Get ready for a lot of these sort of op-eds. Here's one in the LA Times from John Villasenor, a Brookings Institute fellow, who thinks the current FAA rules on RC have got to go. Extra points for anyone who can explain the logic of the bolded sentence below:
Although reasonable people can disagree on how long it would take terrorists to build or acquire weaponized drones that can be guided by video into a target, there's really no dispute that it is a question of when and not if. The day will come when such drones are available to almost anyone who wants them badly enough.
In fact, there is ample evidence that terrorist groups have already experimented with drones. As far back as the mid-1990s — practically ancient history in drone terms — the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo sect that carried out the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway reportedly considered drones. So too have Al Qaeda and the Colombian insurgent group FARC.
Nations with a record of close ties to terrorists are another concern. Iran unveiled a drone in August 2010 that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad managed to describe as an "ambassador of death" and a "message of peace and friendship" in the same sentence.
So what can we do to reduce the risk? One good place to start is the "model aircraft" provision in the new aviation law, which allows hobbyists to operate drones weighing up to 55 pounds with essentially no governmental oversight. The law allows recreational drones to be operated in accordance with "community-based" safety guidelines established by a "nationwide community-based organization." The inclusion of this language was a lobbying victory for model airplane enthusiasts. But is it really in the broader national interest?
It is not. One of the hallmarks of an effective national antiterrorism policy is consistency. The hobbyist exception is glaringly inconsistent with our overall approach to antiterrorism. By what logic, for example, do we prevent airline passengers from taking 8-ounce plastic water bottles through security checkpoints, while permitting anyone who so desires to operate a 50-pound, video-guided drone, no questions asked?
The overwhelming majority of the people in the model airplane and drone hobbyist community would never consider carrying out a terrorist attack. Yet the same could be said for the overwhelming majority of airline passengers, all of whom are subject to the same rules about what can be taken through airport security checkpoints.
Given the realities of the world we live in, it doesn't seem unreasonable to require all civilian U.S. operators of drones capable of carrying a significant payload to obtain a license. A useful model can be found in fishing licenses, which provide an inexpensive, non-burdensome way for government agencies to know who is fishing.
A licensing program obviously wouldn't eliminate the threat of drone terrorism. After all, terrorists won't necessarily feel compelled to get a license. But the federal government has a legitimate national security interest in monitoring domestic drone use. Today, its ability to do so is inadequate. A licensing program would help plug a critical gap in the government's knowledge regarding who should — and shouldn't — be operating drones.
Comments
John, to your point 6:
All of this is already being prevented by the restrictions on the purchase of explosives. Possession of explosives are the key to the whole thing. Without them, a quad copter is just a toy. A van is just truck. And a vest is just a piece of clothing. The explosives are already tightly controlled, and for good reason. It also appears those controls are about as effective as they could be, judging by the lack of use of high powered explosives for terrorism in the US.
As we can see, commonly available diesel fuel, fertilizer, and a Uhaul van are far more effective weapons. Easily attained, and virtually untraceable. This MO is a far greater threat, yet it's use is still very rare. What makes you think that flying drones are any more of a risk?
We do not need to regulate everything that COULD be used as a delivery device. That's silly.
I think that at this point, the logical validity of requiring licenses for private non-commercial operation of any drones has been disproved. The president of the AMA in the above response echoes everyone's sentiments. However, if enough public fear can be induced against drones, the government will find the justification for regulations requiring licenses. That would be quite sad.
"A licensing requirement - whether or not he actually applies for a license - provides the govt with regulatory justification for stopping him from using the drone."
How would licensing requirement help you to stop such an individual? You can not arrest him based on the fact that he bought a model airplane as long as he doesn't fly it. Once he flies it - it is too late.
"The concept that a drone could be used for a terrorist attack may seem farfetched "
Actually, it doesn't seem farfetched. We all remember (well most of us) a recent case when a 26-year-old Massachusetts man was arrested for planning an attack with a RC airplane on Pentagon and the Capitol. They didn't seem to need any "regulatory justification" for stopping him.
BTW, so we are clear on terminology, FPV (First Person View) aircraft is not a drone it is still an RC aircraft equipped with a camera and a video transmitter. You can call an aircraft a "drone" (although the use of words SUAS or UAV would probably more appropriate) when an aircraft is equipped with an autopilot.
Hey John, nice of you to join us at DiYDrone, and welcome.
Unfortunately, even after reading your response, I'm still not convinced there's any utility in licensing hobbyists, regardless of the size of the drone. There are already rules relating to limits on sizes of hobby aircraft, before certification of the craft is needed.
My assertion is still that regardless of what laws are passed, the terrorists will always find a way to do their nefarious deeds.
The only thing that added licensing will do is stunt the progression of the technology advancement from hobbyists' innovations. Prior to 9/11, there were existing laws outlawing weapons on airplanes, but the terrorists used box cutters, which weren't considered as weapons.
Licensing will just create a barrier to innovation for those of us which are not terrorists. It will not improve the FBI's job any, since suspected terrorists should already be under surveilliance, and it would not take an application for a drone license to tip off the authorities. This brings up another wrinkle, is everyone who applies for a large drone license going to come under immediate FBI attention?!
You also realize that a large drone can be built easily with parts ordered from online hobby shops and a local hardware store. Unless the terrorist in question is already being tracked by the FBI, it will be very difficult to track. Is the government going to outlaw the purchase of aluminium tubes and screws? How about requiring a license for Dremel tools and screw drivers? That's what I used to build my home made drone.
There are no provisions for flying autonomous aircraft, or any RPA beyond VLOS. They only way this deal is going to work for the FAA is to really clamp down on RC flying. The scenarios you guys lay out are going to be beyond what is legal. The hobby is in danger of being outside of Federal regulations.
Mr. Villasenor is out of touch with the demand for tacos...
More seriously, perhaps the best counter to this fear-mongering is to promote the image of cute harmless drones doing neat stuff. It is better for the collective croc-brain of the public to associate "drones" with cute quads playing musical instruments than a crazed "terrist" flying a drone into a building. Now, how to get through the message that a 55lb drone weighs about 1/20000 as much as a fully loaded 747...
Wow @JD - somebody who actually makes good sense in this discussion!
To be honest, I'm much more nervous about my equipment getting out of control and falling from 200 feet into a busy street maybe crashing through the window of a car killing the driver and creating a disaster. Sign me up for sensible, livable, low-overhead, no-beaucracy, clearly articulated laws.
I agree that there needs to be different degrees and levels of licensing or UAVs. Here's how I see it. If you are operating very large UAV over urban areas above 400ft agl. Sure that makes sense. If you are planning or want operate UAV in and around airport space yea a license make sense. But for the 99% of us who have very small aircraft... requiring us to get a license is like requiring a bicyclist to have a drivers license.
Bicyclist know its not safe and against the law to ride your bike on the interstate... So 99% of bicyclist don't ride on the interstate. If you want to ride on the interstate you need a motorcycle and need a special license.
The same should hold true for UAV operators... Its just that simple. If you have the bicycle equivalent of a drone, no special license should be required... If you want to play with big stuff in and over heavily populated areas in and around other maned aircraft then sure its the right thing to do. A blanket licensing approach would be way overkill.
"A licensing program obviously wouldn't eliminate the threat of drone terrorism."
Ok then, why would we need licensing at all?
"But the federal government has a legitimate national security interest in monitoring domestic drone use."
For what purpose, since we already established that it doesn't eliminate (or even reduce) the threat of terrorism? Fishing license analogy doesn't really stand either. A state charges you to fish or hunt so they can pay for "managing" the wildlife. They don't keep tabs on who exactly is fishing or hunting, checking their backgrounds and determining if this person is really safe to trust him/her with a fishing rod. An equal comparison would be a proposal to license people who ride bicycles. After all, they can strap explosives to their bikes and drive it into a Walmart.
It is really sad to see the left worshiping the almighty government which can save us from any and all calamities if we only surrender our lives to it.
Ooo, ooo! I call dibs and copyright on the phrase "DRONE POLICE".
I can see it now, ball caps, t-shirts,mouse pads, screen savers.
How about a screen play? (I wonder if Will Smith is available?)
"D.P" is better than 'Federal Drone Agency" - that is taken over by the Broccoli Police already.
Mabye "D.P." would be taken out of context?
If such legislation is enacted, we would all be getting it double.
It would then stand for 'Double Price" which is the only thing that occurs in a market when silly laws are created. Of course half the doubled price would go to the treasury of the government. Cha-ching!
It is clear the article has nothing to do with national security but it is another proposed revenue generation tool wrapped in the guise of protecting us.
The genie has been out of the bottle for years, licensing legitimate operators of the tech won't stop any nut case with an agenda.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next