DRONE REGULATION

[E90RAW]

I have read many posts on the internet, and even this forum of people doing pretty outrageous things with their drones. Videos abound of hacking your drone to go higher and faster. People fly over cities or invade airspace illegally, oblivious to the law. The question that continues to pervade my thoughts as I fly my drone, knowing the implications and danger, is, how do we regulate drones?
The technology available to drones is amazing. They can do things now that we couldn't imagine not too long ago. Bad people can do bad things with a drone. But do we place more onerous regulations?
My mind immediately goes to motor vehicles. The technology has made it so that cars can go 200+mph. The speed limit here in the US is 55-75mph, yet, we continue to produce cars that can easily exceed this. Even the lowest entry vehicle can now exceed 100mph. Why haven't we regulated cars more. They are far more dangerous and can produce far more human suffering and property damage than any drone. And yet, we continue to manufacture cars that can do this. I once was passed by a motorcycle at 60+mph on the interstate during rush hour doing a "wheely" passing in between cars. Dangerous. Yes.(impressive, YES). Do we add transmitting devices to cars so that when you break the law they pick you up at the next exit, or maybe at home? License plates clearly identify most vehicles. Most drivers obey the traffic laws. We all take a class prior to obtaining a license, and prove competency. There are obvious fines and implications for those that don't. For the most part owning a motor vehicle is not cost prohibitive.(some may argue this point).

(Gun Talk isn't allowed here And was removed by Mod )​

Technology is changing the world rapidly, and the world is catching up and self adjusting. You can't stop the improvements. The more you regulate, the more it goes underground. And so, I posit the question to members of this forum, how do we regulate drones. I believe their is plenty of precedent available to guide all of us. Yes there are bad characters out there, and there will always be individuals who push the boundaries. That is the conundrum of a democratic, free society. But I believe after much thought that we cannot restrict, but instead must promote the technological changes available to drones and instead create an environment where we co exist!

 

[old man mavic]

@E90RAW the biggest issue with drones,is that very word (DRONES) the majority of the general public associate the term drones, with destruction, spying ,and being a danger to other forms of aircraft
they have been vilified in the media and their usefulness for SAR and the good things they can do in agriculture and the emergency services has not been publishcised enough
the fact that it is a new developing technology with so much potential, means that there is a fear that it can and will be put to bad use,and what we are seeing now is a knee jerk reaction by governments to appease those fears whether real or imagined

 

[PhantomFandom]

That is a good question, and one which will most likely lead to over-regulation I don't know what the best answer is and there are plenty of people weighing in with their opinions all over the world. However I would like to point out that both of your examples are deeply flawed and very much like comparing apples to oranges.

Your example of regulating motor vehicles is nothing like regulating drones. Some of the reasons:

• You must be fully licensed to drive a motor vehicle. This involves a good degree of training and a road test prior to receiving your license. As of today there is no licensing mechanism for recreational flying of drones. Even once the recreational testing mandate kicks in, it will most likely be only a written test with no practical skills test.
• All motor vehicles must be registered and identified with a license tag. Sure you could potentially drive an unregistered vehicle but the police will catch you sooner or later. Yes in the USA you "must" display the FAA registration number on the outside of your drone, but if you don't, you will most likely get away with it for a long time.
• In most states (all maybe?) you must carry a substantial amount of automobile insurance in order to drive legally. There is no such requirement for drones.
• The biggest difference in my mind is that you are a driver within an automobile. If you drive recklessly then you are putting your own life in danger. In most "normal" people the sense of self preservation will keep you from doing anything too stupid. Yes i know people do stupid things in cars all the time, but overall people try to stay alive. This is not so with drones. You as the RPIC are physically (and somewhat mentally) disconnected from the drone. It is easier for people to do stupid things because they are not sitting in the cockpit. If they do something stupid they may be putting others at risk potentially without any risk to themselves.
• Yes (not arguably) an automobile is a much bigger investment than a drone, by several orders of magnitude. This leads to two problems. First is that almost anyone can buy a drone while not everyone can afford a car. This makes it much easier for less responsible people to purchase drones. The second is that a driver will be less likely to take chances with their expensive automobile as they would with their inexpensive drone.
• The magnitude of damage is vastly different between a car and a drone. If you crash your car into another vehicle or pedestrians you are putting the lives of several people (maybe as many as a dozen?) at risk. If your drone brings down a large aircraft (yes unlikely but possible), you could potentially be killing hundreds of people.
• There is the old hypothetical question of "would you commit a serious crime like robbing a bank if you could be 100% sure of not getting caught?". The same applies here. If you cause an accident with a car, you are most certainly caught because you are in the car. Yes people do hit and run, but in general a driver is at the scene of the accident. With a drone that has no broadcast and identification mechanism, you could cause an accident and potentially never get caught. That is at the heart of the matter when discussing these proposed regulations. If both the drone and pilot are now "identifiable", it makes the RPIC really consider safety a bit more, knowing that they cannot just run away and not get caught.

As to comparing drones to guns, I am in total agreement that guns are far more dangerous to life and have caused far more death and destruction than drones likely ever will. However, you cannot compare them to drones because of:

• The rights of gun owners are protected by our Constitution. They hold a special level of protection that cannot be matched by drones. You might as well compare drones to alcohol. Yes alcohol is dangerous and kills people, but we have a long history with alcohol and constitutional battles as well.
• The gun lobby has a strong and vocal presence with the NRA and other organizations. The NRA is emboldened by our Constitution and one political party in its back pocket. Drones have no such lobbying force. You may as well compare drones to smoking. No doubt that smoking kills many more people than drones ever will, however the lobbying forces behind the smoking industry keeps tobacco legal.

So are drones in need of "some" regulation? Yes I totally believe that they do, in order to protect innocent civilians both in the air and on the ground. Is the FAA perhaps going way overboard with their proposed identification system? Yes most likely. The proposed regulations seem overly burdensome, complicated, and expensive. That is what happens when you combine bureaucrats and strong commercial interests when developing such proposals. What is the answer? I don't know.

 

[psl3]

I feel further rules is not the answer, it is more people's compliance to them and just further control hits the people that are already being Safe.
I have been droning for many years, always been considerate of safety, keeping away from people as best I can but having fun.
Since registering in the UK last year, and carefully reading every rule and ensuring at no point might I fail to meet these standards - I have only flown once since. I cannot guarantee I might have to fly past behind a tree and lose sight for a second (the rules highlight this as failing to meet the rules), I might not know there is someone walking somewhere in 50m that I missed when scanning the countryside or a outbuilding is just slightly nearer than I thought - so, with is in my mind all the time - the hobby has been killed, there is no fun anymore and the drone remains in storage and out of mind until I pay my next year's registering fee.

Would love to fly but feel grounded.

 

[zocalo]

@PhantomFandom

Note that some of this is currently going to be very region specific. For instance, the UK and a few other EU countries (everywhere in the EU from July) actually *do* require you to be registered if you are flying a drone over 250g, and that will apply to any drone with a camera in the near future. The UK also requires that you complete a basic competency test, although not all EU countries seem to have this level of testing (yet?); it's certainly not a stated requirement of the EASA regulations being implemented that there be a test, although several EU countries have implemented one.

Personally, I think that registration and at least a basic level of competency test *should* be required as well. You can quibble over the costs, appropriate level of thoroughness of the testing, and the enforcement of the law (technology like DJI's Aeroscope and the now all-but-inevitable implementation of ADS-B or equivalent by default goes a long way to making this achieveable, BTW), but they clearly can and do present a risk to persons, livestock, and structures, and there are people out there who are clearly flying in either ignorance or wilful disregard of that fact. The simple fact is that once you expand beyond requiring a certain level of dedication to a given hobby and reduce the price and necessary skills of entry to a consumer level, then you are going to get more and more people being reckless with it. It was all but inevitable that the need for accountability, traceability, and explicit removal of any hope of using ignorance as a defence was going be a question of "when" not "if"; with hindsight, we should probably have been at this point a few years ago - but that's government for you!

In terms of model, I think the automotive analogy is probably better than firearms; the general model there is competency test, individual license/ID and vehicle license/ID, and there are also advanced driving certification which would be analogous to Part 107s (US) or CofCs (UK), making it an acceptable analogy that most consumers are going to be able to get to grips with fairly easily. Driving is also generally pretty standard on an international level - valid paperwork from Country A is generally all you need to hire a car and hit the road in Country B - and that's absolutely something we should be aiming for with drones, and lobbying our respective governments to implement. Yes, criminals will continue to find a way (as they do with cars), but if we can deter the bulk of the casual infringements, or at least bring them within more moderate bounds - e.g. doing 80mph in a 70mph zone rather than 100mph+ - then that's a major step forwards in improving our image with the general public, which can only be a good thing.

( Mod Removed )​

 

[old man mavic]

I feel further rules is not the answer, it is more people's compliance to them and just further control hits the people that are already being Safe.
I have been droning for many years, always been considerate of safety, keeping away from people as best I can but having fun.
Since registering in the UK last year, and carefully reading every rule and ensuring at no point might I fail to meet these standards - I have only flown once since. I cannot guarantee I might have to fly past behind a tree and lose sight for a second (the rules highlight this as failing to meet the rules), I might not know there is someone walking somewhere in 50m that I missed when scanning the countryside or a outbuilding is just slightly nearer than I thought - so, with is in my mind all the time - the hobby has been killed, there is no fun anymore and the drone remains in storage and out of mind until I pay my next year's registering fee.

Would love to fly but feel grounded.

the drone code is just that a set of guidelines to follow,if you are 150 ft or above you are following the rules even if you fly over someone who happens to walk under your drone ,but by the same token if you were over a large gathering of people then the 150m distance rule would apply and as you are not able to fly that high you would not be able to fly over them anyway
if you feel so strongly about a fear of breaking the rules then perhaps this hobby is not for you ,all any of can do is be mindful of the rules, keep in the 400 ft airspace fly VLOS and maintain our drones and have the op no displayed and flyer ID and just carry on flying thats what i intend to do

 

[PhantomFandom]

Note that some of this is currently going to be very region specific.

Yes I do realize this and I was specifically commenting on the impending legislation here in the USA as the OP is in the USA and was referring specifically to these new proposed regulations.

Personally, I think that registration and at least a basic level of competency test *should* be required as well.

TOTALLY in agreement.

Driving is also generally pretty standard on an international level - valid paperwork from Country A is generally all you need to hire a car and hit the road in Country B - and that's absolutely something we should be aiming for with drones, and lobbying our respective governments to implement.

EXCELLENT point. This is a global society now. People can and do travel with their drones. It is an incredible tool to take with you on any trip. It is a bit ridiculous that you most all civilized countries have reciprocal driving privileges and yet you cannot fly a drone in one country even if you are certified in another. I can travel anywhere in Europe and not only drive a car but easily rent one with my USA driver's license. Think about how ridiculous it would be if flying an airplane were treated in this same manner, where a pilot's license allowed you to fly only in the country where you obtained the license. Countries should at least recognize other countries that have some form of adequate/rigorous licensing process and allow those licenses for use there.

Quite frankly, I think should try and avoid any such connotations like the plague Covid-19.

nice insertion of current events.

( Mod Removed )​

 

[tcope]

This same problem has been around forever. Lawmakers make laws. It is how they represent themselves as doing a good job. It does not matter if they understand the situation or if the law makes any sense. The balance has been the public. If the public calls them out on their actions then we see that balance. In this case the general public has no idea what laws are being made. The general public also does not understand the situation because the news focuses on the 1 flight that might create a problem and misrepresents the real danger.

Some lawmakers told people that they were worried about drones hovering outside of their window and reading documents sitting on their desk. As mentioned, they don't have a clue and don't really care. They simply want to be seen as making a law that "protects" people. The FAA is the same way. It was obvious from the start that the registration was pointless and would do nothing. Year later, that has been proven. So the FAA's answer... make more laws and then make even more laws.

There is a saying, you can't govern morality. Sometimes education is a better way of doing things. I use the bike helmet as an example. Adults are not required to wear them but they still do. Why? Because the public was educated on how important they were/are. People then realized that it was the right thing to do and more and more people just started to wear them.

 

[dirkclod]

OK guys i have removed anything related to firearm talk and let's not bring it up again !
It has no place here and will not be discussed here in any form.​

 

[Ty Pilot]

I think the OP's point about the risk to reward ratio, such as when owning a car, is what (for the most part) keeps a majority of drivers on the legal side of law. In the UAV world this is not the case.

This ratio was, for the most part flipped upside down when the modern multi-rotor came into being. Prior to that (and still to this day) there are model aircraft that; in terms of destructive capability far exceed any commercial drone when one considers mass, speed and payload capabilities. But for longest time the FAA didn't want anything to do with model aviation world or UAVs as we're termed now. This was due in part to the fact that it took skill, time, and patience as one learned to fly, and the penalties for even a slight mistake could erase a months' (or even a year's) worth of labor and turn your prized model into a pile of scrap balsa in a second. This is turn steeled your determination to do it better and pay more attention to the details of flight. You learned from those with more experience and were taught 'hands on' and if you were to grow into the hobby you had to do it right, and by the book.

Not only has this been totally erased by the modern consumer multi-rotor but; it (the modern 'drone') carries a camera to record exactly what it does. Those two aspects coupled with sites like Youtube are what have (in my opinion) brought us to the regulatory state we are facing today. Well that, plus there is corporate interest on one side and the fact that our 'governing body' such as the AMA failed miserably at the beginning of the emergence of multi-rotors to recognize and embrace this community so we truly have little to no representation

I think the hysteria surrounding 'drones' by the general public has been purposely manufactured as a means to regulate us out of existence and we did little to stop it.

By the way I just did a quick search on some numbers of deaths caused by various means per year here in the US, I find it interesting that two of the most feared are at the bottom.

Heart disease.............560,000
Flu, Common Cold.......61,000
Automobile...................37,416
Bee Stings............................61
Lightning..............................51
Corona Virus........................39
Drones...................................?

 

[Ron (MM)]

That is a good question, and one which will most likely lead to over-regulation I don't know what the best answer is and there are plenty of people weighing in with their opinions all over the world. However I would like to point out that both of your examples are deeply flawed and very much like comparing apples to oranges.

Your example of regulating motor vehicles is nothing like regulating drones. Some of the reasons:

• You must be fully licensed to drive a motor vehicle. This involves a good degree of training and a road test prior to receiving your license. As of today there is no licensing mechanism for recreational flying of drones. Even once the recreational testing mandate kicks in, it will most likely be only a written test with no practical skills test.
• All motor vehicles must be registered and identified with a license tag. Sure you could potentially drive an unregistered vehicle but the police will catch you sooner or later. Yes in the USA you "must" display the FAA registration number on the outside of your drone, but if you don't, you will most likely get away with it for a long time.
• In most states (all maybe?) you must carry a substantial amount of automobile insurance in order to drive legally. There is no such requirement for drones.
• The biggest difference in my mind is that you are a driver within an automobile. If you drive recklessly then you are putting your own life in danger. In most "normal" people the sense of self preservation will keep you from doing anything too stupid. Yes i know people do stupid things in cars all the time, but overall people try to stay alive. This is not so with drones. You as the RPIC are physically (and somewhat mentally) disconnected from the drone. It is easier for people to do stupid things because they are not sitting in the cockpit. If they do something stupid they may be putting others at risk potentially without any risk to themselves.
• Yes (not arguably) an automobile is a much bigger investment than a drone, by several orders of magnitude. This leads to two problems. First is that almost anyone can buy a drone while not everyone can afford a car. This makes it much easier for less responsible people to purchase drones. The second is that a driver will be less likely to take chances with their expensive automobile as they would with their inexpensive drone.
• The magnitude of damage is vastly different between a car and a drone. If you crash your car into another vehicle or pedestrians you are putting the lives of several people (maybe as many as a dozen?) at risk. If your drone brings down a large aircraft (yes unlikely but possible), you could potentially be killing hundreds of people.
• There is the old hypothetical question of "would you commit a serious crime like robbing a bank if you could be 100% sure of not getting caught?". The same applies here. If you cause an accident with a car, you are most certainly caught because you are in the car. Yes people do hit and run, but in general a driver is at the scene of the accident. With a drone that has no broadcast and identification mechanism, you could cause an accident and potentially never get caught. That is at the heart of the matter when discussing these proposed regulations. If both the drone and pilot are now "identifiable", it makes the RPIC really consider safety a bit more, knowing that they cannot just run away and not get caught.

As to comparing drones to guns, I am in total agreement that guns are far more dangerous to life and have caused far more death and destruction than drones likely ever will. However, you cannot compare them to drones because of:

• The rights of gun owners are protected by our Constitution. They hold a special level of protection that cannot be matched by drones. You might as well compare drones to alcohol. Yes alcohol is dangerous and kills people, but we have a long history with alcohol and constitutional battles as well.
• The gun lobby has a strong and vocal presence with the NRA and other organizations. The NRA is emboldened by our Constitution and one political party in its back pocket. Drones have no such lobbying force. You may as well compare drones to smoking. No doubt that smoking kills many more people than drones ever will, however the lobbying forces behind the smoking industry keeps tobacco legal.

So are drones in need of "some" regulation? Yes I totally believe that they do, in order to protect innocent civilians both in the air and on the ground. Is the FAA perhaps going way overboard with their proposed identification system? Yes most likely. The proposed regulations seem overly burdensome, complicated, and expensive. That is what happens when you combine bureaucrats and strong commercial interests when developing such proposals. What is the answer? I don't know.

Yes Regulate.It is going to happen.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Legislators have to justify their power and payroll so they create new problems that require creating new laws. With all the hype about dangers I'd like to see the record of crashed airplanes, injured bodies and corpses to substantiate that danger and justify spending billions of dollars to fix this problem.

 

[jmaeding]

I just don't like how the FAA charges "commercial" drone pilots $160 every 2 years, for a 1 hour test done on a computer in an office already existing for manned flight pilots. The real cost might be $10 to pay the front office person entering the data and handing me the paper with results, since we don't even get a new card at recurrent intervals. Heck, the DMV even gives you a new card when you renew.
If they really cared about safety, wouldn't they make it free to maximize numbers of people taking it?
Its all screwed up now, typical "try to govern what you can't" style, compliments of the Congress we pay for. Can't they just do nothing and still get paid?

 

[Ty Pilot]

Actually the FAA does not charge us the 150 (now 160) dollars. PSI, a private company has been given the contract to administer tests to all manned an unmanned aviation, and they are the ones charging us. I just did my recurrent and was in a room of about 16 others taking a test, most of them where airline pilots and students and I am pretty sure I was the only unmanned in there.

I sure don't know what their costs are but it occurred to me that as I sat there, I was occupying the same seat and time and attention from the proctor as anyone else so, as a business why wouldn't they charge me the same?

Still I agree it is a lot of money but I guess that is just the cost of doing business.

 

[jmaeding]

So PSI is getting the money? I get that manned piloting would require a fair amount of infrastructure and the test charge might contribute, but what do they do for drone pilots?
I am just betting all the services like LAANC and whatever are funded by things other than our test money.

 

[Droniac]

I have read many posts on the internet, and even this forum of people doing pretty outrageous things with their drones. Videos abound of hacking your drone to go higher and faster. People fly over cities or invade airspace illegally, oblivious to the law. The question that continues to pervade my thoughts as I fly my drone, knowing the implications and danger, is, how do we regulate drones?
The technology available to drones is amazing. They can do things now that we couldn't imagine not too long ago. Bad people can do bad things with a drone. But do we place more onerous regulations?
My mind immediately goes to motor vehicles. The technology has made it so that cars can go 200+mph. The speed limit here in the US is 55-75mph, yet, we continue to produce cars that can easily exceed this. Even the lowest entry vehicle can now exceed 100mph. Why haven't we regulated cars more. They are far more dangerous and can produce far more human suffering and property damage than any drone. And yet, we continue to manufacture cars that can do this. I once was passed by a motorcycle at 60+mph on the interstate during rush hour doing a "wheely" passing in between cars. Dangerous. Yes.(impressive, YES). Do we add transmitting devices to cars so that when you break the law they pick you up at the next exit, or maybe at home? License plates clearly identify most vehicles. Most drivers obey the traffic laws. We all take a class prior to obtaining a license, and prove competency. There are obvious fines and implications for those that don't. For the most part owning a motor vehicle is not cost prohibitive.(some may argue this point).

(Gun Talk isn't allowed here And was removed by Mod )​

Technology is changing the world rapidly, and the world is catching up and self adjusting. You can't stop the improvements. The more you regulate, the more it goes underground. And so, I posit the question to members of this forum, how do we regulate drones. I believe their is plenty of precedent available to guide all of us. Yes there are bad characters out there, and there will always be individuals who push the boundaries. That is the conundrum of a democratic, free society. But I believe after much thought that we cannot restrict, but instead must promote the technological changes available to drones and instead create an environment where we co exist!

Helmet. My experience sad but true 8 out of 10 MC accidents are fatal. Cool yes. Worth your life no. Then you can’t fly drones as far as I know.