×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

These Are the Companies the FAA Has Sent notices To For Using Drones

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the you're-grounded dept.

Government 136

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Just as soon as the Minnesota-based Lakemaid Beer company excited everyone by delivering beer to ice fisherman with drones, the Federal Aviation Administration ruined their fun by demanding that they cease operations. But Lakemaid isn't the only company that's been harassed by the agency. Since 2012, the agency has sent official notices to 13 companies for the commercial use of drones."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

136 comments

Slashdot BETA Sucks. (-1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#46180787)

Join the Slashdot boycot 10-17 February!

Mod parent troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181215)

Beta isn't that bad.

Nice try Timothy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181249)

God damn it if that Ex-SLASHDOT BETA user wasn't absolutely right: this red snow is to die for!!

Re:Mod parent troll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181481)

Mod parent Douchey McAssbite.

Beta is that bad, and then some. The good news, Mr McAssbite, is that you'll have this hovel to yourself for the week of 2/10 - 2/17.

slashcott, fuckbeta, whatever you want to call it, Beta sucks moose cock so hard that a park ranger needs to pull leaves out of the moose's ass. Or maybe that's your job, Mr McAssbite.

Re:Mod parent troll (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 3 months ago | (#46182219)

Beta sucks moose cock so hard that a park ranger needs to pull leaves out of the moose's ass

Canadian insults are EPIC!

Re:Mod parent troll (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 3 months ago | (#46184437)

(...) the week of 2/10 - 2/17(...)

There are only 12 months in the year, please review your date-writing skills.

(Sorry but with all this Olives and Feta, I'm missing a good troll, please feed it!!!)

Format conflict (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46184629)

IMO the date-writing skills are ok, but there seems to be a mismatch in the format used and the format expected.

And the USA does look a bit alone in the format it uses for writing dates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country

While I can recognise /. as being a US-based website and whatnot, this is still the Internet where worldwide communication and participation [is / used to be] expected [and encouraged]. So cut him some slack and know that there are 7 days from 2/10 to 2/17 (in that format), which would be the same as 10/2 to 17/2 in other formats, maybe even yours.

Re:Mod parent troll (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#46181567)

The douche bag is mining karma.

Re:Mod parent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181661)

Is there any wonder why there are so many "Foes" on your F"friend/Foe" list? It's because you're a fucking ASSHOLE.

Re:Mod parent troll (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#46182051)

I think it's a great list of the fucking retards we have here on slashdot.

But I'm a lover not a hater, so I don't put people on my foes list.

Re:Mod parent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182299)

Spoken like a true 1 MILLION Slashdot ID holder. You are of course a fucking TROLL.

Re:Mod parent troll (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 3 months ago | (#46182565)

...says the AC.

Look, I have opinions about the Beta too. But is every fscking story this week going to be non-stop comments about it?

Re:Mod parent troll (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 3 months ago | (#46184747)

I was actually going to comment on the absurdities of bureucrazy and the evolution of beer in relation to mankinds progress. Later I was going to insinuate those peopleing positions in bureucrazies were a bunch of inbred morons and we CERTAINLY dont want anymore help, protection or opinions from them.
BUT, since this is just another BETA discussion, fuck it, I dont like the beta because it doesnt display properly on my not-so-smart-phone, that I use because I find it more secure than the inaptly named smart phones. I leave you with a joke to make an analogy of;

Joe stood by the side of the road on a warm day with a quart jar of rabbit shit.
Jeff comes along, picking his nose and asks what Joe is holding.
Joe tells him it is a jar full of smart pills and offers him one.
Boy, oh boy, would I ever like a smart pill! says Jeff.
Chewing one thoughtfully, he says THESE PILLS TASTE LIKE SHIT!!
Joe says, See, youre getting smarter already!

Re:Slashdot BETA Sucks. (1)

dimko (1166489) | about 3 months ago | (#46183117)

Call me ignorant, but can SOMEONE explain in two sentences, why should I bother?

Re:Slashdot BETA Sucks. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#46183717)

Where would you go to ask someone to explain something to you in two sentences after the beta has been unleashed?

Re: Slashdot BETA Sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46183831)

Fuck off with all this spam, complain somewhere else.

Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180791)

What's the difference? The evil name?

Re: Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180905)

the difference it autonomy via setting waypoints and use over the horizon. if it itsnt controlled directly by a human or isnt within visible line of sight then you need FCC license.

Re: Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? (2)

thestuckmud (955767) | about 3 months ago | (#46183163)

According to this [faa.gov], the difference in the US is that recreational model aircraft are covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, while Unmanned Aerial Systems require either a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) or Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC). Operation in restricted airspace is another matter. In all cases, a pilot in command must maintain control of the aircraft (which I take to mean line of sight is required).

The other agency US unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have to contend with is the FCC. There are frequencies available for recreational RC use, and amateur radio bands, but last time I checked there was nothing for controlling a commercial UAS.

Re:Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181185)

What's the difference? The evil name?

The difference is that the new BETA slashdot sucks ass, and we pretty much all hate it utterly.

Re:Isn't a drone the same as an R/C airplane? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#46183035)

not much.

but.. commercial use ;) that's the key, be it rc or non.

In Soviet America... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180795)

Government tells YOU what you can do.

Re:In Soviet America... (0)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46181441)

Imagine if the FCC didn't do this.

Now you're on a commercial flight, and your plane just collided with a beer-delivering drone. In the few moments you had before your fiery death, would you be thinking "I'm just glad we had all that freedom."?

Re:In Soviet America... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181761)

You would be right if planes were made of tinfoil, And before you say what if it hit an "engine" Commercial planes can fly with upto 1/2 their engines disabled and they have automated fire suppression in the wings and fuel shutoffs. They also fly alot higher than drones would over predictable flight paths.

Re:In Soviet America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181845)

Sure. But how many planes that could theoretically fly with one or more engine failures have crashed because some second or third factor that happened more or less simultaneously? I'm sure you will find quite a few of these on Wikipedia. Most planes that crash these days do not crash because of one factor, but because of multiple cascading factors.

Re:In Soviet America... (2)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | about 3 months ago | (#46182227)

Hey, I came here looking for witty comments about how the beta sux. Please stay on topic or I will have to mod you irrelevant.

Re: In Soviet America... (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 3 months ago | (#46182287)

How to stay relevant when faced with obsolescence:
1. Make rules that keep you relevant
2. If 1 fails or is too hard, stop progress

The idea that if the FAA didn't halt the beer/drone delivery service because it didn't have the blessing of the FAA would cause commercial airline crashes is laughable at best. FAA should have paved the way for commercial drone delivery a decade or more ago, and this never should have been an issue.

Re: In Soviet America... (2)

russotto (537200) | about 3 months ago | (#46182523)

When regulators "get ahead" of an industry, it is only to put barriers in front of it. Regulations don't "pave the way", they block it.

Re: In Soviet America... (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 3 months ago | (#46183905)

When regulators "get ahead" of an industry, it is only to put barriers in front of it. Regulations don't "pave the way", they block it.

Maybe I'm just some 'commie' European but I think like many things it isn't that black and white. I have no issue with 'net neutrality' style regulation existing before it becomes common for companies to degrade competing services. I have no issue with blocking healthcare providers from discriminating based on genetic information until we decide if we are comfortable with that as a society.

Re:In Soviet America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182817)

Why would your airplane, traveling at 10,000 meters collide with a beer drone traveling at 3 meters?

Re:In Soviet America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182867)

How will an airplane flying at 30,000 feet collide with a delivery drone flying at 100 feet?

Re: In Soviet America... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46185123)

Private aircraft can fly as low as 500 ft. I suspect the drone fly higher than 100 ft so they avoid towers and buildings so there could be close calls. Besides all planes eventually attempt to land. Unless the drones are regulated, there is no gurantee that their software navigates them around airports instead of through them. Heck even apple had a problem of routing uses across active runways.

I'd don't often beta, but when I do it sucks..... (-1, Flamebait)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 3 months ago | (#46180805)

FIrst 'Beta Sucks!'

Re:I'd don't often beta, but when I do it sucks... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181015)

If you were browsing in Beta, you might see:

F
U
C
K

B
E
T
A

Re:I'd don't often beta, but when I do it sucks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181493)

But I'm not browsing in Beta, because Beta sucks!

FuckBeta.com

I am Beta Spartacus!

Fuck a Betazoid, my dream since puberty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180819)

We want the code for the Beta dragged into the street and shot. We will burn the Slashdot editors in effigy.

Do you here the people sing? Singing the songs of angry men!

Time to start a petition on change.org we need to get Obama's take on this.

IAmSlashdot (2)

h4x0t (1245872) | about 3 months ago | (#46180875)

At what point does a remote-control helicopter become a 'drone'? Also, Beta doesn't provide sufficient functional improvement to necessitate its continuation, or indeed, its conception

Re:IAmSlashdot (-1, Flamebait)

SydShamino (547793) | about 3 months ago | (#46181989)

At what point does a remote-control helicopter become a 'drone'? Also, Beta doesn't provide sufficient functional improvement to necessitate its continuation, or indeed, its conception

As soon as it is controlled via pre-program setpoints instead of remotely, and/or it leaves line-of-sight of the controller. Sort of how Slashdot becomes suck as soon as beta. (Might as well join in.)

Drones. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180887)

The interesting thing about drones is that FUCK BETA!!!!

BETA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180913)

After MS going the stupid Metro way, it's slashdot's turn to turn on its users too. This place is so dead to me now.

Checking out the beta.. (-1, Flamebait)

clockwise_music (594832) | about 3 months ago | (#46180915)

Ok, I like the "Leave comment" box right at the top instead of having to pick a random thing to reply to.

I don't like the fact that there are two boxes, and neither are labelled. It's obvious to me that the first one is a subject but it's not explained. Not a good UI.

The "From you're-grounded dept" is below the article, that doesn't make sense.

The comment box isn't a wysiwyg editor. Can't I just highlight text and hit control-B and make it bold? C'mon, this is 2014, we had this functionality 20 years ago.

Menu bar static at the top of the screen? Pointless. If I need that I'd scroll to the top.

Ok I've previewed my comment... newlines aren't converted to BR's. What the hell. Apart from a slightly different CSS what the hell is this beta all about?

more commnets on the beta... (-1, Flamebait)

clockwise_music (594832) | about 3 months ago | (#46181025)

"Load More"??? What the hell??? When I post my comment I expect to be able to see it, not have to click "Load more" 3 times and then hunt around to find it.

Some of the comments use font size 0.85rem (never heard of REM before for a font size), and some of them use 1.5em. Can't work out why some are different. Don't care either.

Scrolling through the comments the big problem is that the important stuff, like you know, the actual content of the comment, isn't given prime position. It's hard to find the actual comment inside all of the "subject, commenter, whitespace". It's hidden. Stupid, very hard to read. Notice how reddit comments the actual comment text is bigger? That's so you can read it. They should also condense the subject into the "who" section, and be in the same line. There's enough room.

Oh and I can't see the member ID now of the commenter. That sucks. I liked looking at it to see how long the person had been a member for.

I like the "comment threshold" gears icon to make it easier to filter per level. But damn, it uses Ajax. Could be nice, but I bet if it runs on a post with 500 comments it's going to run slower than a snail. When I choose one of those thresholds I just get a "load more" button - what the hell? There's nothing to load. So those filter options are pointless as well if there's nothing to show.

Ok I can see what people are complaining about now.

comments disappearing (-1, Flamebait)

clockwise_music (594832) | about 3 months ago | (#46181039)

When I hit "ok" on my reply, I have to then reload the page. C'mon guys, get a clue! Add my comment to the page so that I don't have to refresh it!

rem in CSS3 (1)

syockit (1480393) | about 3 months ago | (#46182897)

“Some of the comments use font size 0.85rem (never heard of REM before for a font size), and some of them use 1.5em. Can't work out why some are different. Don't care either. ”

This page [snook.ca] explains why you should avoid em, unless you know what you're doing. Most of the time, you want to define the size of a font in terms of the default size, not in relative to parent element.

Re:Checking out the beta.. (-1, Flamebait)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#46181111)

Ok, I like the "Leave comment" box right at the top instead of having to pick a random thing to reply to.

That functionality is already present in Classic - that's what the "Post" button is for.

Re: Re:Checking out the beta.. (-1, Flamebait)

HiThere (15173) | about 3 months ago | (#46181259)

The post button of classic is at the very bottom of the page. I had always assumed that this was intentional to discourage people from starting new threads.

At the top is more convenient, but possibly less desireable. On the balance I count this as a negative feature of beta. OTOH, the first time I tried to find it on the current /. system I wasn't successful. So it should be easier to find. But not, in my opinion, easier to use.

Next: I may be double-posting, I can't tell. The title of the post isn't automatically filled in. I count this as another negative. I could always edit the title of the post if I wanted to, now, apparently, I *must* edit the title. This is not desireable. Many times (i.e., usually) it is desireable to maintain the same title throughout the thread.

Look at the top, it's already there. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 3 months ago | (#46182271)

The post button is already right at the top, right below the summary and the BS, right where you adjust your viewing threshold.

Re:Checking out the beta.. (1)

Jon_S (15368) | about 3 months ago | (#46182101)

The comment box isn't a wysiwyg editor. Can't I just highlight text and hit control-B and make it bold? C'mon, this is 2014, we had this functionality 20 years ago.

Absolutely not! This is news for nerds (until the beta takes over. Fuck the Beta!). You have to prove your nerd cred by typing HTML tags. Anyone can hit ctrl-B.

Re:Checking out the beta.. (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 3 months ago | (#46182181)

I just used a emacs macro to release a butterfly that caused this comment.

Re:Checking out the beta.. (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about 3 months ago | (#46182297)

Well there's yer problem right there! Should have used vi :D

Re:Checking out the beta.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182573)

I use nano, you insensitive clod!

Re:Checking out the beta.. (1)

clockwise_music (594832) | about 3 months ago | (#46182717)

I know what you mean, but I think it would actually have the reverse effect than what you think. Not having some basic formatting tools just reduces the quality of posts - because it's harder to do decent formatting. It won't keep people away, if anything it would reduce the quality of comments, as people who don't know HTML will just post lower quality posts. I wonder if there's some good stats on this.

The best way to improve comment quality is to vote up the good comments. Not to make it more difficult to enter good comments. Look at stackoverflow. Great commenting system with a realtime preview, fantastic.

from tfa... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180941)

"Delivery of goods is expected to be a small segment of future drone market. The bigger commercial uses will focus on agriculture, law enforcement and aerial photography."

Says a petty idiotic beaucracy expressing it's utter lack of creativity.

-Azi

Re:from tfa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181195)

Take a look at who will be operating in the FAA's proposed drone test sites [slashdot.org]. These are the intended recipients of the economic benefits from being early developers in this field. The rest of you should have paid your legislators more. Better luck the next time the feds decide to grant limited licenses to a selected few of their favorites.

Re:from tfa... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181201)

Delivery of Beta versions of Slashdot right up your anus will continue without lubrication or relief."

Exactly, I could not agree more.

Soon Slashdot can serve ads to drones! (5, Insightful)

Nightbrood (6060) | about 3 months ago | (#46180945)

Sorry guys... your PR heavy "response" isn't going to cut it. We, the COMMUNITY, are the one's that provide you with content and allow you to earn a living from our debates all in exchange for simple access to a site that we can use and like. Your Beta site has broken the implicit contract you had between your community and the business. In the end you are responsible for all hell breaking loose and people rioting in the comment threads. We are trying to provide you the opportunity to correct this situation but you seem to have received crisis response training from the Apple people who came up with "you're holding it wrong." Only you can fix Slashdot. If the community has to fix it, then the solution will be a new home. The clock is ticking.

#IamSlashdot

Did the FAA Send a notice to dice? (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 3 months ago | (#46180947)

They are obviously using marketing or management drones to have let the beta get this far.

altslashdot.org - Join the movement -

Re:Did the FAA Send a notice to dice? (2)

PGC (880972) | about 3 months ago | (#46181107)

Not the first time a marketing department took over a company (and ran it into the ground).

Re:Did the FAA Send a notice to dice? (1)

starcraftsicko (647070) | about 3 months ago | (#46182543)

It may well be the first time that a marketing department did this by covering a third of the usable space with an empty white column. I wonder if the method has been patented.

#iamslashdot

Fuck Beta (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46180963)

We're winning, keep this up till they agree to shit can that shit!

I don't care, I'm still free. (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 3 months ago | (#46181063)

You can't take the sky from me.

Re:I don't care, I'm still free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181251)

Great. :-( (but really :-))

Now you've put the idea of digging out the DVD set again into my head.

Perhaps someone can re-do "The Hero of Canton" as "The Hero of Slashdot" who defeats this bloody Beta. :-)

Re:I don't care, I'm still free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181277)

But you sure can cancel it!

Re:I don't care, I'm still free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181697)

How many other "News Aggregation" sites would have a beautiful quote like that in the comments so prominently? My guess is not many, and if they did it wouldn't have the widespread recognition among the users that slashdot has.

I haven't seen the beta yet, but if it ruins the comments, it must be a failure - digg does what slashdot can't, if you exclude comments.

Therefore, make sure you keep the ability to make comments short and sweet.

Re:I don't care, I'm still free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182305)

I can if I bury you in a pine box.

Something I really wished some bad guy had the opportunity to say.

Re:I don't care, I'm still free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182723)

Take my linux, take my complier
Take me where I cannot type
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take slashdot from me.

Take me off of the net
Tell them I ain't routin' back
Burn the ram and boil a core
You can't take slashdot from me.

Leave the ac's where they lay
They'll never see another day
Lost my soul, lost my dream
You can't take slashdot from me.

I feel dice reaching out
I hear its song without a doubt
I still hear and I still see
That you can't take slashdot from me.

Lost my comments, lost my abbreviations
Lost the last place I could rant
There's no place I can be
Since I've found

And you can't take slashdot from me.

Why no comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46181237)

This story was posted over 30 minutes ago. Did the new version break posting. Let's see...

current law (1)

luther349 (645380) | about 3 months ago | (#46181683)

the problem with fpv drones in genrel be it for rc use or anything else is we have no real laws on them when the fcc made the regulations for rc aircraft they where short range low atultued visual flight only craft. now we got units that can fly pretty much anywhere it can get a cell single fly much higher and longer.

The Slashdot slant. (2, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | about 3 months ago | (#46181839)

But Lakemaid isn't the only company that's been harassed by the agency.

It isn't harassment to be told by the agency responsible for regulating aviation to put on the brakes until the rules are in place. It isn't difficult to imagine that alcohol deliveries on inland and coastal waters are going to present some special problems.

On average four or five ice fishing deaths occur in North America every winter, usually the result of a combination of thin ice, too much booze and not enough brains. Ice Fishing [comingbackalive.com]

Re:The Slashdot slant. (3, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | about 3 months ago | (#46181943)

On average four or five ice fishing deaths occur in North America every winter, usually the result of a combination of thin ice, too much booze and not enough brains.

Too many people expend too much effort saving such few people.

Re:The Slashdot slant. (1)

kbolino (920292) | about 3 months ago | (#46185201)

It isn't harassment to be told by the agency responsible for regulating aviation to put on the brakes until the rules are in place.

If the drones are not causing problems, then there is no need to regulate them. Regulation should only exist when it is useful in solving problems that a) people aren't resolving on their own and b) have severe consequences to the lives and freedom of others. A regulatory agency should not act like an ivory tower, passing decrees based upon arbitrary criteria. The rules should come from best practices; how do you determine best practices by forbidding the activity altogether?

It isn't difficult to imagine that alcohol deliveries on inland and coastal waters are going to present some special problems.

Alcohol as a payload does not present any hazards relevant to aviation.

Pull! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 3 months ago | (#46181917)

I'll just let my Beretta Onyx Pro do the talking when it comes to drones. Pull!

Re:Pull! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46183563)

So you are going to shoot your beer drone? Then what are you going to drink?

Policy != regulation (5, Informative)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 3 months ago | (#46181931)

There have been a few FOIA request lately that show the FAA is full of it. They're simply trying to intimidate people.

"The most significant misrepresentation is the repeated assertion that flying unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes is prohibited. The FAA repeatedly states that commercial operators are using UAS "without proper authorization" and are therefore "in violation of FAA guidance for UAS," or "in violation of FAA mandates for UAS," warns UAS operators that "operations of this kind may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and result in legal enforcement action," speaks of "devastating liability" in the event of an accident, and concludes with a command either requiring or "advising" the subject to cease UAS operations.

Each of these letters is premised on the notion that the FAA's 2007 Policy Notice creates a mandatory prohibition that is binding on the general public. However, by law a mere "policy notice" by a federal agency cannot create legally binding and enforceable obligations on the general public. Only "regulations," passed through the proper notice and comment procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act, can be considered mandatory.

This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy"). In fact, in a legal filing in that case, the FAA even admitted:

        "To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the information contained in the AC 9157 and
        the 2007 Notice supersede the operational requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91 regulations, it
        2 is clear that compliance with the regulations is mandatory, while the policies addressed in AC 91-57
        and the 2007 Notice are not mandatory."

Despite this admission, the FAA continues to label failure to abide by the 2007 Policy Statement's prohibition on commercial use of unmanned aircraft as a "violation" which could subject operators to legal enforcement action. This begs the question, how can someone be penalized for failure to obey a non-mandatory policy? What regulation are they violating, and on what basis could the FAA initiate an enforcement action if compliance is not mandatory? The FAA has no answers to these questions, which is likely why they have never initiated an enforcement action against someone solely for operating a commercial UAS. Yet they continue to misrepresent the law and tell people such operation is illegal, despite having no legal basis for this claim."

Re:Policy != regulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182345)

Thanks for posting something that has to do with the article.... Read above to see why....

Most Federal agencies abuse there power or in this case lack of power. I guess you have 2 fears..

Liability, and RF interference, all tho I'm not sure if every drone has a different RF, I would think so if your selling them commercially. But you may get some that are trying to make a fast buck, and cut corners.

If one goes down in an area with people that's a problem. And if they collide that to is another problem. But they have only given out 13 cease letters. it appears the areas aren't clogged with drone air traffic, so this is either them trying to shut people down from using them, or other agencies have something ill-willed in mind for those that do decide to use them. And I guess if they don't do something now before putting rules in place and regulations, licensing, it will get to a point were your neighbor, or anyone thinks they can just buy one and toy with it, clogging up the skies.

Re:Policy != regulation (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 3 months ago | (#46182401)

This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy")

Well, really, that case is about his reckless operations in Virginia (flying past a hospital helipad, flying through traffic at street level, etc). And that's taken in the context of his frequent flaunting of anything resembling good manners when he does his stunts to try to drum up eyeballs for his videos and promote what he's selling.

I don't think that case will have much of anything to do with resolving the question of whether or not the FAA's smack-down on commercial operators is viable.

Here's the real issue: most insurance underwriters have clauses requiring their insured parties to operate in keeping with the GUIDELINES of that agency. Law or regulation doesn't matter. If the FAA guidelines are that recreational RC pilots staying under 400 ft, in line of sight, away from people and airports and the like are OK, but people conducting business using RC are, for now, NOT OK... then operating commercially anyway will put most insurance policy holders in violation of the fine print, and they'll be on the hook in the event of a mishap, injury, or damage. It's very hard for most photographers, videographers, event promoters and such to secure liability insurance to cover doing something that a federal agency says is not allowed. That expectation of compliance with those guidelines is something that the insured and insurer mutually agree to, and that really makes things difficult for someone who wants to fly a camera drone over very expensive commercial property or a crowd of people for money.

Yes, the matter of the FAA's plenary authority in this area, and the way they apply it (or don't) has to be clarified. But in the meantime, there are real, practical reasons why their position is an impediment to commercial RC use. Lawyers for very big commercial entities have been telling their clients to stay away from the tremendous possibilities in this area. Which sucks. But large, expensive legal teams, on retainer for companies that want to use RC commercially, have concluded that the FAA's position is - in practical terms - as good as law for now.

I've got it figured out.... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 3 months ago | (#46182255)

The NSA, current US administration, DHS, FAA, and Dice are in cahoots to make sure no slashdotters get possession of drones for a preemptive strike on shashdot beta!

This is probably about to come out in a new Snowden Files episode next week.

Slashdot is dying (2)

CmdrPorno (115048) | about 3 months ago | (#46182483)

I've said this before and I'll say it here again, since it's on-topic: Slashdot is dying. It began its death spiral before Malda left. Once he quit, its fate became certain.

A bunch of shit has happened over the years, from FIRST POST!, Natalie Portman, and hot grits in the early days; to Roland Piquepaille's story spamming in more recent history. Eventually, ZDnet or Gizmodo or some other tech site will buy Slashdot and begin integrating it into their own website. Eventually, Slashdot's URL will be only a redirect to the website of its corporate overlords.

Re:Slashdot is dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46182509)

Ah, shit, replied to the wrong story. Go ahead and mod me -1, Brain Fart.

It's NOT a drone! (4, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | about 3 months ago | (#46182497)

The hexacopter is great, but it's a radio-controlled device. You can do first-person-view (FPV) stuff with it but it's still 100% controlled by a human. That's not a drone.

WAIT, BEFORE YOU SAY "WHO CARES", RC helicopters up to 400ft are not regulated by the FAA. That means the FAA lacks authority to do so. The beer thing is a fun gag. HOAX if you prefer. The hexacopter can lift almost 4lbs, and a six-pack weighs 4.5lbs. It wasn't real. The GPS coordinates... also not real. It's a gag. A gimmick. An advertisement for some future product. Didn't happen.

The point of this is.
1. The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.
2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.

Ehud
helicopter pilot (the real kind, 1 R44, and about 7 electrical RC and 1 nitro methane RC :)

Re:It's NOT a drone! (1)

Rick Richardson (87058) | about 3 months ago | (#46182571)

I thought the hexacopter had 24 pounds of thrust.

See: http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/115123-affordable-hexacopter-drone-for-aerial-photography

Re:It's NOT a drone! (2)

gavron (1300111) | about 3 months ago | (#46182633)

Hi Rick. The Hexacopter has a lot of thrust (and with different sized rotors more thrust and less stamina)
but don't confuse "pounds of thrust" with "ability to lift weight other than itself."

The unladen hexacopter can lift less than a six-pack. Here's a google search with lots of cool info including
videos: http://tinyurl.com/lweb6bd [tinyurl.com]

Remember that thrust (if it was perfectly vertical) would equal lift, and that the hexacopter itself has a weight
that reduces from the thrust. However ... with 6 small props it's not all lift, and the end result is that it can't
do the job.

cheers,

E

Holy Shit, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46185263)

it's just a fucking layout with the exact same content.
Beta is fine

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...