White House Seeks More Power to Counter use of Drones in U.S. (source AP News)

[Wilson Photography]

White House seeks more power to counter use of drones in US

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is calling on Congress to expand authority for federal and local governments to take action to counter the nefarious use in the U.S. of drones, which are becoming a growing security concern and nuisance.

apnews.com

 

[thispilothere]

With all the problems going on, he concentrates on increased tracking of drones. Drones are a threat to the American people and our vital security interests - seriously.

The White House in a statement said it was critical that Congress “adopt legislation to close critical gaps in existing law and policy that currently impede government and law enforcement from protecting the American people and our vital security interests.”

 

[bmcelya]

Well, there are 55 pound drones that can carry 10 pounds of c-4, as well as a myriad of weapons. I have no problem letting the government know where my drone is and who I am. I fly a mini 2, but I suppose I could hurt someone with it if so inclined.

The problem I see is a possible lack of drone knowledge by less than federal agencies, which could result in draconian uninspired state legislation. There will be the inevitable lawsuits to settle conflicting laws. The FAA needs to have a strong organized inter-agency education program. They probably do but I’m not privy. There will be more rules, not less. Need to get the 107 before my drone falls into one of those La Brea tarpits.

 

[Korrd]

So can a car, yet I don't see increased restrictions on cars.

 

[dirkclod]

Ok guys just deleted the first post in this. Comment but Do not
get out of line with political post. I know with this type of thread
its hard not to but this is the only heads up I will post.
dc

 

[sar104]

So can a car, yet I don't see increased restrictions on cars.

There is an important difference - sensitive locations and facilities are relatively easy to protect against attack by vehicles, but it's much more difficult with drones.

 

[Skyryder]

I think the word DRONE is really the wrong thing we should be calling ourselves. Drones from a military standpoint are like small unmanned airplanes with bombs. Most of us fly quad-copters right? Maybe if we adopted that terminology more often it would help educate the general public who unfamiliar with what most UAV pilots do. But I guess at this point it's too late since we already have the FAA calling it's own website the Drone Zone.

 

[maggior]

Well, there are 55 pound drones that can carry 10 pounds of c-4, as well as a myriad of weapons. I have no problem letting the government know where my drone is and who I am. I fly a mini 2, but I suppose I could hurt someone with it if so inclined.

The problem I see is a possible lack of drone knowledge by less than federal agencies, which could result in draconian uninspired state legislation. There will be the inevitable lawsuits to settle conflicting laws. The FAA needs to have a strong organized inter-agency education program. They probably do but I’m not privy. There will be more rules, not less. Need to get the 107 before my drone falls into one of those La Brea tarpits.

When I first got into drones, I was quite surprised by the upper weight limit of 55 pounds. At least for the consumer and prosumer level of drones (photography and even FPV), this seems excessive. Perhaps it would make sense to put drones from 10 to 55 or 20 to 55 pounds in a different category. On the other hand, those looking to do bad things aren't following regs anyway.

 

[JimWest]

I don't have a big problem with government agencies or anyone else knowing where I'm flying. I think its a sacrifice we need to make to keep our airspace safe. My concern is that when lots of other agencies get a piece of regulating the national airspace that 1) lots of silly restrictions will be implemented, and more important 2) that it will become very difficult to understand where you are allowed to fly, how to get permission to fly, and so on. It's already somewhat complicated with just the FAA controlling airspace, DJI controlling whether you can turn on your machine, local governments controlling where you can operate, etc.

 

[BigAl07]

I think the word DRONE is really the wrong thing we should be calling ourselves. Drones from a military standpoint are like small unmanned airplanes with bombs. Most of us fly quad-copters right? Maybe if we adopted that terminology more often it would help educate the general public who unfamiliar with what most UAV pilots do. But I guess at this point it's too late since we already have the FAA calling it's own website the Drone Zone.

That fight was lost long-long-long ago when the MEDIA immortalized our UAS as Drones. Many of us tried to keep this from happening but the word "Drone" became the defacto term for our UAS and once John Q. Public embraced the term the battle was OVER!

 

[BigAl07]

When I first got into drones, I was quite surprised by the upper weight limit of 55 pounds. At least for the consumer and prosumer level of drones (photography and even FPV), this seems excessive. Perhaps it would make sense to put drones from 10 to 55 or 20 to 55 pounds in a different category. On the other hand, those looking to do bad things aren't following regs anyway.

Don't forget that we are talking about more than just our Mavics and Phantoms here. Larger UAS are very common at flying fields across the country in the form of large R/C aircraft. Adding additional weight classifications only complicates the process and many in our industry already feel like the regulations are overly complicated (I don't agree) as they are now. Weight classifications will complicate the rules many many fold.

 

[spamgnome]

So can a car, yet I don't see increased restrictions on cars.

Anti-lock brakes, seat belts, MPG rules, rear cameras, autonomous braking, etc....

 

[orionshooter]

I think the word DRONE is really the wrong thing we should be calling ourselves. Drones from a military standpoint are like small unmanned airplanes with bombs. Most of us fly quad-copters right? Maybe if we adopted that terminology more often it would help educate the general public who unfamiliar with what most UAV pilots do. But I guess at this point it's too late since we already have the FAA calling it's own website the Drone Zone.

I agree. This was precisely the same reasoning the gun community tried (but failed) to get gun owners to stop saying “weapons” and use “firearms, handguns, rifle etc.”. Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies.

 

[Hodge]

So can a car, yet I don't see increased restrictions on cars.

OK great thanks for bringing that up. Next agenda item is now cars.

 

[Hodge]

There is an important difference - sensitive locations and facilities are relatively easy to protect against attack by vehicles, but it's much more difficult with drones.

All of this is true but really of little value. Laws don't stop bad people from doing bad things. Restrictions only cripple people that follow the law. Additionally, if a person wanted to target something he will find a way to attack it. For example, from the news headlines themselves; when a person couldn't get a gun he used a knife, if the knife wasn't going to inflect harm at the level he wanted he used a car...
Practical laws to guide good people makes perfect sense, but thinking we can create laws that will keep a target safe is living with a false sense of security.

 

[Prop Wash]

With all the problems Potus has, he really wants to mess with drones? Huh. Who'da thunk it?

As there are a lot of people who don't like drones, especially the ones who have no clue about drones, "nefarious" would be a very subjective term. That means anyone could describe a drone as nefarious just because they think it is. Hopefully, there would be some criteria to clearly define 'nefarious.'

 

[sar104]

All of this is true but really of little value. Laws don't stop bad people from doing bad things. Restrictions only cripple people that follow the law. Additionally, if a person wanted to target something he will find a way to attack it. For example, from the news headlines themselves; when a person couldn't get a gun he used a knife, if the knife wasn't going to inflect harm at the level he wanted he used a car...
Practical laws to guide good people makes perfect sense, but thinking we can create laws that will keep a target safe is living with a false sense of security.

No - you have entirely misunderstood what this is about. They are not trying to impose further restrictions or laws that can be ignored. This is about authorizing more agencies, including state and local, to use counter-UAS equipment to protect facilities, which is currently restricted to just a few federal agencies.

 

[dirkclod]

No - you have entirely misunderstood what this is about. They are not trying to impose further restrictions or laws that can be ignored. This is about authorizing more agencies, including state and local, to use counter-UAS equipment to protect facilities, which is currently restricted to just a few federal agencies

Not like that.​

 

[bmcelya]

Ok guys just deleted the first post in this. Comment but Do not
get out of line with political post. I know with this type of thread
its hard not to but this is the only heads up I will post.
dc

dirkclod. Message received, and apologies for my political proclivities lately. I didn’t read the post you removed but the AP article is chilling. Nowhere in the Whitehouse thoughts on drones control is there any mention of consulting the two largest stakeholders: Drone makers and pilots. I find that disturbing. I agree that there are significant risks with drones concerning public safety and national security. What I worry about is unecessarily curtailing the sport from over reaction.

I’m not sure where else to talk about this except with my elected officials. Maybe the forum here could come up with a blanket statement that flyers could send to their elected officials to help educate (lobby) them on pilot perspective. As of now, we don’t seem to be included in the conversation.

 

[dirkclod]

Well to get that wrote it would have to worded right.
@Vic Moss or @BigAl07 what do you think.