Toys and Games, Not Aerospace and Defense

It's a start....I think they should be registered to the owner and have some means of ID...a number , a beacon signal, something that will identify the drone and enable a trace back to the owner....

There's always this solution...

I've wondered if skeet shooting might become more popular as drone usage increased.

I agree that the drones should be registered and have an ID that cannot be disabled. In the event it is disabled/tampered with, the drone becomes inactive, i.e self destruct the CPU. I know hardliners will be able to get around it but it's getting to be just to dangerous to let these "toys" continue without some actions that can be taken against the dumb-ass owners.

Well, it does nothing to prevent collision with another aircraft, which is the primary problem pilots are worried about. That would require TCAS and that would be difficult to implement on a small drone.

RF keep out zones are a nice idea, but they will cost a great deal of money for airports and probably easily defeated on the drone by owners.

The bigger threat, in my mind, is when these drones start carrying weapons, particularly explosives.

The good news is that lightweight explosives are difficult to get.

Keep out zones are easy enough with GPS geofencing., that is if the geofence is defined...

What?

There is so little logic reality good sense in that comment that it is pitiful.

You have never encountered or heard of GPS based geofencing? Works in 3D too. 4D if you want exclusion times as well as spacial exclusion (or inclusion).

Only works if it is activated and defined (on the UAV in this instance).

Car navigation accessories geofence the car on the roads, go off road, or outside of the road's terrain database and it will alarm. Just as handheld GPS receivers will tell you if you are approaching a defined border.

They attach and lock these things onto the legs of people of interest under house arrest.

You have no connection with reality.

None.

I have not created this idea. It is real, so not sure why you think I'm way off point here.

You wrote:

Sorry but the obstacle is not approaching the drone. The drone is encroaching into the "obstacle's" space.

Any thoughts?

My thought is to utilise geofencing. Hardly outside the realm of reality.

Now if you are talking about moving obstacles then each obstacle, including your UAV will have a continuously updating geofence which will need to be transmitted to other UAVs so that they can "see" and avoid each other. Right of way hierarchy can be part of that too.

Am I still in Wonderland?

I think he has a valid point.

The idea isn't rocket science, just using onboard GPS to set up exclusion zones.

The problem is that exclusion zones or TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction) in the aviation world are dynamic as well static, despite the use of the temporary word.

The problems are going to be maintaining that database in the drone and preventing tampering with the system to override the interlocks. Both are corruptible.

The system would work virtually flawlessly if every operator was using the drone in good faith, but that is not the case with the current situation where owners and operators are willfully violating airspace or using the equipment in ways it should not be used.

Sadly, this is yet another example where a few individuals can't play nice and everyone else has to pay the price in the form of restrictions on our liberties and taxpayer money.

"Sadly, this is yet another example where a few individuals can't play nice and everyone else has to pay the price in the form of restrictions on our liberties and taxpayer money."

True. So true. Call me cynical, but I expect to turn on the news after work one day to find out that someone has put a laser on a drone and flown it up to shine the laser into an airliner's cockpit as it approached LAX.

..someone has put a laser on a drone and flown it up to shine the laser into an airliner's cockpit as it approached LAX

Well if no one had thought of it yet, you probably just gave some a$$hole an idea.

Sometimes I just think out loud. Sometimes I don't do the thinking part.

He has a valid point in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the supply of fools will always outstrip the demand in our imperfect world.

The human race is very adept at inventing new technology. The jerks are very adept at using it in ways never intended by the inventors.

GA.

So, what your saying is all you have to do is follow the rules and not perform anonymous controlled or initiated flight.

Isn't this what having all these rules is about?

Every bit tech that exploits a public resource started off as a hobby, got popular and than needed to be controlled.

Evolution man.

Are there any rules restricting drones from flying over private property?

From a safety point of view, it makes sense to restrict them from flying near airfields. But why should private citizens have to be concerned some kid or deviant may be zipping one of these things through his back yard?

You can't anymore than you can stop any RC plane.

Anyone can build their own drone, too. There are myriads of suppliers online that you can buy parts from. You can't stop or control that.

Yes. They are called TFRs and they also change daily, so maintaining that database is going to be next to impossible and it won't take much imagination for individuals to hack into the firmware (just like mobile phones and other electronic gear) or the interlocks that prevent the machine from flying.

Your association of fellow pilots is much like the self-policing amateur radio operators and I applaud your good efforts.

Unlike amateur radio policing the use of automated or remote piloted vehicles is next to impossible to control.

Of course, the cost of implementing the database will be paid for by the owners, but we also have a huge number of these machines out there that don't have any restrictive software and even if the idea was adopted today, it will be a long time before it gets on the shelves. Meanwhile we have a large number of legacy machines that can't be controlled already in the field or coming to a store shelf near you.

My goal is to build an altitude quad. But I want full support from the local tower and FAA! I want to characterize the winds to the highest altitude I can get to and then land right back where I started. Then upload all the telemetry data for the flight to the web and the tower, and hopefully get data back from the tower. I could hang a tail flag of the correct length from the machine for the tower radar to track, and we could compare notes. If I do this right before the balloonists launch, then they can have accurate wind and altitude data that they would not have otherwise.

I have to agree with Lyn though, that these knuckleheads who go out and buy a machine and just do what they want without thinking about it are a problem for everybody who wants to play nice.

But lightweight lasers are easy, and laser attacks on aircraft are a growing problem, even from the ground. Drones add a new dimension.

A new dimension in aiming, too.

You need to get one of these Lyn. Better yet, build your own. All will become clear to you then....

OK folks.

Please pay attention here.

The drone flyers who play by the rules are not the problem here!!!!

Once again:

The drone flyers who play by the rules are not the problem here!!!!

All the geo-fences and TFRs on the planet won't stop the idiots who don't care.

Same with built in safe guards. Nobody ever disabled any built-in safeguards???

Come on, get back to the real world here, where the children and fools live and build their own drone or tinker with the pre-built ones.

If anybody's still here and cares, drone rules:

knowbeforeyoufly.org

HHeh, I was going to post that but it's rather cheesy IMO. Basically just a stop gap "campaign" that the AMA and a few other associations picked up on. Then the faa kind of endorsed it.

While it is better than nothing it still only represents guidelines. FAA rules on the matter were deemed unenforceable by a judge in a case in which the FAA was trying to fine someone for $10,000 for I don't know what, but the rule was created in a more internal manner not following adminstration guidelines. I think the judge said "the rule is not ADMINISTRATIVELY enforceable."

There is a current case where someone is being charged (or they want to charge) for endangering public safety and destruction of property.

Right now I believe the enforceable rule is that any unmanned aircraft cannot operate for profit. Exemptions are being granted at the moment, but require some with a GPL, sport, and I forget the next level down licence. This is being done while the comprehensive ruling process makes its course.

The ruling is all about integrating UAV's or UAS's into the national airspace. The site linked, the AMA site, and the FAA site can be probed for the proposed ruling. I forget exactly where I downloaded it, except that it resides on the FAA site and is linked from multiple sources.

For all intents and purposes it deals with how to safely integrate all UAS's into the NAS while dancing around the FAA's long standing statute of any aircraft in the NAS needing "see and avoid" capability, which is backed (i believe) by another statute stating this capability needs to come from a pilot in the cockpit, which obviously cannot happen in an unmanned vehicle.

While this pertains to all aircraft operating in class G airspace, which is, for the most part uncontrolled. Correct me if I'm wrong, it may be class E, may be both and one more that starts at FL600 (60k feet) that's only "uncontrolled" because no civilian aircraft are capable of flight that high. It has been a LONG time since I earned my ground cert in college offered as a 1 unit course that kept me in full time status. Not to mention it was a MUCH easier A than intermediate dynamics or the like that I pushed to the next quarter. I do regret pissing away that cert instead of jhire ng Point Mugu's flying club that offered lessons @~$80/hr, wet, with instructor fees. SMH

Anyway, the proposed ruling focusses on making UAS's for hire safe while not cost prohibitive as long as certain conditions are met, and exempts the hobbyists for the most part. I think park zone flying is disappearing, as well as ducted fan models capable of breaking the speed limit, although that could change based on feedback to the proposed ruling.

Flying for hire will require knowledge tests, an operator with minimum time with a model, insurances and whatnot, the same 400 foot ceiling, a spotter, no flying over people unless they are protected, etc, etc. No air worthiness needs to be obtained, although a registered tail number, visible or not, logbooks for crashes and repairs, and I'm sure a bunch of stuff I've left out. The document is 55 or so pages.

I'm sure this evolve into UAS's having next gen transponders in the future, as this will be about the only way to truly and safely integrate the craft into the NAS. If you site search diydrones with transponder you'll find it has already been done, but is very cost prohibitive.

Alright, I know I'm rambling now. I'll just say it's an exciting but also scary time just because the FAA ruling is still "out for comment," and once it goes on the books it's not coming off. But on its face it looks like the FAA is trying to set the groundwork without killing the hobbyists and without putting insane requirements into place.

Thanks for sharing