Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government Toys United States Politics Your Rights Online

Drones Under 2kg May Be Set Free Under Forthcoming FAA Rules (suasnews.com) 103

garymortimer writes: The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is establishing an aviation rulemaking committee with industry stakeholders to develop recommendations for a regulatory framework that would allow certain UAS to be operated over people who are not directly involved in the operation of the aircraft. The FAA is taking this action to provide a more flexible, performance-based approach for these operations than what was considered for Micro UAS. The committee will begin its work in March and issue its final report to the FAA on April 1.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Drones Under 2kg May Be Set Free Under Forthcoming FAA Rules

Comments Filter:
  • by Longjmp ( 632577 )

    ... (FAA) is establishing...
    The FAA is taking this action...
    The committee will [...] issue its final report...

    Uhm. Yes, and? Poor submission. Sorry.

    • by theM_xl ( 760570 )

      So upgrade your tinfoil hat to a hardhat when at a concert or in some other crowd someone may want to film, because there's going to be a good risk of untrained idiots flying 2 kilos of weight around. Likely high enough that it's going to really, really hurt when it falls down and you're under it.

      • by Longjmp ( 632577 )
        You misunderstood. I wasn't referring to the subject itself (I'm a hobby RC pilot myself), but to the submitted post as you can read above.
        It's based on speculation without any reference to why this speculation is justified.
      • by kbg ( 241421 )

        This just shows exactly how America is really messed up. There is going to be massive regulation framework for the operation of a 2 kilo drone. But the operation of a gun with massive more kinetic energy doesn't require any regulation.

        • Guns are dangerous and everyone knows it. Pools are even more dangerous but too few people seem to care. That's why far more children drown to death in the US every year than in accidents with weapons. A 2 kilo drone seems too much like a toy, so, many people may fly them carelessly, thence the need for regulations. I'm not advocating against gun regulation, but some drone must be put in place.
          • by kbg ( 241421 )

            Guns are dangerous and everyone knows it. Pools are even more dangerous but too few people seem to care. That's why far more children drown to death in the US every year than in accidents with weapons.

            All the gun nuts always bring up the "swimming pool argument" whenever someone brings up gun control. Here is why this argument is stupid:

            1) There is actually a lot of regulation for having a swimming pool. In Europe at least there are building regulations that require among other things that private swimming pools be elevated from the ground specially so that young children don't fall in.
            2) You can't fly the swimming pool or stick it in your pocket when going outside. It is restricted to a certain location

            • Get away from guns? That's as easy as going to a gun-free zone. Duh.

            • Guns are dangerous and everyone knows it. Pools are even more dangerous but too few people seem to care. That's why far more children drown to death in the US every year than in accidents with weapons.

              All the gun nuts always bring up the "swimming pool argument" whenever someone brings up gun control. Here is why this argument is stupid:

              1) There is actually a lot of regulation for having a swimming pool. In Europe at least there are building regulations that require among other things that private swimming pools be elevated from the ground specially so that young children don't fall in.

              I'm not advocating against gun control and I was talking about the US. Anyway, even with regulations in place, there are still more accidents with pools than with guns, because responsible parents don't let their guns at a kid's reach. They know that guns were created for killing and they don't want any killing to happen near their children.

              2) You can't fly the swimming pool or stick it in your pocket when going outside. It is restricted to a certain location. Usually private. 3) Swimming pools actually have a valid purpose. They are used for swimming lessons and are not designed to kill people. you might argue that they are dangerous when used for recreation, but then you always have to option of choosing of not going to a swimming pool. With guns you can't do that.

              That's why people tend to consider swimming pools as completely innocuous, and because of that, a parent may not see a problem in leaving children unattended near a swim

              • by kbg ( 241421 )

                even with regulations in place, there are still more accidents with pools than with guns,

                Then what is needed is more regulation and more monitoring. We still need to have swimming pools for teaching but we don't need more guns for killing.

                There is no problem if drone regulation comes before gun regulation in the US.

                The problem is that there will never be any gun regulation in the US. In 50 years there will still be regular mass shooting in the US.

          • Ah, but what about drones carrying guns? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
        • Bicycles kill more in 1 year than mass shootings in 15 years.

          • by gfxguy ( 98788 )
            Interesting. Do you mean more people are killed on bikes, or that bikers kill more (pedestrians, presumably)? My dad was hit by a bicyclist and suffered a world of hurt for it.... and, of course, the woman riding the bike didn't have "bicyclist" insurance, so my dad got nothing.
            • http://www.breitbart.com/big-g... [breitbart.com]

              FTA

              "Death statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coupled with crime statistics from the FBI show that bicycle and falling deaths far exceed deaths from “mass shootings.”

              For example, on September 24 the FBI released a study showing there were 64 incidents of “mass killings” (mass shootings) for the years 2000 through 2013. The gunmen in these incidents took the lives of 418 people."

              • by kbg ( 241421 )

                What? Did you just use a stupid Breitbart article where bicycle deaths and falling down are lumped together and compared them to mass shootings?

                1) The mass shootings are just a tip of the iceberg. You can't just single those instances out and compare them with ridiculous things. You have to compare it at least with gun killings in general.
                2) How in the world are we supposed to stop falling down accidents? Ban gravity?
                3) You do realize that most bicycle deaths are because those on the bicycle where hit by a

          • by kbg ( 241421 )

            Are you telling me that people riding bicycles actually hit and kill more people than all of the gun killing? I seriously doubt that. Citation needed.

        • This just shows exactly how America is really messed up. There is going to be massive regulation framework for the operation of a 2 kilo drone. But the operation of a gun with massive more kinetic energy doesn't require any regulation.

          If you really think that, you're seriously misinformed.

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          This just shows exactly how America is really messed up. There is going to be massive regulation framework for the operation of a 2 kilo drone. But the operation of a gun with massive more kinetic energy doesn't require any regulation.

          You can blame the founding fathers for that, for you should know the second amendment strongly limits what any government can do regulating firearms.

          Especially since the NRA transformed itself from an organization dedicated to elevating the skill level of riflemen from "can't

        • by mccrew ( 62494 )
          Guns probably aren't a good basis for comparison, as their status is enshrined in the Constitution. So like it or not they get an automatic pass. Toy helicopters - I don't like calling them drones because that seems to stoke public hysteria - not so much.
          • by kbg ( 241421 )

            And that is exactly why America is messed up. Either the 2nd amendment needs to be revoked or it should be clarified to only allow muskets as it was originally intended.

  • I watched some of the initial drone racing promotional videos and thought cool but kind of ignored them.
    Since that time there's been many more videos come out and I'm beginning to get the idea as a video game player that these things can really be appreciated by the kinda 10->50y/o crowd who grew up with gaming.

    With the FPV goggles the guys have for them, the performance of the things and the complexity of some of the 'tracks' they do actually seem kind of great.
    I wonder if these things could be this gen

  • by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Thursday February 25, 2016 @08:37AM (#51581439)
    It's the size of the swarm.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    While I'm happy to see that the FAA is starting to work on UAS regulations, they're tackling one of the most complex, contentious, and largely irrelevant aspects of UAS: flying small drones over people.

    Instead of addressing the commercial-use policies and incompatibilities with existing aviation law, they're going to tell us how much foam your drone needs to be covered with so that you can fly it over your kid's softball game.

    I can save them some time: Don't do it. Short of mandating prop guards, no amount

  • No info and an April 1st deadline? WTF /.

  • Since when has the US switched to metric?

  • We like big drones and we can't deny
    those other fellows might get by
    with an itty bitty drone with no heft or strength ....

  • See the snip below from the FFA modernization and reform act of 2012. You will see that Congress specificly FORBIDS the FFA from creating ANY new rules in regard to model/hobby aircraft. So from a legal standpoint this and the initial attempt to regulate hobby aircraft is unconstitutional. You can find the full documents @ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/... [gpo.gov]

    SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
    (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
    relating to the incorporation of unmanned air

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright

Working...