| General > General Technical Chat |
| For the Love of Radio Controlled Aircraft in the US, New Rules Possible. |
| << < (3/30) > >> |
| Tom45:
DJI, a major maker of drones, is dead set against the FAA's proposed rules. They believe in remote ID, but a different approach than the FAA's. The DJI approach is more in line with the ADS-B used by manned aircraft. You can learn more about the subject and the two approaches at: https://content.dji.com/we-strongly-support-drone-remote-id-but-not-like-this/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=edm&utm_campaign=comment_submission&sc_src=email_3347439&sc_eh=2ac6ea2a7be1ad871&sc_llid=758013&sc_lid=166239926&sc_uid=EiFuztT5Ie I have a DJI drone which I use for photography. Essentially a really tall tripod. If the FAA gets their way my drone would be obsolete. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: james_s on February 29, 2020, 07:12:34 am ---I really wish someone would remind the government that they work for us, not the other way around. I really have no idea what they hope to accomplish by hassling a bunch of hobbyists who have not caused any problems. The whole "drone" thing has been blown way out of proportion, for all the hoopla I don't ever recall seeing a drone outside of parks and flying fields and have not heard of a single serious incident. I was actually thinking the whole hysteria seemed to have died out as I don't remember seeing any of the hyperbolic scare articles recently that were everywhere a few years ago. --- End quote --- I fully agree with all this. This is very sad. Besides, if the drones mania has actually triggered all this, it's even more sad, as the typical RC aircraft hobbyist (the serious one) usually doesn't care about drones, that they see as toys mostly. So that's a double punishment. It's all the more a punishment for hobbyists that drones themselves are bound to be used in an increasing number of commercial (and probably military) applications. Which all means that as very often, those regulations will only cause problems for hobbyists and "small" users. Large companies and organizations will have no problem getting approved and paying for all this. With the end result that, even with all the security additions you can imagine, the sheer potential number of them will be statistically much more of a hazard than RC aircrafts ever were, by far. You always have to take a look at the big picture. |
| magic:
--- Quote from: Tom45 on February 29, 2020, 05:20:56 pm ---DJI, a major maker of drones, is dead set against the FAA's proposed rules. They believe in remote ID, but a different approach than the FAA's. The DJI approach is more in line with the ADS-B used by manned aircraft. --- End quote --- The FAA system has an obvious advantage of being either pre-equipped or easily retrofittable with means of remote shutdown when a drone is caught being naughty. You aren't going to call F-16 strikes every time a quadcopter is spotted carrying some unidentified package in the vicinity of a school or getting in the way of legally operating aircraft, but revoking its credentials by a phone app is a piece of cake. |
| TheHolyHorse:
Even if all this goes through, they're not really preventing anything, except ruining things for the good guys. The bad guys will load a bomb on a drone anyway, it's not like some law or regulation will prevent people from doing bad. |O But this is pretty standard behavior for people who are clueless of how the real world work, ie politicians etc. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: TheHolyHorse on March 01, 2020, 08:19:49 am ---Even if all this goes through, they're not really preventing anything, except ruining things for the good guys. The bad guys will load a bomb on a drone anyway, it's not like some law or regulation will prevent people from doing bad. |O --- End quote --- Yup. --- Quote from: TheHolyHorse on March 01, 2020, 08:19:49 am ---But this is pretty standard behavior for people who are clueless of how the real world work, ie politicians etc. --- End quote --- I'm not sure this is all as clueless as you think, but it's certainly more political than practical (meaning: more of a strategic step). As I hinted in my other post, I think it may just be a preliminary step to prepare for a world where drones (and otherwise flying devices) could become much more ubiquitous than they currently are - not to address the current situation, which indeed doesn't pose any significant problem at the moment. You can't per se blame politics to try and address future problems - that's even what politics is about. But you can certainly not agree with the way those potential problems are being addressed, and what kind of future it's preparing for us. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |