Flying drones in the US now requires a certificate

[SiliconWizard]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/all-recreational-drone-pilots-must-now-past-the-faas-trust-test?utm_source=roboticsnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=roboticsnews-07-06-21&utm_content=httpsspectrumieeeorgautomatonroboticsdronesallrecreationaldronepilotsmustnowpastthefaastrusttest&mkt_tok=NzU2LUdQSC04OTkAAAF-GjvsWIhrz4IREokOs2be9S8G_5ASwd3JpWe-V7MvVUB6Fd5O5_lilA-2iXqu8AB_whjw_78qsKNjSWllXSIEY3Tw9U0jcZBL-dYNjGr1L28

Note that the FAA has made it pretty easy to get the certificate, so this is really not changing much IMHO. It will mostly catch a few people who aren't aware of the new regulation yet... and possibly the very few that are illiterate, although, as the test is apparently online, you can always ask someone else to do it for you...

I'm sure other countries will follow.

What do you guys think?

[duckduck]

The police aren't going to check for certificates, the prosecutors aren't going to prosecute these cases, and the FAA isn't going to be sending inspectors out to the city parks and backyards where quadcopters are flown. Conscientious people will continue to operate RC aircraft carefully. Morons will keep doing stupid stuff. Those out to cause death and destruction will not be dissuaded by new pages added to the FAA's rulebooks. Therefore, this is 100% waste of everyone's time except for a new "drone license testing" department on the federal payroll.

EDIT:

I guess that I'm most ticked off by the FAA making this de jure mandatory. The goal is education (assumed by the "everyone passes with 100%" test), so why not just reach out to manufacturers, importers, retailers, and RC clubs/organizations?

[TimFox]

Therefore, we should not criminalize bad dangerous behavior.  People still drive under the influence, so DUI laws are a waste of everyone’s time.

[Bud]

It is ironic that the link referenced an IEEE publication, a moronic organization paranoid about registrations and licensing.

[SiliconWizard]

Therefore, we should not criminalize bad dangerous behavior.  People still drive under the influence, so DUI laws are a waste of everyone’s time.

Sensible ironic reply to someone trying to justify that some rule is stupid because people can still bypass it.

Also, silly assumption that the police won't check for certificates or that people won't get prosecuted. If it's a legal requirement, they will. Of course probably not massively (in fact like checking most certificates or licenses, the individual probability of being checked for one's driver license is pretty low on a daily basis, even lower for people hunting when hunting licenses are required, etc.) That of course doesn't mean this is worthless.

As I mentioned, at the moment the certificates won't mean much in terms of people's capabilities of course. But that's not what they are for at this point IMO. The main point is to potentially register people flying drones. You'll get a certificate, they'll get your name.

And, of course, the point is also making people more responsible for what happens when flying drones. If you cause damage and you don't hold a certificate, I guess the legal consequences will be much more severe. I think that's the main value of it. It's a step towards regulating drones. Which is something much needed. It's completely different from people flying RC stuff, which are an ultra small fraction of the population, and usually pretty careful because most are aware of the risks, and their stuff often costs a lot. OTOH, drone use has literally exploded and prices keep dropping. You can't let that unregulated.

[TimFox]

A sensible rule would be to require liability insurance, as with driver’s licensing in most States.

[magic]

Therefore, we should not criminalize bad dangerous behavior.  People still drive under the influence, so DUI laws are a waste of everyone’s time.

DUI laws don't require you to obtain certification of sobriety to drive.
And at the same time, doing damage with drones or flying them in restricted airspace surely was a crime before these new rules.

A sensible rule would be to require liability insurance, as with driver’s licensing in most States.

That's if they cared about damage.

But I have heard that Uncle Sam is very paranoid about drone terrorism these days, so the sensible rule is to impose maximum control and bureaucracy on drones and their owners and, in the long term, connect all legal drones to the botnet and criminalize flying or perhaps possession of unbackdoored ones.

[TimFox]

DUI:
In the US, motor vehicles must be registered with the State and operators require a driver's license from the state.
Operating a motor vehicle without both of them is a crime.
Upon conviction of DUI, it is normal to suspend the driver's license for a substantial period of time, and often some kind of sobriety interlock mechanism is required for driving after the suspension is lifted.  According to this news article,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/04/06/coming-soon-if-youre-not-sober-you-wont-be-able-start-car/
mandatory interlocks are being considered for general driving.

[Marco]

The police aren't going to check for certificates, the prosecutors aren't going to prosecute these cases, and the FAA isn't going to be sending inspectors out to the city parks

I could see it happening in wealthier neighborhoods with a sheriff in the US. Local democracy is quite powerful in the US, if enough constituents get annoyed the sheriff will not be able to brush that off so easy.

[pickle9000]

The goal is tracking after an incident. Drones are to be marked with your license number.

[TimFox]

I read a few years ago that the Dutch were training eagles to combat drones to protect airfields, but a later article indicates that (although the eagles were reasonably good at downing drones) there were unanticipated problems with frustrated eagles going after other targets, so the project was stopped.

[SiliconWizard]

A sensible rule would be to require liability insurance, as with driver’s licensing in most States.

As with other non-licensed activities, any damage you can do in your daily, non-professional life is normally covered by your civil liability insurance. Not sure about the US, but in many other countries, it's often covered in your home insurance. So, until drones are actually licensed  - which I don't think this certificate will be, at least for now and strictly speaking - any damage should be covered by civil liabilty insurances. Just like if you cause damage with a frying pan. Or any toy.

Dedicated insurances could be enforced only if drones were properly licensed AND classified in clear categories. As far as I've understood - I may have not understood quite right - for now, the FAA has not classified drones in categories (please tell me if it has and I'm wrong!), which would make requiring true licensing and a dedicated liability insurance absurd IMO. Some small drones are just toys, you can't require this for a toy. Now heavier/larger/more powerful ones can be deadly weapons. This clearly should be handled in different ways. AFAIK, the EU has recently defined categories for drones. If the FAA still hasn't - which is what I got but again may be wrong - then the whole thing is clearly still not regulated properly. IMHO. But, as pickle9000, at least that will help with tracking when needed.

[TimFox]

Again, in most US jurisdictions, liability insurance is required for operation of motor vehicles.
If mandated, presumably the free market for insurance policies would give a low premium for classes of drone that are not very dangerous, and higher for the larger, more dangerous objects.
In Illinois, I need to provide my insurance policy number to renew my vehicle registration (annually). 
However, my driver's license (longer period) is valid to operate a rental vehicle:  the rental agency either provides or verifies liability insurance.
The gun lobby has successfully resisted calls for mandatory liability insurance on firearms, but such coverage is readily available from insurance companies.

[SiliconWizard]

Again, in most US jurisdictions, liability insurance is required for operation of motor vehicles.

As in most parts of the world. Because they are in a category that requires a dedicated insurance. But drones are not in this category, they just don't fit.

I think you didn't read, or got my point.

Drones are not in any category that would warrant a dedicated liability insurance at the moment. So until they are (and this would be linked, IMO, to them being properly licensed), there is absolutely no need for a separate insurance. Your personal civil liability insurance will do. Just, as I said, like with any toy you may be using. Or any object that doesn't require a specific license. If your civil liability insurance decides, on its own, not to cover drones, then ditch it.

Now that a proper license for drones, with a requirement for a dedicated insurance, and possibly a few courses and some exam (rather that a quick online certificate), would be a good idea, yes. But as I said above, this would make sense only when drones are properly categorized. Asking for a license and specific insurance for a small toy wouldn't make sense. Now when the FAA finally defines categories for drones, and makes a difference between a 100-g toy drone and a 100-kg one, that will be another story, and we can talk about this again. This FAA certificate is probably a first step towards that goal, but there's still a lot to do.

[TimFox]

I read your post, but I disagree with your point.
Should drone damage become more common, as drone operators operate beyond line of sight (because they can, even if forbidden), the household insurance may not cover it (insurance companies like to avoid risks), and it might well be a reasonable mandate.  I was using automobile liability insurance as a common instance of a similar regulation for machinery operated outside the household.

[Bassman59]

A sensible rule would be to require liability insurance, as with driver’s licensing in most States.

As with other non-licensed activities, any damage you can do in your daily, non-professional life is normally covered by your civil liability insurance. Not sure about the US, but in many other countries, it's often covered in your home insurance. So, until drones are actually licensed  - which I don't think this certificate will be, at least for now and strictly speaking - any damage should be covered by civil liabilty insurances. Just like if you cause damage with a frying pan. Or any toy.

We don't have any such thing as a generic "civil liability insurance" here in the US.

If you own a house, you can take out a homeowner's insurance policy. (If you have a mortgage, the lienholder requires a homeowner's insurance policy.) The insurance covers obvious things like replacement in case of fire or other calamity (flood insurance is separate!) as well as theft and repair of damages (like if a water line bursts and destroys your floor and cabinets). Theft coveraged is extended to losses outside of the home, for instance if your kid's laptop is stolen at school.

The policies usually include a "personal liability" component, which covers you if, for example, someone slips and falls on your property and is injured. This policy does not cover you if you fly a drone in a public space and you crash it into someone.

It's why automobile insurance has a liability component. If you are driving and cause an accident, the insurance covers you for the liability. The liability part of your homeowner's insurance won't cover this.

Now remember that not everyone owns a house! If you don't own a house, you're not required to have homeowner's insurance, so therefore there's no possibility of a "civil liability" insurance. Renter's insurance covers your personal property stored in a rented home, not the structure itself. Insuring the structure is the landlord's responsibility.

The whole idea of liability insurance is to ensure that a plaintiff won't take your house and other property if you are sued and lose.