White House wants to let law enforcement disable civilian drones

[shegeek72]

"...the FAA is drafting new regulations that force some (if not all) smaller consumer drones to broadcast their identity and location for law enforcement purposes."

White House wants to let law enforcement disable civilian drones

 

[danno02]

"...the FAA is drafting new regulations that force some (if not all) smaller consumer drones to broadcast their identity and location for law enforcement purposes."

White House wants to let law enforcement disable civilian drones

Can you imagine the police knocking on your door because someone complained about your alleged peeping drone? “...well sir, the drone identified near or at the location of the complaint is registered to you”.

 

[Kirby Johnson]

"...the FAA is drafting new regulations that force some (if not all) smaller consumer drones to broadcast their identity and location for law enforcement purposes."

White House wants to let law enforcement disable civilian drones

Well if that becomes the case, then we will just hack our drones to be invisible. It's not rocket science. OR...the existing world of drones without this feature will become much more valuable as this new technology ripples down into new product. Remember the forced upgrade a while back which caused all sorts of problems? There is a two line hack in the hosts file which disables that snottiness. It has been shown over and over that even the best big brother and major corporations can muster is no match for the hackers of the world.

 

[shegeek72]

I wonder what DJI, and other UAV manufacturers, think of this proposal?

 

[N017RW]

I wonder what DJI, and other UAV manufacturers, think of this proposal?

Your guess as good as mine but I’d lean towards ‘them’ not condoning improper use and that’s good for their business.

 

[JohnWebb332]

I use an app called “Flightradar24” that shows me active radar of every flight in the air with the exception of small unmanned aerial systems. Why should drones over .5 lbs that could damage a manned aircraft not have to transmit its location?
It is a matter of safety.

I have never understood why people would have a problem registering there drone unless their intentions were less than honorable. If you have a valid reason for not, please explain. I am interested in understanding other points of view.

 

[JohnWebb332]

Btw, I am a part 107 Certified Commercial UAS Pilot that appreciates those that fly safely.

 

[Wilbur]

I use an app called “Flightradar24” that shows me active radar of every flight in the air with the exception of small unmanned aerial systems. Why should drones over .5 lbs that could damage a manned aircraft not have to transmit its location?
It is a matter of safety.

I have never understood why people would have a problem registering there drone unless their intentions were less than honorable. If you have a valid reason for not, please explain. I am interested in understanding other points of view.

Someone briefly touched on it up above. I'm not Part 107 Certified, but I am a responsible pilot. I notify airports if I'm within 5 miles, stay under 400 feet (unless next to a tall structure), and don't fly over crowds. And I generally just try to be smart about it. However, I've seen videos of police trying to confiscate someone's drone simply because of a neighbor's complaint. A large percentage of the population doesn't view drones in a very positive light. I don't want to get in a situation where I did nothing wrong, but still risk getting a citation or my drone confiscated simply because of someone who is paranoid. If they can ID drones remotely, that just ups the chances of that happening. And I know some people will say, "If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Sadly, that's just plain not true. Also, with how convoluted the laws are right now, it could be pretty easy to be breaking a rule without even realizing it.

 

[BigAl07]

I use an app called “Flightradar24” that shows me active radar of every flight in the air with the exception of small unmanned aerial systems. Why should drones over .5 lbs that could damage a manned aircraft not have to transmit its location?
It is a matter of safety.

I have never understood why people would have a problem registering there drone unless their intentions were less than honorable. If you have a valid reason for not, please explain. I am interested in understanding other points of view.

FlightRadar24 ONLY shows you aircraft that are being actively tracked by ATC. If you're not in an area fairly close to ATC there very well might (probably are) aircraft flying freely and not under ATC Flight Following. Read the information below and pay attention to the items in red (my formatting) as this could make a HUGE difference:

Flightradar24 aggregates data from three sources:[3]

1. Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). The principal source is a large number of ground based ADS-B receivers, which collect data from any aircraft in their local area that are equipped with an ADS-B transponder and feed this data to the internet in real time. The aircraft-based transponders use the GPS and other flight data input to transmit signals containing aircraft registration, position, altitude, velocity and other flight data. Currently, about 65% of aircraft in Europe are equipped with ADS-B but only 35% in the US. For example: all Airbus aircraft are ADS-B equipped but Boeing 707, 717, 727, 737-200, 747-100, 747-200, 747SP do not come equipped and are not generally visible unless retrofitted by their operators. Typical ADS-B receivers include Kinetic Avonics′s SBS-1 and AirNav-systems's AirNav and these receivers are run by volunteers, mostly aviation enthusiasts. ADS-B signals can also be received and uploaded by a low-cost Software-defined radio, such as those based on the $15 R820T tuner.[4]
2. Multilateration (MLAT). The second major source is multilateration using Flightradar24 (FR24) receivers. All aircraft types will be visible in areas covered by MLAT, even without ADS-B, but while 99% of Europe is covered, only parts of the US are. At least four receivers are needed to calculate the position of an aircraft.[3]
3. Federal Aviation Administration. The shortfall in the US is mostly made up from 5 minute delayed data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) but this may not include aircraft registration and other information.

So keep the above information in mind if you're using this (or any flight following Ap) because you're only seeing a slice of the pie not the whole thing. I'm a manned aviation pilot and fly a LOT of the time W/O flight following and well below RADAR levels in my area of the country.

 

[BarryWilson]

Someone briefly touched on it up above. I'm not Part 107 Certified, but I am a responsible pilot. I notify airports if I'm within 5 miles, stay under 400 feet (unless next to a tall structure), and don't fly over crowds. And I generally just try to be smart about it. However, I've seen videos of police trying to confiscate someone's drone simply because of a neighbor's complaint. A large percentage of the population doesn't view drones in a very positive light. I don't want to get in a situation where I did nothing wrong, but still risk getting a citation or my drone confiscated simply because of someone who is paranoid. If they can ID drones remotely, that just ups the chances of that happening. And I know some people will say, "If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Sadly, that's just plain not true. Also, with how convoluted the laws are right now, it could be pretty easy to be breaking a rule without even realizing it.

Wilbur,
You sounded very responsible until you said you fly below 400ft (unless next to a tall structure). If you're flying under recreational rules you can not fly above 400ft AGL unless in an emergency (e.g. avoidance of a manned aircraft). That doesn't mean in the normal course of flight you approach a building, tower or redwood tree that you have a right to fly over it. You have to go around it while maintaining VLOS. You can't use an observer to extend VLOS. So now you have a reason to obtain a Part 107 Certificate. A Remote Pilot can overfly a structure by no more than 400ft if they remain within 400ft of the structure. Think of it as a cylinder 400ft around and above the structure as a licensed pilot.

You can gain a lot by at least studying for your Part 107 even if you don't want to pay $150 to sit for the exam.

 

[flockshot]

I use an app called “Flightradar24” that shows me active radar of every flight in the air with the exception of small unmanned aerial systems. Why should drones over .5 lbs that could damage a manned aircraft not have to transmit its location?
It is a matter of safety.

I have never understood why people would have a problem registering there drone unless their intentions were less than honorable. If you have a valid reason for not, please explain. I am interested in understanding other points of view.

Just so you know, there are thousands of airplanes with no transponder, no radio, and no electrical system what so ever. These planes have no way to identify themselves, and never have.
As for the apps, radar service below 400ft is very limited. I doubt that you will find any app that even claims to show every flight in the air, because they can not.

 

[Wilbur]

Wilbur,
You sounded very responsible until you said you fly below 400ft (unless next to a tall structure). If you're flying under recreational rules you can not fly above 400ft AGL unless in an emergency (e.g. avoidance of a manned aircraft). That doesn't mean in the normal course of flight you approach a building, tower or redwood tree that you have a right to fly over it. You have to go around it while maintaining VLOS. You can't use an observer to extend VLOS. So now you have a reason to obtain a Part 107 Certificate. A Remote Pilot can overfly a structure by no more than 400ft if they remain within 400ft of the structure. Think of it as a cylinder 400ft around and above the structure as a licensed pilot.

You can gain a lot by at least studying for your Part 107 even if you don't want to pay $150 to sit for the exam.

Thanks for the heads up. This is kind of what I was talking about in another thread regarding drone laws. When I first got my drone, I did a LOT of research into rules about flying. I didn't study for Part 107 (although I do think that would be a good idea), but I searched almost every crack of the internet for info on drones. And anytime I found the 400 ft exception, nothing was said about it being Part 107 only. There's just so much confusion out there right now. And it's not just three different viewpoints on a couple laws. It's dozens and dozens of different things being said about almost every single drone law/rule/regulation out there. Honestly, I don't even think the FAA fully gets it. I bet you'd get conflicting information depending on who you talked to there.

Also, I don't think being able to fly over 400' is really that big of a deal. There was only one instance where I did that in the past few months. So it's probably not something I'd get my 107 for. But now I know better.

 

[QuadKid]

Thanks for the heads up. This is kind of what I was talking about in another thread regarding drone laws. When I first got my drone, I did a LOT of research into rules about flying. I didn't study for Part 107 (although I do think that would be a good idea), but I searched almost every crack of the internet for info on drones. And anytime I found the 400 ft exception, nothing was said about it being Part 107 only. There's just so much confusion out there right now. And it's not just three different viewpoints on a couple laws. It's dozens and dozens of different things being said about almost every single drone law/rule/regulation out there. Honestly, I don't even think the FAA fully gets it. I bet you'd get conflicting information depending on who you talked to there.

Also, I don't think being able to fly over 400' is really that big of a deal. There was only one instance where I did that in the past few months. So it's probably not something I'd get my 107 for. But now I know better.

I have my 107, and still have to abide by the rules of 400' AGL, I can fly at greater altitudes but absolutely require a waiver to do so.