown by anyone who has at least half a brain and one hand... just press the "up" lever and away you go! The time investment barrier to entry has dramatically been lowered, making the hobby approachable by every yahoo who lacks the patience to ask "Am I using my toy in a safe and sane manner?". [1]
It's very clear that the AMA hasn't been able to get major retailers to do what the downtown airplane store reliably does. It -IMO- isn't a matter of keeping up with demand, but rather influencing big players (who previously would never have stocked RC aircraft) to help steer newcomers into the preexisting training program.
> ...the increasing amount of people who are misusing them and Amazon, Google, etc. that want to create drone flight paths has forced the governments hand.
This seems like an ideal situation: Commercial operators are regulated by the FAA, and are required to register their craft, file flight plans and whatever. Commercial operators should always be subject to some degree of regulation and oversight. Hobbyist operators who are a member of a model aircraft club (or were a member in good standing for $A_WHILE in the past) are obligated to follow FAA, AMA, and club guidelines and are liable for violations of FAA general regulations regarding interactions between model and full-scale aircraft, but are not required to register themselves or their craft with the FAA. Hobbyist operators who aren't and have never been associated with a club? If the danger that the FAA is reacting to is real and not overblown media-driven hysteria, require them to register with the FAA and ID their craft until they can either pass a training course to demonstrate that they're responsible, or they join a local model airplane club and get trained.
Like I said, it's pretty clear that the training provided by model airplane clubs has enabled folks to safely and responsibly regularly fly substantially more dangerous aircraft than most any quadcopter. The training provided by these clubs works.
It's a shame that the FAA seems to feel that it suddenly needs to make folks who are part of a very successful, long-standing nationwide flight training program submit to pilot registration and aircraft identification.
[0] I mean goddamn _fucking_ hard.
[1] Don't get me wrong, here... making the hobby more accessible and lowering barriers to entry is good. Model aviation is fun, largely wholesome, and can be a gateway drug to things like woodworking and aerospace engineering. ;) However, it is -IMO- dreadfully important to leave the "learn how to operate your toy in a way that doesn't endanger yourself and others" barrier intact.
But thanks for the example of clueless drone advocates, who just want what they want because they want it.
At first I thought the various posts calling some drone operators morons were being harsh. Now I don't.
Where on earth did you read that? Yes, the rule is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2,000 feet when over a congested area, but when not flying over a city, minimum altitude is 500 feet.
Why did you ask me and then quote the exact regs back verbatim? Why ask a rhetorical question with the implication that I am wrong if your very next sentence is going to confirm that I am indeed correct?
As you yourself said, 1000 feet is the minimum allowed in most normal situations. You can go fly over the desert at 500 feet if you wish, but drones won't be an issue out there.
Can we get an elaboration on this? I understand pilots being very skittish about things moving anywhere too close (as in "if I can perceive it, it's too close"), but is there a brighter line between "objectively problematic" vs "hysterically paranoid"? I assume the Parrot Bebop drone I want is over 250g, and don't see the reasoning for registration when I'm not stupid enough to operate it anywhere close (however construed) to a potential manned aircraft flight path.
How sure are you that you know all the relevant things?
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?...
Adding additional things to spot in the air, especially slow moving objects like drones, demands focus and divert attention away from flying. Other airplanes in the air are fine to spot because they move quickly, and in unrestricted airspace, generally communicate on a universal radio channel. Drones have none of these capabilities and are essentially high flying birds to avoid.
In non-urban spaces, airspace above 500ft is always a potential manned aircraft flight path.
The only place where pilots should be close enough to the ground to hit a quadcopter are near airports, where quadcopters are already banned.
This is a non-issue. Pilots are complaining about nothing. They did the same thing with lasers a few years back. Civilian diode lasers have such a high divergence that they pose no risk to a pilot more than a few thousand feet off the ground, but pilots kept fear mongering and claiming that we needed to ban lasers everywhere. Again, the only vulnerable locations were airports.
There is a subconscious line of reasoning a lot of people in The States (and I assume similar nations) get that goes something like: "If I'm allowed to buy/build this, and I can't see any glaring safety issues, there must not be any."
That actually seems like a reasonable thought, despite the logical fallacy that "if I can't see any problem, there must not be a problem".
Unfortunately, another line of reasoning may soon be common, "X seems safe, but I better double check with the government to ensure I wont face several hundred thousand dollars in fines and years in prison if I do this."
I have flown kites higher than I ever would a model drone, and they are heavier and take up more space because of the string. Of course, I was a child at the time; kites are primarily a cheap children's toy. Even so, better watch out for those several hundred thousand dollar fines. Even if its safe and reasonable, better just double check.
Impressive. Humpty Dumpty should've called these guys.
Learn the rules of operating safely, don't be dumb, you'll be fine. If all you do is play with drones recreationally you're not going to run afoul of the rules.
The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high (which isn't easy for a lot of off the shelf drones to start with), or flying in areas where they obviously shouldn't be to start with (rescue situations, controlled airspace, etc.)
The things that are going to get people in trouble are flying their drones way too high
The people flying the drones aren't getting themselves into trouble. They're getting others into trouble. They themselves are perfectly safe. They're dumping a huge externality onto anyone who flies in an airplane.
I assumed that was the context of the discussion of this thread.
We live in an open society. If we need to choose between these two activities, we can have a referendum or plebiscite. The general public can decide. Some people will vote in favour of a small, entitled minority who want to play with a dangerous toy without responsibility. Others will vote in favour of the continuation of general air transportation, which we have had for about 100 years. We'll see how that goes.
1) The "regulations pilots observe" by default give them absolute priority over _all_ airspace without limitation, even though the vast majority of "general air transportation" does not require that. Why is the airspace at 500 feet above my local park "reserved" for "general air transportation"? Sure, maybe once a decade or so a police or news helicopter ventures into that space, but only because they're coming from the assumption that nobody else has any right to be there. I question that assumption.
2) "The general public can decide" has a similar problem. "The general public" couldn't care less whether _my_ choice of potentially dangerous hobby is deemed illegal or not. How many of "the general public" voted in favour of, say, knitters being allowed to carry "potentially dangerous knitting needles" on commercial flights? Are grandmothers a "small entitled minority"? Claiming that public votes for things small groups of people want to be allowed to continue doing are the "right and democratic way" to decide regulations is shortsighted and demonstrates ignorance of the way people are.
I don't claim there are _zero_ risks associated with "drones", but I'd like the discussion and regulation to be a lot more driven by the actual risks and their relative likelyhood and seriousness compared to many other perfectly acceptable things.
There are lots of things that people are regularly injured or killed by: http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Let's just keep "drones" in perspective, and not kneejerk react to "new things".
49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
The FAA is doing exactly what that law directs and compels them to do. Don't like the law? There's a process to change the laws.
I'm a pilot, and I'm not happy about the proposal to register all drones, but I certainly understand the FAA response to the large increase in drone popularity and increased conflicts between drones and aircraft.
I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't" and "irresponsibly". It's probably easier to say as follows: when you're playing in the sandbox, you play nice with other kids. Here, when you're playing in the air, you have to play nice with other things in the air. The fact your toy is tiny and easy to use doesn't change the fact that you're still playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.