HAHA: Now you need to register your drone. Why people cant have nice things.

[Attic]

The government is there to control and find reasons to sustain itself and spend more money. For all the hoopla and current election season, the core of government is not changing, it's doing exactly what its design indicates it will do. Control more, spend more. Rest assured that Hilary is the next Pres and that narratives will be built on lies and deception in order to ensure she is (similar to obummer).


Not too surprised here, but yes, obviously it is still shitty that due to government there is now a need to register your drone and you can bet your ass that fees are going to increase well beyond the rate of inflation.

 

[Preyhunter]

It has nothing to do with the radio interfering with the aircraft, it has to do with the drones colliding with the propeller or turbine and causing a crash.

I know, that's why I said to use "anti-drone" technology around airports/restricted airspace. A drone isn't likely to be at 30,000 feet interfering with flights. All of the reports I've seen about drones being in close proximity to airplanes has been during a takeoff/landing.

I still don't see how registration of drones will alleviate this problem. It's common sense to not fly drones around where airplanes will be. As someone pointed out in another thread, common sense is not common these days. It's exactly like the idiots out there shining green laser pointers at aircraft.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4961be-7664-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html

Yup like a gun. Who knows what other laws will get put in place.


This is what happens when douchebags with drones think they can just fly these next to airplanes etc.. This is why people cant have nice things, always have to screw it up by being stupid with drones.

Sooo, registering your drone means you can't have it?

Why not? Skeered to fill out some paperwork for Big Brother?

 

[trenchfoot]

I wonder if these drones could, without adding too much bulk or weight, be fitted with IFF similar to regular aircraft. They could be required to have that feature the same as other aircraft. In this way drones could all be track enabled and traceable back to the registered owner.

I guess the FAA would take on the responsibility of monitoring as a matter of practicality.

 

[Jaskalas]

Next up... spoofing the MAC address or whatever broadcast ID a drone uses... to get someone ELSE in trouble for violating restricted airspace. :ninja:

 

[BoberFett]

Sooo, registering your drone means you can't have it?

Why not? Skeered to fill out some paperwork for Big Brother?

So requiring an ID to vote means you can't vote?

Why not? Skeered to fill out some paperwork for Big Brother?

LOL, Democrats.

 

[CPA]

What exactly is the argument against this policy apart from "it will cost taxpayer money to implement"? Will it be effective at keeping people from flying drones in restricted airspace? Will it allow for identification of offenders? If it does both, then what's the issue?

Why is that there needs an argument against the policy? Is that how you approach all policies, regulations and laws? How about a common sense, logical argument for it?

 

[John Connor]

Eventually drones could be used for nefarious reasons against an airplane... I think a lot of it now is douche bags trying to get impressive video of a plane landing. A small drone striking a wing at 160 mph... hopefully just shattered plastic... but if one gets sucked in an engine that will be an expensive mess for an airline.

You can fly on one engine...

 

[Jhhnn]

So requiring an ID to vote means you can't vote?

Why not? Skeered to fill out some paperwork for Big Brother?

LOL, Democrats.

And the usual bitter duh-version.

 

[Darwin333]

You can fly on one engine...

As much as I like drones and I am torn over this, losing an engine at takeoff or landing is pretty fucking bad. At altitude sure, the pilot has a lot of altitude to handle the situation. 100' off the ground and it's a very different situation.

Personally, I would like it if it was geared more towards educating people where they can and can not be flown. A lot of people buy one off Amazon and just don't know that they can't fly them in certain places, educating those people who would otherwise be ignorant of the dangers is a fantastic thing. OTOH dealing with the .gov on just about any level is a fucking pita and is rarely free.

It is really nice to see companies like DJI that as long as you have a gps single, which is just about everyone flying one of their products unless you intentionally disable it, will not allow you to fly into restricted zones such as restricted airspace near airports. It literally will not take off next to an airport and limits your altitude (per FAA regs) the closer you get to one. It's really nice to see one of, if not THE, leader in the industry taking on the responsibility of making their products safer without having a boot on their throat. I believe if it somehow loses GPS signal and you wander into restricted airspace and GPS reacquires it will even automatically return to where it was launched and the user has no ability to override.

It sounds like a ton of programming that they didn't have to do but did anyway for the betterment of the hobby.

 

[OutHouse]

I know, that's why I said to use "anti-drone" technology around airports/restricted airspace.

fail. if you look at the landing pattern of DIA alone that is a lot of land to cover. I live about 12 miles from DIA and the planes that fly over my house are low enough that are easily within range of a drone. and DIA has many runways in different directions for winds.

what about chicago? or LAX??? not going to happen.

 

[OutHouse]

You can fly on one engine...

im pretty sure Rudder knows this.

 

[bozack]

And the usual bitter duh-version.

At least with Voter identification we get the benefit of verifying that only eligible folks can vote, with drone registration all they will do is collect a fee, create a database, and put more people on the government payroll to push the paperwork.

 

[Jhhnn]

At least with Voter identification we get the benefit of verifying that only eligible folks can vote, with drone registration all they will do is collect a fee, create a database, and put more people on the government payroll to push the paperwork.

Show us that ineligible people are actually voting in significant numbers & we can talk, OK?

Anybody with a lick of sense realizes that strict voter ID isn't any more about actual fraud than the Benghazi investigation is about what happened in Benghazi.

Anybody with the same amount of sense realizes that registering your drone isn't anything to rave about, particularly coming from people who just want to go on their usual big brother rant & probably don't even own one of the things.

 

[Knowing]

It wasn't just some idiots flying into a forest fire, it was people with drones intentionally blocking fire fighters from putting out major fires leading to significant increase in damage and possible loss of life.

Do you have a link, I don't see how such a thing would be physically possible.

 

[KK]

And the usual bitter duh-version.

Is this the best response your stupid ass could come up with? Good job.

 

[John Connor]

As much as I like drones and I am torn over this, losing an engine at takeoff or landing is pretty fucking bad.

It's not something you want, but recoverable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

 

[Genx87]

fail. if you look at the landing pattern of DIA alone that is a lot of land to cover. I live about 12 miles from DIA and the planes that fly over my house are low enough that are easily within range of a drone. and DIA has many runways in different directions for winds.

what about chicago? or LAX??? not going to happen.

DIA would be easy to spot the people flying the drone. Go out and arrest them for breaking the law. In city airports it gets more dicey.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not something you want, but recoverable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

I'm absolutely positive that really good pilots can recover from it but when you only have 100' of altitude to recover shit has a much higher chance of a bad ending than if you had 1000' of altitude. The pilots basically have to do everything right and immediately. One mistake and your toast whereas at 1,000' you can make a mistake or be slightly slower on your reaction time and still recover.

It's possible for a plane to actually land without any hydraulics using just the alternating of engine power to control all aspects of flight.


It's possible for a big ass 767 to lose all engine power (actually ran out of gas at 41K feet) and without any power at all to land the plane with minimal injuries.

It's possible for a plane to lose all engines on takeoff and completely ignoring ATC miraculously pull off a water landing in the Hudson river with few injuries.

Personally I think the first is the most impressive, not to take anything away from the others, but it was sheer luck that there was a trainer for that exact airplane on board who sat on the floor between the pilot/copilot and controlled the throttles. Is every pilot in the world capable of pulling those things off, hell no. Not to long ago a big ass jumbo jet with no mechanical problems at all came up short on freaking landing. On a perfectly clear day, with perfect visibility, low winds, no wind sheer, no rain and an aircraft that was working as it should they missed the damn runway. So while yes, it can be recovered from by some, probably even most, pilots but it's most definitely a potential loss of all life situation. Then you have smaller single engine jets and turboprops, usually from smaller airfields. Bird strikes have even known to damage helicopters and propellers on piston planes. It takes a pretty big bird but drones are getting pretty big and that trend will only continue.

Hell even if the pilot does recover the plane and circle back for an emergency landing the cost of the event would be ridiculous. We aren't just talking about an engine, the airport would suffer serious delays across the board just from the emergency landing, then I'm pretty sure they'd have to shut the runway it landed on down (possibly all of them?) to sweep for potential debris from the torn to shit engine, buying all of the passengers a new pair of underwear, etc.

PS thanks for the link, I love watching good pilots while being able to hear the actual ATC communications throughout the incident.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

I'm perfectly fine with this and for one think that it is long overdue. Being a GA pilot myself, the drone situation presents a scenario I hope to never encounter.

I have not personally encountered one (yet), but even a small drone has the potential to cause significant damage to a light aircraft... particularly if it impacts the leading edge of a wing or causes enough damage to the prop for it to come apart. Even if the impact only results in minor damage, there is nothing cheap or easy about repairing anything to do with any aircraft.

I don't think there needs to be an outright ban, but some regulation and training are highly in order.

I believe that the registration should be a one time freely transferable minimum fee just enough to cover the administrative overhead, and be tied back to a operator's license that would require a minimum amount of ground school training with emphasis on see-and-avoid, airspace, a general understanding of airport operations, and drone applicable FAA regs.
I have to believe that some basic education and a bit of accountability would have a significant positive impact on the issue at hand.

The process could be as simple as:
1) Buy your drone
2) Watch the (future) included ground school DVD
3) Go to the (future) FAA portal and create an account with your information
4) Pay your one time fee and register your drone
5) Take a quick quiz - say 20 questions?
6) Print your newly obtained drone operators license and go fly!