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
He is some sort of right, but outlawing would be useless since there is a lot of open source about drones and uav in generals (making a fpv plane is ridicolously easy)...
I claim my extra points :-) : the security admin forbids even little doses of liquids on aircraft becase they may be ingredients for a bomb. This means that a "useful" bomb can come out of very small quantities of chemical, a diy drone can carry much much more than that. He made this point to pass on the idea that a decently powerful bomb is within the payload reach of a drone. Scary, but again outlawing would be useless if not making things even worse making a whole community "go underground". just mi.02 :)
@Hai Tran that's what RCAPA is in the USA, and I think you have something similar in Australia. Each country will eventually have slightly different rules and local authorities will want to speak to people in country.
Yes how about our own association? The modal aircraft associations seem to frown upon FPV and UAVs etc, and that's because the guys making the rules have little experience in that field.
Remote Piloted Aircraft Association International? Maybe could get a better deal for insurance for members and lobby for better rules regarding RPAs?
I paid $4,500 for just $5M public liability insurance without airframe insurance for my UAV worth $13,000. It costs less to insure a real Cessna 172S worth $200,000 inclusive of airframe insurance.
In the UK large models have had to have an airworthy inspection for years. I think the CAA trusts the BMFA more than the FAA trusts the AMA because of it.
http://www.largemodelassociation.com/
@John its a jet and that was one of the things that the FAA wanted grounding, the FBI chaps paid for the jet for him, was that not organised enough? I think a UK court would have thrown that out.
@Andreas don't worry the innovation is just as rapid, in fact many people would say its actually faster outside of the USA. So you can always find a job overseas if you really want to get where its at.
I actually think that licensing for very large aeromodles might be a good idea.
My tongue-in-cheek comments aside, it is clear that the previously reported (and well monitored by law enforcement agencies BTW) event should indicate that measures are already in place to deal with this type of risk/threat.
If such a propsed license had been in place, Comrade Ferdaus would still have pursued his plans to 'stick it to the man'. He could then also be charged with intent to operate without a license. (Cue the laugh track)
The weight limit in the current legislation was mainly set in place for giant scale model aircraft.
Size = weight.
I have been a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (member #79169) (www.modelaircraft.org) since a teen and have seen the size and power of the RC hobby increase as technology has increased.
AMA membership, though not a license, provides liability insurance (when the rules are shown to be used), safety rules, education, and competition events for all aspects of the aeromodelling hobby.
The only analog to Mr. Villasenor's idea is my Amateur Radio license (KB4FEM Advanced Class). The FCC provides the license but the American Radio Relay League (www.arrl.org) administers the testing process (and other groups also administer the tests). The license is good for 10 years. It shows others that I understand the theory, rules, and technology used in that hobby/public service.
I think Mr. Villasenor would have had a more receptive audience if he had taken the approach of a ham license analog rather than using the word 'terror*" in 6 of 8 of his paragraphs
Better yet, why not approach the problem from the perspective of professional drone drivers such as the news gathering and law enforcement uses. They would be operating in places that could have an impact on the general public should their craft suffer a failure. THAT type of operation should have a license and certification process (IMHO) to ensure the hardware and meatware (the pilot) are qualified and show sufficient liability protection in the event of a tragic accident (which will occur).
It is pretty day outside, time to go flying.
John, I think you're missing the point we're trying to make.
Owning and operating any drone is not an act of terrorism nor is it a pre-cursor to terrorism. It's what you carry on it that makes it a potential for terrorism. However by the same token, a large kite can carry enough explosives to cause terror. Will you propose to license the purchase of large amounts of nylon material and carbon fibre rods? Also will you limit the length of nylon string or fishing line that people can buy?
@John if you come back, whats your take on this http://www.suasnews.com/2011/09/8525/cnn-reporting-pentagon-attack-... is it part of an organised FUD campaign against small stuff?
@ Robert:
My words exactly!
I completely agree with Ellison Chan in both of his responses. If a licensing program is put in place so the gov't can perform background checks on individuals with a "drone", where does it go from there? If the gov't deems that a person who has been flying RC planes for years "unfit" to fly (based on God-knows-what standards), will they come to his house and seize his property? That just seems like a complete violation of a few Constitutional amendments (more notably the 4th and 14th Amendment-Section I). And since a license is required to fly and not own, seems like this man would be damn furious for wasting all that money, time, and effort for the past several years into buying and building such a lovely aircraft just to be told by the gov't that he can't fly them now. I can see many civil court cases arising from such a standard.
As for the terrorism. I have a lot of experience with counter-terrorism, force protection, and counter-insurgency. Let me just say this; if this gentleman is known to post things on websites, is on a watch list, and under heavy surveillance by the FBI, DHS, and/or NSA...hime buying a drone is only a piece of information. Plus, he'll have a very hard time getting back in the U.S. via commercial transportation if he's on a terrorist watch list. It just seems that you are going to a bit of an extreme saying that all recreational UAS aircraft should be monitored by the Government to prevent a member of Al Qaeda using one in an act of violence. Like I said in my email, the money and time spent wit h these regulations and licenses could be put toward securing our border and preventing the illegal trafficking of explosives and HARMFUL devices. small UAVs used by the hobbyist, enthusiast, photographer, and police/fire rescue are mere tools to a business and/or fulfillment in building an advanced machine with their own two hands. Not lethal killing machines. Don't take that away from us because some idiots would want to use it for violence, instead go after what is making this a weapon...the illegally-aquired explosives.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next