Revoking 336 Hobby Rules

[sar104]

Top Fed Makes Case for More UAS Regulation

That’s by no means an isolated incident. The DHS is making similar overtures to get authority to shoot them down pretty much at will, etc. (see other thread). Is there a great push to lock down drones solely because of potential terrorist use? No; but the possibility is thrown into every argument, as what’s going to happen if you don’t support tighter regulation. That’s the way Washington works. Throw out the worst case scenario, no matter how remote a possibility, and there’s a fear that a vote against the regulation in question can be used as a vote FOR the terrorists. Suggest to a congressman that a paper airplane can be made with anthrax-laced paper, and he’ll support banning those too. Banning a million paper airplanes in the hands of six year olds is less politically damaging than having your opponents connect you to the vote that overtly allowed the one plane with the anthrax to be legal.

That's changing the subject of this thread, which was about revoking the Special Rule. There are clearly other initiatives to address the potential use of drones by terrorists, such as restrictions around critical infrastructure, military bases etc., but those don't have much impact on the use of drones by the general public and are unrelated to the regulatory issues around the Special Rule and Part 107. I understand the concern regarding unreasonable or over-reaching regulation but I think that you are massively conflating quite separate issues.

 

[Dwilliams35]

That's changing the subject of this thread, which was about revoking the Special Rule. There are clearly other initiatives to address the potential use of drones by terrorists, such as restrictions around critical infrastructure, military bases etc., but those don't have much impact on the use of drones by the general public and are unrelated to the regulatory issues around the Special Rule and Part 107. I understand the concern regarding unreasonable or over-reaching regulation but I think that you are massively conflating quite separate issues.

“Speaking at the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) conference in Denver on Tuesday, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) general counsel Steven Bradbury left little doubt that the federal government will be moving quickly to further assert its primacy over UAS rules and regulations and impose more of them on the recreational sUAS community......

.... But if there were one major incident involving an unmanned system and a traditional aircraft or if there were a major terrorist attack in which drones were involved in carrying out a terrorist attack, I think we all understand that it would be a significant setback for the UAS industry. Those concerns cannot be ignored.”.”

How is that not pertinent?. That’s the FAA’s boss’s general counsel. He’s specifically noting that recreational drones are a target here... thus 336.

 

[sar104]

“Speaking at the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) conference in Denver on Tuesday, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) general counsel Steven Bradbury left little doubt that the federal government will be moving quickly to further assert its primacy over UAS rules and regulations and impose more of them on the recreational sUAS community......

.... But if there were one major incident involving an unmanned system and a traditional aircraft or if there were a major terrorist attack in which drones were involved in carrying out a terrorist attack, I think we all understand that it would be a significant setback for the UAS industry. Those concerns cannot be ignored.”.”

How is that not pertinent?. That’s the FAA’s boss’s general counsel. He’s specifically noting that recreational drones are a target here... thus 336.

He's noting the obvious - that if there is a major incident with a UAV, terrorist or otherwise, it would have a significant impact on the industry. How did you then jump from there to the conclusion that the proposed increased regulation on hobbyists is just to prevent terrorist attacks?

 

[Dwilliams35]

He's noting the obvious - that if there is a major incident with a UAV, terrorist or otherwise, it would have a significant impact on the industry. How did you then jump from there to the conclusion that the proposed increased regulation on hobbyists is just to prevent terrorist attacks?

Like I said.. the rampant terrorist threat is invoked every time tighter regulation of drones is proposed. In that one from the DOT, another from DHS, etc... it’s a hot button you push when you want legislation that otherwise would be considered unconscionably intrusive and overbearing on the citizenry.

Welcome to the drone “patriot act”..

 

[sar104]

Like I said.. the rampant terrorist threat is invoked every time tighter regulation of drones is proposed. In that one from the DOT, another from DHS, etc... it’s a hot button you push when you want legislation that otherwise would be considered unconscionably intrusive and overbearing on the citizenry.

Welcome to the drone “patriot act”..

That's a ridiculous comment. Noting that consumer drones could be used by terrorists (and they already have been used in the Middle East conflict zones) does not constitute "invoking a rampant terrorist threat". And there is nothing intrusive or overbearing in suggesting that the use of consumer drones that have unprecedented access to the NAS should not be almost completely protected from regulation, as they currently are. You sound completely paranoid.

 

[Dwilliams35]

That's a ridiculous comment. Noting that consumer drones could be used by terrorists (and they already have been used in the Middle East conflict zones) does not constitute "invoking a rampant terrorist threat". And there is nothing intrusive or overbearing in suggesting that the use of consumer drones that have unprecedented access to the NAS should not be almost completely protected from regulation, as they currently are. You sound completely paranoid.

A). As far as the terrorist threat, well, yes, it does... you go before Congress and use a terrorist threat as one of your selling points for whatever proposal you are pushing, you’re invoking it. That in no way specifies the actual level of threat that such poses, guarantees that it would ever happen, etc.. it’s simply there to stick it into the mind of legislators or regulators. Vote against this, and you can be certain that your opponent in the next election will bring up your “pro-terrorism vote”. That’s simply the way things work now: you can bet that any testimony before congress promoting more regulation on drones will include that little tidbit. Does that equal regulating drones as an antiterrorist measure? Rarely. It’s just a political game, and we’re caught in the middle.

The FAA has an agenda: to keep their job, just like any other bureaucrat. More regulations equal more job security. They don’t have to make sense, they don’t have to be commensurate to the level of regulation that is actually needed, it just has to provide an endless stream of paperwork that has to be processed.

B) Who the heck said anything about “completely protected from regulation? (Besides you, of course). I haven’t. My contention all along has been simply that the current system is woefully inadequate for the vast number of people that fit somewhere in between the two current levels of licensure. Are there some people whose activities would make the current 336 appropriate FOR THEM? Absolutely. The main problem, however, is the huge bloc of drone owners for which the current 107 IS excessive, overbearing, and intrusive, given their own usage. How you escalated that to advocating zero regulation whatsoever, I’ll never know..

C). Paranoid? Nope. Recognizing and being opposed to creeping overregulation doesn’t require paranoia. Some of us are just opposed to an all encompassing governmental body with their grubby little fingers in every aspect of our lives.

 

[flockshot]

For all the people who think there should be no further regulation of drones, prepare to be disappointed. For all those who believe that CBO rules will continue to provide cover for FAA violators (note: the CBO rule makers are not trying to provide cover for anyone, just their safety rules), prepare to be disappointed. For people like me who want to fly within the FAA rules, and not be hassled, we too should prepare for disappointment.

Drone rules, like drone capabilities, are in their infancy and have many changes ahead of them. The more people refuse to follow the FAA rules, the more rules there will be in the future.

In the end, we will be able to fly and enjoy our drones. Growing pains can be rough.

 

[Dwilliams35]

For all the people who think there should be no further regulation of drones, prepare to be disappointed. For all those who believe that CBO rules will continue to provide cover for FAA violators (note: the CBO rule makers are not trying to provide cover for anyone, just their safety rules), prepare to be disappointed. For people like me who want to fly within the FAA rules, and not be hassled, we too should prepare for disappointment.

Drone rules, like drone capabilities, are in their infancy and have many changes ahead of them. The more people refuse to follow the FAA rules, the more rules there will be in the future.

In the end, we will be able to fly and enjoy our drones. Growing pains can be rough.

At some point, you also have to realize just where the power to make those rules actually comes from: Congress, and the people sitting in those seats aren't going to go out of their way to make their voters mad. As far as "the more people refuse to follow...."? Sort of like Prohibition, right? So many people were drinking that they stiffened up prohibition? Well, not exactly..

This is going to be a dance between the FAA wanting to further their own reach, and Congress saying "not so fast, kiddo"... If the FAA overreaches, they'll get reined back in. Sooner or later we'll end up with something more reasonable, I wouldn't count on it being all that much more restrictive. The FAA can chicken-little this stuff all they want, people just aren't going to buy the "mortal threat to the NAS" that they're going to have to preach to further their own purview here. People just aren't seeing that the drone that they bought their kid for Christmas is going to be the cause for the downfall of society. Those people vote, too.

 

[RKBA]

At some point, you also have to realize just where the power to make those rules actually comes from: Congress, and the people sitting in those seats aren't going to go out of their way to make their voters mad. As far as "the more people refuse to follow...."? Sort of like Prohibition, right? So many people were drinking that they stiffened up prohibition? Well, not exactly..

This is going to be a dance between the FAA wanting to further their own reach, and Congress saying "not so fast, kiddo"... If the FAA overreaches, they'll get reined back in. Sooner or later we'll end up with something more reasonable, I wouldn't count on it being all that much more restrictive. The FAA can chicken-little this stuff all they want, people just aren't going to buy the "mortal threat to the NAS" that they're going to have to preach to further their own purview here. People just aren't seeing that the drone that they bought their kid for Christmas is going to be the cause for the downfall of society. Those people vote, too.

Bravo... very well said. Thank you!

 

[flockshot]

Like prohibition? I don't think so, but to each his own.

 

[RKBA]

Like prohibition? I don't think so, but to each his own.

It’s called an unenforceable law. Eventually they have to go

 

[Cellblock776]

Come on man! That’s like saying you don’t understand how drunk driving laws are going to prevent some guy from getting behind the wheel, drunk and killing people. So we might as well not have drunk driving laws? Or am I missing your point?

No. In fact, I think you helped make my point.

 

[flockshot]

I an not familiar with the argument that if we violate the laws often enough, and consistently enough, the law will go away.
I doubt that this is an effective way to push for reasonable drone regulation, but I do wish you all luck in your pursuit of forcing the elimination of drone laws, through violating them as often as possible.

 

[Dwilliams35]

I an not familiar with the argument that if we violate the laws often enough, and consistently enough, the law will go away.
I doubt that this is an effective way to push for reasonable drone regulation, but I do wish you all luck in your pursuit of forcing the elimination of drone laws, through violating them as often as possible.

It's not an issue of violating the laws into oblivion, it's simply a matter of it becoming apparent that a given law can be unreasonable: when reasonable people will willingly violate a law, the red flag goes up that the law may need changing. Thus my earlier mention of prohibition: it became apparent that reasonable people acting reasonably may very well be in violation, at some point the country recognized that and pulled the plug. Current drone laws leave a lot of opportunity for reasonable, safe flying of drones to be fully in violation of the current laws and regulations. That leaves those laws as prime candidates for getting beaten by the reasonable stick until they submit.

 

[flockshot]

It's not an issue of violating the laws into oblivion, it's simply a matter of it becoming apparent that a given law can be unreasonable: when reasonable people will willingly violate a law, the red flag goes up that the law may need changing. Thus my earlier mention of prohibition: it became apparent that reasonable people acting reasonably may very well be in violation, at some point the country recognized that and pulled the plug. Current drone laws leave a lot of opportunity for reasonable, safe flying of drones to be fully in violation of the current laws and regulations. That leaves those laws as prime candidates for getting beaten by the reasonable stick until they submit.

I don't disagree that the laws could use some work. I do disagree that breaking them is somehow a 'end justifies the means', noble cause for the good of the world.
Reasonable people don't go around intentionally breaking FAA regulations. It is incredibly unreasonable to do so. If you don't like the rules, then fight to change them, but any justification for intentionally breaking FAA regulations falls painfully short of making a convincing argument.

 

[Dwilliams35]

I don't disagree that the laws could use some work. I do disagree that breaking them is somehow a 'end justifies the means', noble cause for the good of the world.
Reasonable people don't go around intentionally breaking FAA regulations. It is incredibly unreasonable to do so. If you don't like the rules, then fight to change them, but any justification for intentionally breaking FAA regulations falls painfully short of making a convincing argument.

The question isn’t “intentionally”...it’s more often unintentionally. The guy flying in his backyard 20’ AGL and 4.99 miles from an airport... the guy that does a video of a church gathering at the request of the pastor, only to find out that he’s now “commercial”.. both are reasonable, safe, and illegal. The fact that you can do all three at the same time basically proves that the current regulations are screwed up. That’s often a recipe for those laws going away, or being at the least relaxed.

Even if those guys DO know they’re skirting the regulations: it’s still reasonable and safe behavior: the existence of an unreasonable regulation doesn’t change that, it just means that they’re willing to roll the dice on getting a rare visit or call from the FAA. Heck, the same scofflaw might even pull the tags off a mattress if his cat pees on the tag.