The FAA is trying to turn my hobby into a criminal act.

[Ferno]

If this becomes law, people like me will not be able to fly any RC aircraft. That extends to multirotors and fixed wing tools that are being used for search and rescue.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... c_rule.pdf

Documentary on civilian "drones" and their usage for search and rescue.


Read and respond to the FAA here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComm ... -0396-0001

[flip]

If this passes, I get the feeling we are going to have a sky full of drones soon and they are reserving those frequencies for themselves and eliminating interference at the same time. You would think they would want even lower frequencies to facilitate greater range though.

[flip]

Just think about this. I was watching a program the other day of these drones have been rendered almost completely silent, so they can fly within 200 feet or so without anyone being able to hear them. Now, what if the were to start using this too:

[youtube]5BvzktPxdg0[/youtube]

[CDN_Merlin]

if a model aircraft operator endangers the safety of the National Airspace System,
the FAA has the authority to take enforcement action against those operators for those
safety violations.

Um, am I missing something? Isn't this only if you violate airspace like near an airport?

[snoopy]

*Caveat* I skimmed the FAA document.

It looks like they're explicitly trying to segregate "business" use from "recreational" use, and are aiming to keep recreational use legal and unregulated as long as you don't do stupid things like crash into planes up there. Furthermore, I don't get the impression that they want to completely shut down commercial use of "drones," they just want to regulate it which seems reasonable to me.

I guess it's a question of picking your poison: Do you want the FAA having their fingers in your hobby (it looks like in an attempt to protect you), or do you want Amazon flying drones all over the place with no regulation?

[woodchip]

Or do you want drones peeking into your bedroom windows.

[flip]

The way I read it is that you can no longer fly rc planes over the horizon out of sight or have cameras on them for recreational use. Effectively gives a defined airspace which is line-of-sight only and illegal to use fpv.

[Tunnelcat]

Or do you want drones peeking into your bedroom windows.

I wonder if it would be legal to shoot one down with a shotgun loaded with steel pellets if I caught it peeking into my windows? I've got some transom windows in my living room that would be perfect viewing for some creep peeping Tom's drone. If I saw at, I'd be pissed enough to try a little anti-craft interdiction.

[woodchip]

It would be thing if the drone was high flying over my property. OTOH, if it was at house level I would consider it criminal trespass and blast it.

[callmeslick]

It would be thing if the drone was high flying over my property. OTOH, if it was at house level I would consider it criminal trespass and blast it.

if this happens, please submit video.

[Ferno]

Item #1 is correct provided we understand the word “visible” to mean what the statute implies: all
the visible area surrounding the pilot (i.e. the sky not obstructed by trees, buildings and people).
The remaining items proceed from an incorrect substitution of “within visual line of sight” to a
meaning more like “having current visual focus.”

Item #2 prohibits the use of safety devices which could make tracking a distant aircraft easier.
Such devices could even assist the operator with finding an aircraft which has been visually lost.
Pilots do make mistakes! There is no basis for including this as an implication of “line of sight”.

Item #3 apparently allows for the use of an FPV spotter but prohibits allowing that user to also
operate the model aircraft, which is nonsensical. Models can and often do have more than one
operator. There is no reason to disallow one of the operators from using an FPV perspective. A
second operator flying using a first person view has the potential to dramatically increase the
safety of model aircraft flight.

Clearly there is a concern about the use of first person video systems to pilot model aircraft.
This concern is unfounded. Aircraft flown from the first person perspective are much more
easily controlled than aircraft flown from a distant vantage. Users of R/C training simulators
typically begin with a first person view then progress to the much harder task of controlling the
aircraft from a ground­based vantage point.

To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement
would preclude the use of vision­enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision
goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a
“first­person view” from the model. Such devices would limit the operator’s field of view
thereby reducing his or her ability to see­and­avoid other aircraft in the area.


Tunnelcat: If you did such an act, the owner of the aircraft would have carte blance to press charges against you.

[flip]

"thereby reducing his or her ability to see­and­avoid other aircraft in the area."

Lol, just imagine what happens when people start knocking "invisible drones" out of the sky. There's got to be a way to mitigate that risk.

[woodchip]

Tunnelcat: If you did such an act, the owner of the aircraft would have carte blance to press charges against you.

Might want to recheck that Ferno. Using a piece of equipment to commit a illegal act (peeping in windows), I don't think allows for the person to file suit for the destruction of said equipment. Secondarily I don't think the owner would file charges as he then makes himself known as the criminal.

[Will Robinson]

Makes perfect government sense. Besides, If any one worthy of it really needs relief they can buy themselves some wiggle room...see your nearest Congress person for a convenient payment plan.

[snoopy]

Might want to recheck that Ferno. Using a piece of equipment to commit a illegal act (peeping in windows), I don't think allows for the person to file suit for the destruction of said equipment. Secondarily I don't think the owner would file charges as he then makes himself known as the criminal.

Uh... what's illegal about peeping into windows? Is it also illegal for me to look across my street and see the couch inside my neighbor's house?

Flying the equipment onto some else's private property might constitute trespassing, which may allow you to take "reasonable action" to address the trespassing, but I doubt that destroying the thing right off the bat would be considered reasonable.

[callmeslick]

Might want to recheck that Ferno. Using a piece of equipment to commit a illegal act (peeping in windows), I don't think allows for the person to file suit for the destruction of said equipment. Secondarily I don't think the owner would file charges as he then makes himself known as the criminal.

Uh... what's illegal about peeping into windows? Is it also illegal for me to look across my street and see the couch inside my neighbor's house?

no, but going onto their property and looking in is considered illegal most places.

[woodchip]

A pediatrician was caught looking at his neighbors 13 year old daughter while she was undressing and got busted it for it. So I suggest you re-think your position on peeping in windows is not a crime.

[sigma]

I do not see any reason for concern about the increasing number of unmanned aerial vehicles. It is even will fun If I will see unmanned droid around my village, I'll just go to my neighbor, who is director of a private security agency, and which has an arsenal of firearms, I'll take a shotgun, a pair of pistols and rifles and I'm just going to practice shooting at unmanned droids as for hunting ducks And what is most beautiful, it will be with impunity! For shooting droids do not even need a license!

[Tunnelcat]

A pediatrician was caught looking at his neighbors 13 year old daughter while she was undressing and got busted it for it. So I suggest you re-think your position on peeping in windows is not a crime.

Uh, it's a little more murky than that woody. If a person is on your property looking through the window, it's illegal. If that person is standing on public property and can see what's going on in your window because you have no curtains, it's NOT illegal. The operative phrase is "reasonable expectation of privacy". If your open window is visible from a public sidewalk or other common area or even your neighbor's house, that does not violate that expectation because you expect someone will be able to look in. Put up curtains. But if that window is viewable only by physically stepping onto your property, then it's illegal.

Now with a drone, that's where we don't really have laws that don't address that issue. Technically, hovering in the air above your property is not ON stepping foot on your property, yet most people with back yard or high up windows not viewable by a neighbor expect some privacy. So I'd say that in those instances that you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and I'm betting flying a drone using a camera in that instance is illegal. I'd shoot the damn thing down.

[flip]

That's funny Sigma! TC, first off, you can't shoot down what you can't see and I doubt any one of us would be aware of it was there anyways. Maybe at best you might catch a glimmer of some movement if you were looking for it, but who's gonna spend all their time looking for invisible drones! It's like I said before, the only real safety these days from those in power is to have the moral high ground. That's just how people are. They always look for something to tear people down, cut them to size, well if your are more righteous than them it's gonna be real hard to overcome the law of good and evil. Have to make stuff up then I guess

[Tunnelcat]

If it gets right up to the window, it's toast!

[flip]

Hah, I just thought about something else that makes a lot of sense. You know how people are in general and American's in particular. If the government does have plans to sur-veil the American Public, how many people do you think would go and buy RC planes and helicopters to chase them down, video them and then put it on YouTube! Hell, I'd be the first too. This effectively makes it a criminal offense to do that.

[Tunnelcat]

In America, that wouldn't stop anyone.

[Tunnelcat]

Oops.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Poli ... l?mobile=y

[Ferno]

Tunnelcat: I saw that earlier today. While it's quite spectacular, behaviour like that should be covered by the AMA (academy of model aeronautics).



The thing that people seem to forget that shooting any aircraft down is already covered by other laws, as shown here

Whoever willfully…sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcne ... al-prison/


The big reason that this FAA memo is such a problem is it is contrary to what Congress has already established for model aircraft.

The other big thing is it effectively grounds any and all types of model aircraft. Currently, all model aircraft are restricted to a height of 400 feet. And the FAA prohibits any and all aircraft from being within 500 feet of any public. Third, if any remotely controlled aircraft can't be within 500 feet, it becomes necessary to have onboard equipment to monitor the flight, and also to avoid other aircraft. Something the FAA is trying to prohibit. Not to mention that "natural vision" precludes glasses, binoculars or any other vision-enhancing aid.

So, if you have an aircraft that cannot go higher than 400 feet, can't be within 500 feet of anyone, can't have any onboard equipment, and a person can't use any vision augmentation, that effectively grounds all model aircraft.

More information, from the RCAPA: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2202659

Video about this whole debacle:

The FAA has extended the comment deadline for 30 days. Read the memo, read the responses, and then comment there.

[roid]

odd thoughts: perhaps this will encourage people to use telepresence to fly their craft outside of FAA juristiction.

Sit in your loungeroom and fly your FPV RC planes in Canada, by wire, over the internet.
I'm assuming the FAA has no jurisdiction in Canada where you are Ferno, but if i'm wrong, then one can go further, mexico? doesn't matter - just as long as there's low lag.
And speaking of lag, the situation may end up encouraging more intelligence to be onboard RC craft, to do things like lag compensation. ie: it could accelerate development of true drones (ie: semi or fully autonomous) in the community, which could be the last thing the FAA wants (, who knows what bureaucratic arses ever really want).

Perhaps we'll have designated 24/7 special RC flying zones, like parks, but all away from common air-traffic highways.

Anyway, sorry to hear about this guys, RC is cool. Hopefully if you do get fucked over by the laws, they won't last long.

[Ferno]

No, the FAA doesn't have any jurisdiction in canada, but that's not to say Transport Canada won't follow suit.

I just hope the FAA sees sense from people who are involved in the hobby. Otherwise, it could set a very strict precedent for other countries.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, if the drone is within reach of my nasty little hands, the operator doesn't see me and it's over my property, it's going down. Sue me.

But that Seattle drone made me think of something. What would happen if someone of a terrorist persuasion loaded up a drone with some C4, flew it over the Space Needle and detonated it right next to all those happy waving people sitting under the glass eating their dinners in the restaurant? Don't you think someone's worrying about that scenario?

[callmeslick]

A pediatrician was caught looking at his neighbors 13 year old daughter while she was undressing and got busted it for it. So I suggest you re-think your position on peeping in windows is not a crime.

from his property or elsewhere? Was he convicted?

[callmeslick]

A pediatrician was caught looking at his neighbors 13 year old daughter while she was undressing and got busted it for it. So I suggest you re-think your position on peeping in windows is not a crime.

who's property was he on when looking? And, was he actually convicted?

[woodchip]

"A veteran Ann Arbor pediatrician who investigators said watched out his bathroom window as a 12-year-old neighbor changed her clothing in her walk-in bedroom closet pleaded no contest Tuesday morning to a felony charge of surveilling an unclothed person."

So yeah he was in his own house

[Ferno]

Well, if the drone is within reach of my nasty little hands, the operator doesn't see me and it's over my property, it's going down. Sue me.

nah, you won't be sued. however, you'll serve a minimum ten years.

Also, if you guys want to talk about privacy issues, start another thread. this isn't the place.

[callmeslick]

"A veteran Ann Arbor pediatrician who investigators said watched out his bathroom window as a 12-year-old neighbor changed her clothing in her walk-in bedroom closet pleaded no contest Tuesday morning to a felony charge of surveilling an unclothed person."

So yeah he was in his own house

wow, sort of invasive. Now, mind you, what he was doing was WAY creepy, but at my house, we have things called blinds and curtains that effectively prevent the shocking sight of Mrs Slick or myself naked from presenting itself......one would think that using such is the responsibility of the changing clothes......or their parents' responsibility.

Thanks for the update.

[Spidey]

I thought exposing your naked body to the public was the illegal part. And why the hell would anyone plead guilty to looking? I would make the prosecution prove it.

Prosecution: Were you looking out a window?
Defendant: Yes.
Prosecution: Was there a naked girl in a nearby window?
Defendant: I didn’t notice, there may have been.
Witness: I saw the defendant looking at the naked girl.
Defense: Then you also saw the naked girl?
Witness: Yes.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, if the drone is within reach of my nasty little hands, the operator doesn't see me and it's over my property, it's going down. Sue me.

nah, you won't be sued. however, you'll serve a minimum ten years.

Also, if you guys want to talk about privacy issues, start another thread. this isn't the place.

If they have the space. I doubt that. They can't even find space for the druggies. Plus, I wouldn't destroy the drone. I'd make it damned hard for the pilot to get it back and make sure the police get called during the fracas. That way, I'd find out the identity of the pilot.

[Ferno]

why are we talking about privacy issues again?

[roid]

Well, if the drone is within reach of my nasty little hands, the operator doesn't see me and it's over my property, it's going down. Sue me.

But that Seattle drone made me think of something. What would happen if someone of a terrorist persuasion loaded up a drone with some C4, flew it over the Space Needle and detonated it right next to all those happy waving people sitting under the glass eating their dinners in the restaurant? Don't you think someone's worrying about that scenario?

Yeah, a lot of this type of legislation in the past has always been "to stop people making cruise missiles", but it seems to me to be a rather head-in-the-sand reaction. The tech has progressed much further since then, doing this stuff is even easier now.
IIRC there's still laws in USA making it illegal to sell "autonomous aircraft". It's typically gotten around by selling the hardware as usual, and then offering the software as a free 3rd party download (eg: ArduPilot), so they can say you "made it yourself".

Some years ago a pulse-jet rocket engine enthusiast down in NZ started a project to make a cheap guided cruise missile (under a thousand dollars or something, i can't recall). One of his stated reasons was to embarrass the government into reforming it's laws and threat assessments of hobby UAVs. He was showing how easy and trivial it is for anyone to make a cruise missile, and wanted the government to acknowledge this.
They acknowledged it all right. He was doing nothing illegal though so he couldn't be charged. But soon enough he was very harshly tax audited and it threw a spanner in the works.
He did finish the project, but had it tested by a 3rd party in secret so as to not open himself to more of that sort of "i'll show you what power is you little peasant" unofficial government payback. Basically, the government would rather pretend the problem doesn't exist than acknowledge how vulnerable it's facilities are to such attacks. Also there was implications that entrenched military weapons manufacturers were pushing the action, that his cheap missiles could cause the public to question the nice little multi-million-dollars-per-cruise-missile revolving door government-friends gravy-train they had going, but that was all a little more vague.
I don't actually want anything done, to pepper our societies with point-defense installations would be terrible. But i hate security-theater (ie: "that problem doesn't exist, i'd much prefer you were scared of this other overstated problem instead, LIQUIDS ON PLANES OMG") even more. i'd prefer we all (as a society) just acknowledge that ★■◆● happens and we can't live wrapped in cotton wool.