Drone Free, as free as the wind blows... (FAA allows commercial drones in USA)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**kronk**

fething Title: A landmark day for drone flights arrives

fething Link: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/28/technology/faa-commercial-rules-drones/index.html

fething story:

The federal government is officially opening America's skies to drones.
FAA rules for the commercial use of drones go into effect Monday.
"It's an important moment," said Brian Wynne, chief executive of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. "But it probably won't be like a light switch going on."

Interested drone pilots must pass an aeronautical exam before they are allowed to fly. The first exam will be available at 8 a.m. Monday morning, which 3,351 people have signed up to take.
The exam has generated "great excitement" from a wide range of industries around the country, according to Mark Dennehy, president of Computer Assisted Testing Service, which administers the test.
Drones are appealing because they provide aerial photos and video at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods. Potential uses include crop monitoring, construction site management, search and rescue, surveying, film-making and firefighting.
The key rules for businesses are this: Do not fly at night or over anyone not involved in your operation. Drones also may not fly higher than 400 feet, must be under 55 pounds and must remain in the visual sight of a human operator.

More than 3,000 businesses have already received a government exemption to fly.
The new rules simplify the process of flying legally. Drone operators will no longer need to receive a pilot's license, which has been a point of contention. Getting a pilot's license is expensive and time-intensive, and some of the skills taught aren't applicable to flying a drone.
The current rules include limitations that will hamper the arrival of some drone services, such as autonomous delivery. So don't expect companies to be dropping packages in your backyard anytime soon.

There is a waiver process for businesses that have their hearts' set on flying at night, over 400 feet or beyond the line of sight of a drone operator.
The new drone rules arrived late -- missing a deadline Congress set in 2012, but Wynne said he's seen the FAA adapt to the challenge of regulating the rapidly developing technology.
"It's a sea change in mentality inside the FAA to we have to work with industry on this," Wynne said. "It's a change in mentality away from the big hammer FAA to one that recognizes, 'Hey we can't be in all places at all times.'"

I cut out this related link: Domino's delivers pizza by drone in New Zealand Not only is your pizza late in New Zealand (because feth you, Dominos), but it probably gak on your neighbors house before it got to you (again, feth you Dominos).

Pardon the swearing. I discovered Ozzy Man reviews this weekend!

On topic: So, will this usher in a new age of peeping toms spying on teenagers sun bathing, or will we use it responsibly? Like peeping on nude beaches. Only time will tell.

However, if Amazon will deliver those University of Texas protesters their "equipment" via drone, then if someone tells them to go take a flying feth, they can say "I already have."

Because dildos.

**Tannhauser42**

As with all new technologies, people will find a way to be irresponsible with it and make things harder for those who do act responsibly.

**redleger**

does that mean Amazon can finally do the drone thing?

**kronk**

redleger wrote:
does that mean Amazon can finally do the drone thing?

Not likely, under the current restrictions:

"The key rules for businesses are this: Do not fly at night or over anyone not involved in your operation. Drones also may not fly higher than 400 feet, must be under 55 pounds and must remain in the visual sight of a human operator."

**redleger**

Dangit, I want my stuff delivered by drone in a speedy fashion. Damn you FAA

**Frazzled**

I for one welcome our new drone overlords and hope that one day we can use this technology to provide dachshunds with combat air capacity. Soon one day the dreaded heliwienie legions will be born. And on that day the last sanctuary of cats and squirrels (trees) will be breached.

And Wienergeddon will be upon you all.

**BrotherGecko**

I better start sending out resumes, time to put that Puma and Raven certification to work.

**Peregrine**

This is fine. At 400' you're not conflicting with airplanes (which have to stay 500' or higher except when landing or taking off), so the rule requiring a full pilot's license was pretty stupid. And it was extra stupid because it only applied to commercial operators (IOW, the people with money at stake and incentive to be responsible) and not any random idiot who buys a drone for fun. What I want to see is much stricter regulations on drone sales for non-commercial use. Want to buy a drone? Get your private drone license from the FAA (which should be as high in training standards as the private pilot's license), and when you buy that drone its GPS data is registered with the FAA so that you lose your drone privileges and go to jail for reckless operation if you break that 400' rule or fly near airports.

**Ouze**

Peregrine wrote:
What I want to see is much stricter regulations on drone sales for non-commercial use. Want to buy a drone? Get your private drone license from the FAA (which should be as high in training standards as the private pilot's license), and when you buy that drone its GPS data is registered with the FAA so that you lose your drone privileges and go to jail for reckless operation if you break that 400' rule or fly near airports.

I think it would be more feasible to do a blanket import ban on flight controllers that do not include geofencing to prevent that. The FAA does not have the manpower to police the number of noncommercial drones - they're estimating 7 million within 4 years.

The most popular consumer drones do already contain at least some geofencing provisions but they could be stricter.

**hotsauceman1**

So, what does ths man for my nephews who I bought a drone for for christmas?

**Peregrine**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, what does ths man for my nephews who I bought a drone for for christmas?

Nothing, because this only applies to commercial drone operations. Just don't let them be that

who flies their drone above 3-400' or anywhere near an airport, you could kill people doing that.

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, what does ths man for my nephews who I bought a drone for for christmas?

Nothing, because this only applies to commercial drone operations. Just don't let them be that who flies their drone above 3-400' or anywhere near an airport, you could kill people doing that.

So once again the government is worthless. The jackoffs who are using drones to be peeping toms etc can still do that. Clearly we need to shotgun a few dozen more to make the point.
Team Wienie man your battle stations!

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
The jackoffs who are using drones to be peeping toms etc can still do that.

Yes, because making a law to stop that is impossible. Like it or not there is clear precedent that things on your property that are visible from the air are not considered private. The police are free to fly over your house and see what you're growing in the back yard, etc. There is exactly zero chance of creating a law that would prevent people from flying over your property and completely shutting down air travel.

**Frazzled**

Thats what the shotgun is for, and failing that chupacabra. Fortune favors the insured!

Acually peeping tom laws protected us from your normal personal menace as you couldn't fly a helicopter 10 feet above someone's house, unless you were Mad Murdoch.

**Peregrine**

Frazzled wrote:
Thats what the shotgun is for, and failing that chupacabra. Fortune favors the insured!

So, destruction of property, reckless use of a weapon, etc. Hope you like buying a new drone for someone, at minimum.

Acually peeping tom laws protected us from your normal personal menace as you couldn't fly a helicopter 10 feet above someone's house, unless you were Mad Murdoch.

You didn't need to fly at 10 feet because full-size aircraft can carry full-size cameras. Trust me, at the minimum legal altitude of 500' you're going to have a perfectly clear view of whatever you're flying over. The only "protection" you had is that fewer people cared enough to spend the $50-100+ per hour to rent a plane and go take a look in your back yard. It's like saying you're "protected" against burglary even though you leave all of your doors unlocked because you live in a low-crime area and it's not too likely that anyone will ever check your doors.

And, regardless of what protection you think you had, you are not getting protection from drones. It is clearly established by precedent that you have no expectation of privacy for anything on your property that is visible from the air and there is exactly zero chance of the FAA allowing any ban on aircraft flying over private property. If you don't want to be seen by a drone then don't do anything outside where a drone can see you. That is the only protection you are going to get.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
So once again the government is worthless. The jackoffs who are using drones to be peeping toms etc can still do that. Clearly we need to shotgun a few dozen more to make the point.

1.) Consumer drones don't have cameras with the ability to zoom. Despite how popular this misconception is, they are not useful platforms for peeping on anyone.

2.) The FAA has repeatedly held that they consumer drones are aircraft, and regulate them as such. Shooting at aircraft is a felony, even before we get into firearms laws and reckless endangerment.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
I for one welcome our new drone overlords and hope that one day we can use this technology to provide dachshunds with combat air capacity. Soon one day the dreaded heliwienie legions will be born. And on that day the last sanctuary of cats and squirrels (trees) will be breached.

And Wienergeddon will be upon you all.

Cats and squirrels? I thought Dachies were all about badgers?

**oldravenman3025**

2029 A.D. is getting closer everyday......

**kronk**

Would this be classified as a drone or a weapon?

**oldravenman3025**

kronk wrote:
Would this be classified as a drone or a weapon?

Top secret weapon of glorious technology of Russia.

**Frazzled**

Peregrine wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats what the shotgun is for, and failing that chupacabra. Fortune favors the insured!

So, destruction of property, reckless use of a weapon, etc. Hope you like buying a new drone for someone, at minimum.

You must be fun at parties with that sense of humor. One would have thought the notation concerning chupacabra would have given it away.
Besides I know a pig farmer. There won't be anyone around to sue me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
So once again the government is worthless. The jackoffs who are using drones to be peeping toms etc can still do that. Clearly we need to shotgun a few dozen more to make the point.

1.) Consumer drones don't have cameras with the ability to zoom. Despite how popular this misconception is, they are not useful platforms for peeping on anyone.

2.) The FAA has repeatedly held that they consumer drones are aircraft, and regulate them as such. Shooting at aircraft is a felony, even before we get into firearms laws and reckless endangerment.

They don't have to zoom if they are only ten feet overhead.

2.) The FAA has repeatedly held that they consumer drones are aircraft, and regulate them as such. Shooting at aircraft is a felony, even before we get into firearms laws and reckless endangerment.

Then they need a pilots license to fly an airplane. What if I shoot them with a chupacabra?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I for one welcome our new drone overlords and hope that one day we can use this technology to provide dachshunds with combat air capacity. Soon one day the dreaded heliwienie legions will be born. And on that day the last sanctuary of cats and squirrels (trees) will be breached.

And Wienergeddon will be upon you all.

Cats and squirrels? I thought Dachies were all about badgers?

Sometimes you have to prioritize. We'll get to them later.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
They don't have to zoom if they are only ten feet overhead.

If they're only 10 feet up, they are trespassing. You do own your own airspace up until the developed part, i.e. your roofline. There already are laws for people trespassing.

If you think consumer drones are useful for peeping toms, then you simply don't understand very much about what they do, and it's more than a little silly to be more concerned with them than, say, this camera which you can buy for less than half the price and then sit in a parking lot somewhere.

**Frazzled**

I didn't say I was concerned. I said once again the government proved worthless to me. I've also concluded that shooting chupacabra at them might be the best option. Suck hot goat sucker you worthless drone peoples!*

*No Chupacabra were harmed in the making of this post.

**feeder**

This is relevant, I guess.

**Peregrine**

feeder wrote:
This is relevant, I guess.

Youngman tells As It Happens she's not sure if it was legal to shoot down the drone, but she has no regrets.

Something tells me she isn't the smartest person ever...

**feeder**

Peregrine wrote:

Something tells me she isn't the smartest person ever...

"I like to shoot, and I like to kill, so when you cross the line please stand still"
- Drone shooter Jennifer Youngman

Nope.