As someone who just bought their first drone, registered under section 336 and has been following the rules (including calling the hospital heliport since their five-mile radius covers my house and every public park nearby) I really can't say I'm shocked that this has happened.

My county has even gone so far as to pass an extremely onerous ordinance requiring drone operators get a sign off from every person whose property you may film from a UAS because irresponsible people have made it an issue. I could argue how childish this rule is in the first place, since I can take a picture of somebody's back yard with a high power zoom lens from a hill and be in the clear - but it's the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons that has come from not only lax rules, but people rampantly violating what rules there are without a care.

I just hope the FAA finds a sensible middle ground between the ill-fated section 336 regs and section 107. I'm more than willing to pass a knowledge test, and if I need to buy a $X (where X is $200 or less, hopefully) transponder to affix to my UAS then fine - but can we at least make it easy to do online?

>but it's the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons that has come from not only lax rules, but people rampantly violating what rules there are without a care.

I'm inclined to think this is more a consequence of insufficient enforcement. We have a lot of laws and regulations and are rarely enforced, and thus often violated. That this happens with drones is hardly a surprise.

This is also a case of where people are rampantly violating what rules there are without a care, and, since they don't actually have problems - they don't see the laws as useful.

When you regulate something and cover far far more stuff then you should, you get this behaviour.

The class B restriction is draconian and unnecessary. I live about 4 miles from an airport (Class B). The B zone is 5miles. There has never been an aircraft I have ever seen 400ft over my house, and if they were making a 4 mile <400 ft approach they would have a hell of a lot more to worry about than drones when coming in. (Engine failure with seconds of glide ratio, birds, objects). The "inverted wedding cake" of airspace needs to exclude below 400ft AGL besides areas very close to the airport. You as a pilot must know that besides when you are making your final approach or taking off you are well above 400ft for safety reasons other than unaccounted for aircraft.

You can’t just barge into a system that’s being used to safely transport human beings in a high-risk environment and expect to be allowed to do whatever you want with no forethought, planning, or coordination with other users. The system as it exists protects people from violent and catastrophic death. It would be patently insane to start making big changes to it without thinking very hard about the impact of those changes.

Is it strictly necessary to protect airspace around major airports all the way to the surface for five miles? Probably not. But we have designed a hugely complex, life-critical system around that and many other assumptions, and we can’t just go changing things willy-nilly. This is aviation, not computing. We do not “move fast and break things.” The consequences of getting this wrong aren’t just tweaking some syntax and trying again. The consequences are destruction, death and bereavement.

I’m sure we’ll eventually get to a point where drones are more readily integrated into the system. For now, humans have the priority. And if that means you have to fill out a little web form while the people charged with maintaining the system work through all the implications, I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

I didn't say we should just barge in and make things unsafe. I am saying that we should have a discussion about whether it is needed or not to have <400ft AGL 4.5 miles outside an airport controlled as it is probably unnecessary. The corollary to Silicon Valley startups isn't valid. I wasn't advocating flying craft there anyway and if there's a crash well we'll pivot to a new model.

An example is the FAA has sections of uncontrolled space up to 1000 ft over the Hudson river in NYC, which is in the busiest airspace in the USA in the most densely populated area, dead center in the space of 3 of the largest airports in the world. They decided that in the interest of sightseeing aircraft that they would give an area for this despite midair collisions (one recently), and an actual plane landing in the Hudson once through this space. The area 400ft AGL around airports several miles out is much less treacherous than this and perhaps a discussion should be had to see if it can be given in the interest of drone pilots.

> I am saying that we should have a discussion

Just a tip, but discussions don't usually start with calling the existing, time-proven system "draconian and unnecessary." Air traffic rules exist mostly to keep people alive. If that interferes with your hobby, that's unfortunate, but the priority should be maintaining the safety levels while accommodating the hobby as much as reasonably possible, not establishing some kind of equality between manned flight and hobbyists.

It's also worth noting that R/C pilots had a high enough barrier to entry that they generally policed themselves pretty well. Now that anyone can buy and operate something that can be hazardous to manned aircraft, things have changed significantly. The system needs to account for that level of inexperience and disregard.

> If people die well we'll pivot to a new model.

I reworded that to better reflect reality.

Current airspace requirements–politically-motivated and misguided tho they may be at times–are mostly written in blood. You'll find most aviators have a healthy appetite for the risk of aviation, but at the same time generally won't be interested in taking a "let's tinker with it and pivot after people die" approach.

You misinterpreted parent in the second section, quotations around sentence subject for clarity:

>I wasn't advocating "flying craft there anyway and if there's a crash well we'll pivot to a new model".

1) The 400 AGL rule comes from the idea that the FAA administers everything above that line. Below 400 feet isn't considered navigable airspace. The FAA doesn't specify a global minimum altitude for aircraft to fly at (in 14 CFR 91). Instead, they specify building and person/surface vehicle distances and end with the catch-all that you have to be flying high enough to be safe in the event of an engine failure. So, they're creating rules in a manner consistent with their preexisting regulations.

2) The airspace over the Hudson appears to be class E, which is controlled. By definition, only class G airspace is uncontrolled.

3) The actual plane landing on the Hudson was an airliner in the middle of an emergency. Landing on the river was certainly not part of their planned activities for the day. The pilot-in-command is allowed to deviated from the rules to the extent needed by the emergency.

I'm sure the FAA is still hotly debating how drones will be treated, but it's a government organization used to old technology and moves slowly. Silicon valley will run laps around the regulations until the VCs get bored and fund something else.

Having flown the Hudson River Corridor a couple times, calling it uncontrolled is technically correct, but really misleading. There’s a whole mandatory procedure and strict guidelines: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/79/775...

Yes agreed. I am just saying this is an example of the FAA yielding a bit to make things a bit less complicated for those wishing to fly up there. My general argument is giving FAA control of all airspace from the ground up in such a large area is infringing on some valid uses of it without really safety justification. I have yet to see anyone point out why operating a drone below 400ft over a mile from an airport is clearly unsafe to air traffic, and actually air traffic operating in this zone is unsafe to people on the ground.

So far the comments from very knowledgeable people seem to say well a plane could fly in there in some exceptional circumstances and then could happen to encounter a drone that is operating in visual range under 400 feet and something could possibly happen. This is also considering that the sky is filled with birds many larger than drones.

Personally I struggle everytime in discussions covering a broad, general subject and there specific counter examples popping up all around you without any deep understanding of that particular example. In that regard, the Hudson river.

SO, the Hudson area is not as heavily regulated as it should be following standard procedure. There is however some sort of regulation to it and it is, I assume, monitored. Everything else would just be plain suicide. One can safely assume that the FAA came up with that perticular piece of regulation after putting some thought into it. Pretty much the same approach they are taking with drones.

I am not a software engineer, therefor I am not commenting on software posts. Honest questions are always fine and welcome, but argueing against the FAA without any deeper knowledge of how air travel works is getting us nowhere.

FInally, the plane that landed on the Hudson had an issue with birds, didn't it? Only that you cannto do anything against birds, dornes are a different thing.

Simpler rules are easier to understand and enforce. Further, airspace needs to be sized for both emergencies and human error.

Class B airspace is already a Cone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States)... But, it's a cone people can understand without needing to know anything about the local airport which makes it very conservative.

Yes I am not disagreeing with that. I am saying the bottom of the cone has to be more "cone" shaped. More resolution. Why not make it forbidden without authorization to fly large FAA regulated craft anywhere outside say a half mile radius of a runway? Because operating a craft that low is not very safe anyway outside of landing and taking off. Saying the FAA controls ALL airspace from the ground up for an area of a 5 mile radius is not necessary for safe large aircraft operation. In fact I wouldn't want large passenger jets flying <400ft in any densely populated area outside of landing and taking off as it is not safe.

I would highly recommend a Discovery of Flight experience at your local airfield. They're usually free, and I think it will help you realize that there are a lot of things you aren't accounting for. Aviation isn't nearly as tidy an environment as you think it is, and safety margins need to be big. The number of protocols that have been instituted because of statistically insignificant events is one of the reasons aviation is as safe as it is.

From the air, five miles is quite close to an airfield. There's a significant amount of activity in all directions of an airfield that near to it–you have straight-in pattern entries, overhead pattern entries, diagonal pattern entries, base pattern entries, downwind pattern entries, teardrop pattern entries, aircraft transiting the airspace, helicopters running one traffic pattern, single engine aircraft running another, multi-engine aircraft another, jets another, and sometimes heavies yet another, with everyone else avoiding all the wake turbulence they produce.

All of this happens mostly within 5-10 miles of the field. Not everyone has the same training and experience, there are students and instructors in the mix, equipment failures happen, radar coverage is far from perfect, meteorological and geographic factors often crowd an otherwise-open airspace so everyone's now operating in a greatly reduced footprint, and so on.

All this is further compounded by go-arounds (when an aircraft can't make an approach for whatever reason, either called by a pilot or a controller), which regularly throw the traffic around a field into a state of fairly instant disarray, as controllers vector aircraft rapidly away from each other to try to prevent any collisions from occurring.

If an emergency is declared the airspace may have an aircraft operating anywhere above ground level they deem necessary

This complexity is enough to keep you busy when everyone's hearing everyone, and being coordinated by an adept controller. Drone operators aren't listening to controllers when they operate, don't have great vantage point of the airspace, and would know almost nothing of what's happening above while they're flying.

Beyond that, I can think of several situations where a pilot might find the safest course of action is to bolt from an airfield at <1,000 feet AGL for a few miles. It's probably not an everyday occurrence at any particular airfield, but it's happened to me multiple times (and I'm far from a high-time pilot) and it probably happens daily, multiple times, somewhere in the FAA's jurisdiction.

Also, consider:

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;

(a) ·Anywhere. ·An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) ·Over congested areas. ·Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) ·Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) ·Helicopters. ·Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

·Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

---

Plenty of drone activity happens over water, unpopulated areas, sparsely populated areas, etc.

Lastly, not all passenger aircraft are large jets.

Again, I can't recommend getting an hour or two of flying experience enough. HN commenters tend to have a high level of expertise within their respective domains, and perhaps as a result are almost famously prone to oversimplifying subjects outside of their domain expertise. It seems like every time an aviation-related thread comes up it usually highlights that tendency wonderfully.

I've flown a plane a few times before with an instructor, so I am not commenting completely out of ignorance. I am not claiming to be an expert. I also don't own a drone. I am also interested in getting a pilot's license.

I also didn't claim that all passenger craft were large jets, didn't claim that planes would NEVER have to enter space below 400ft AGL miles from an airport. In fact a single engine plane flying that low is even more dangerous as it has less redundancy. I've flown in them. Nothing is without risk and someone flying in a low approach like that has plenty of risk besides drones which are more significant than drones. Also we aren't talking about < 1000ft AGL, we are talking 400 which is a tremendous difference. Yes a controller can do a lot to clear airspace but they aren't going to clear wildlife, trees, and other structures which are a risk at that level or lower much greater than 2lb drones.

> From the air, five miles is quite close to an airfield.

But realize that this is not only a rule at 400 feet. It's a rule at 100 feet, at 40 feet, at 10 feet, at 4 feet.

Surely you can agree that there is a certain height where it's safe to fly drones when there is an airport less than 5 miles but more than line of sight away. And surely you can agree that such a height is not zero feet.

It's not 'Airports' it's class B airspace which is a very short list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Class_B_airports_in_th... Only ~1/2 of states even have one, and most of those have just the 1.

Being limited to ~99.99% of the US is hardly a major issue for drone operators. Further, people are very poor at judging altitude consistently, and it's much easier to enforce 'don't' than try and enforce only up to 100 feet or something.

Class C and D airspace have the same inner zone. It's easier to get permission but you're still having to get permission[1] to fly.

[1] The rules are confusing here but it looks like any airport can tell you not to fly if they want to.

Class D is generally though not always 4 nautical miles not 5, which is a 20% smaller area.

Now, if you want more permissive rules around class D airspace that's IMO very reasonable. But, talking about class B as any airport is extremely misleading.

PS: Class C is again not that long a list, and still represents high traffic areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Class_C_airports_in_th....

I can't agree to the last paragraph enough.

A normal ILS approach is about 300 ft/mile. Many airports have runways that are a couple of miles long, so the center of the Class B could be roughly as much as 1.5 miles from the touchdown point. At your distance, a nominal approach would be at 750 feet. At a mile closer, a nominal approach would be 450 feet.

If the pilot is a little low on the glideslope, you're a little closer to the airport than you think, and your drone is a little higher than you think, you've got a collision. Now, these are all worst case deviations, and it might make sense for the FAA to draw the lines more closely, orient them with the actual approach paths, and perhaps have a lower altitude restriction (maybe 150 feet or so) close to an airport. As it is though, the 5 mile ring is a pretty reasonable, if conservative choice given the potential consequences of a drone hitting an aircraft on takeoff or landing.

With DJI, at least, it’s not easy for your drone to be “higher than you think”.

Phantom 3, Phantom 4, Mavic, all track within a foot or so of the designated coordinates in 3D space.

Default settings have an altitude cap, no matter your momentum, you can’t accidentally or intentionally cross the cap. You have to go into configuration settings to override the cap and set manually to go any higher.

Modern models also come with awareness of FAA zones.

I agree. Before a recent move, I flew a model airplane and “large” drone about a half mile from a regional airport (but not in the approach path). I called them up, explained to them what and where I was flying, and they basically told me it would be fine to do whenever as long as I kept an eye out for any low flying planes.

There are a number of assumptions missing in this.

Emergency approaches are by their very nature often well below glide slope.

Perhaps more statistically relevant is that not everyone's altimeters always function correctly, are set to the correct airfield's most recent numbers, that in the potentially 50+ minutes since the last ATIS update the ambient pressure hasn't changed significantly, and lastly that all pilots–drone pilots included–are doing what they're supposed to and leaving sufficient margins.

Shoot enough approaches and you will likely realize that small, potentially dangerous objects piloted by untrained, unregulated, unmonitored, non-communicating pilots at 400' could quickly become a problem for you more readily than it appears from the ground.

Take off on a high-density-altitude day in an underpowered aircraft and you'll also appreciate the additional headroom.

To say nothing of the fact that I've owned drones that under LoS conditions just continue the last input received, which with inexperienced or irresponsible operators would be an input to climb.

I think the zones are purposefully big for emergency situation.

Yeah but this is _always_ the reason that any industry gives for criminalizing competition. There's never any justification for the entirety of the thing being done, just a list of the most egregious problems (as you have listed here) and then everything else just gets lumped in and hand-waved away with "you can ask for an exception and/or pay money in fees".

An engineer wants to push some code live to a large, production software project worked on by hundreds of engineers. It hasn't been peer reviewed, tested or evaluated in any way except by the engineer. It isn't a mission critical update, but he doesn't seem to think it'll be a problem.

"No way!" you say, without hesitation, because it's a rightly stupid thing to do. It's a pointless risk. That's always how bad stories start. The engineer points out the bad stories are just a list of the most egregious problems. You wouldn't even let the engineer ask for an exception or pay a fee to do it. He then says the only reason you're doing this is to hold back his career.

And that's just for software where a mistake doesn't mean someone dies. Tell me again how this is about "criminalizing competition" because that rings a little hollow.

This is not a good analogy. You just pointed out a real problem and then said we should prevent it. I said these real problems are used to justify drastic expansions of those rules to protect incumbents via the legal process. The situation does not require an analogy to understand.

A group of people who represent the status quo (large drone makers and currently operating commercial drone operators) are attempting to erect barriers to entry (licenses/exceptions) that will attach civil and potentially criminal penalties to the same behavior they engaged in (license/exception-free operation) to become successful. That is literally the definition of "criminalizing competition".

If you would like another example of this exact behavior without needing an analogy, see the fact that it is currently illegal in many US states to be a hairstylist without applying for a license (with a fee) and meeting minimum education requirements (with a fee)... _to cut hair_.

> didn't have any real issues

Citation needed. If you want better arguments, you merely need read the rest of this thread. I wasn't arguing pro regulation. I was arguing how silly it sounds when someone calls this a move to "criminalize competition."

i'd say it's a pretty reasonable inference from the article, which mentions two interested parties: the The Commercial Drone Alliance (commercial advocate), which supports the repeal, and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (hobbyist organization), which opposes it. now why is it that these two orgs which are both interested in drones have such different stances?

You can request a waiver from the FAA, right now. It is free and good for 90 days. Here is a list of granted waivers: https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waivers_granted/

Yep, we have gone from a society that values freedom first, and government must present a case to have that freedom limited in a vary narrow band

To Wholesale regulations of all activity where by you have to seek "permission" from the regulators to do anything, and hope they will grant you a coveted "exception" to their prohibition.

it is sad that people still call that freedom

My experience in America is that the "freedom" is usually a word people use for being able to endanger others, pollute, or otherwise cause external harm without repercussion. In short, it's code for "I don't want to take responsibility for the negative externalities of my actions".

Then you must have very limited experience.

Most of the time "regulators" like the FAA are mainly there to limit the liability of commercial industries, as well as raise barriers to entry ensuring limited competition for those corporations

Why do you think major corporations advocate FOR government regulations of their industries

Why do you think Facebook WANTS the government to regulate them

Why do you think Amazon now WANTS the government to raise minimum wage

Government works for Large Corporations it does not work for the People. People like me, hobbyist that just want to be left in peace to enjoy our lives have are freedom oppressed under the thin guise of "safety" when in reality it is about money...

People like you are naive enough to believe the rhetoric, it is sad people are so willing to give up liberty for the promise safety never understanding that doing so means they lose both

> I can sum this up simply: jerks ruin everything. Drones were unregulated and would remain so, except for people being jerks.

THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES, THIS.

When I first got into flying drones and getting into it as a hobby, I read almost daily about idiots flying it within downtown areas and losing control, only to have them fall out of the sky. Or stories about spying on their next door neighbors, or flying so high they were in the airspace of commercial planes and near misses when a plane was approaching a runway.

I was just counting the days when this would happen. I knew it would happen because the reckless behavior of a few have ruined it for everybody. Having been doing this for almost 5 years, I felt like the FAA has to get involved sooner rather than later with all this stuff going on. I'm frankly surprised it took this long. Clearly they kept giving these people the benefit of the doubt, only to be disappointed time and again.

The Casey Neistat FAA case was clear evidence something had to be done.

That's the problem with jerks. The other problem with jerks is that they don't follow any rules anyway while the good guys get to deal with the added bureaucratic overhead.

How do the rules prevent a jerk from buying a drone (with cash, to remove even the faintest connection to himself) and go fly it near the local approach to film landing planes from air? There's no way to trace it back to you even if the authorities found the serial number from the wreckage.

Laws don't prevent me from murdering my neighbour. But they do give the authorities a hammer that they can use, should I choose to.

yes, but people who violate section 336 were already subject to fines up to $250k and possible jail time. they don't need a bigger hammer to threaten hobbyists with.

A lone drone pilot from the bush can easily avoid that hammer with trivial precautions.

Good post. Small nit:

> Most commercial flights operate in IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) where air traffic control system guarantees you separation from other aircraft.

IFR traffic is only separated from other IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic. At FL180 (~18000' MSL) and above-0, it's all IFR, but below FL180, IFR is not separated from non-participating VFR and is still responsible for "see and avoid" when meteorological conditions permit in all airspaces (even above FL180).

0 - Yeah, yeah, above FL600, you could be VFR again... ;)

Since we're nitpicking, ATC also provides separation of all aircraft in Class B airspace. In Class C, they provide separation of IFR aircraft from all other aircraft (VFR-VFR gets advisories).

> I can sum this up simply: jerks ruin everything. Drones were unregulated and would remain so, except for people being jerks.

When were drones ever unregulated? I don’t remember any such time. I remember that before 2016, the legal requirement for drone piloting was to have a pilot’s license, which most people ignored yet scoffed and complained about endlessly. In 2016 they made flying drones less than 55 pounds in class G airspace under 400 feet with line of sight without a pilot’s license or registration legal, but it was not unregulated.

I don’t think that jerks is the main problem here. Use of drones in the last 5 years has skyrocketed. The percentage of jerks could be going down dramatically, and still the accident rates will rise due to the sheer number of people playing with drones. There are many many times more people flying drones now than there were in 2010.

Anyone who’s used a drone more than a handful of times has crashed their drone, or had their drone lose control, or run out of battery mid-flight. Having flown many times and crashed a few, I might be a jerk and not know it, but I’m also 1) lucky I haven’t hurt anyone, and 2) in favor of mandatory registration and some, any, mandatory safety training for drones. Even ignoring FUD about airports and spying neighbors, I still think a little regulation is a good idea.

>>remember that before 2016, the legal requirement for drone piloting was to have a pilot’s license,

This is false, section 336 prohibited the FAA from making such a requirement for Model Aircraft which quad's and other UAV's are.

in 2016 the FAA attempted to impose new regulations on Model Aircraft, these regulations where found to be in-violation of section 336 and where struck down by the courts last year

This new law repeals section 336 stripping Americans of their freedom to fly model aircraft free from government intervention into their hobby

I should have said the legal requirement “according to the FAA”, because before 2016, the FAA wasn’t acknowledging 336 on the FAA.gov web site. That’s the year they decided to clarify that small model aircraft were allowed under 336. 336 was passed in 2012. Between 2012 and 2016, and probably before that, the FAA’s web site stated that UASs fall under their jurisdiction and could be legally flown by licensed pilots. Any commercial drone use at all still requires certification with a remote pilot’s license, which is still being largely ignored & scoffed at by people who want real estate photos and sports videos.

In any case, the point still stands that there was never a time in recent history that drones were unregulated. 336 is a regulation.

> This new law repeals section 336 stripping Americans of their freedom to fly model aircraft free from government intervention into their hobby

We’ve only had a limited, regulated freedom to fly for a short 6 years, and in those six years the drone market has changed to the tune of more than 10x [1]. In the last 6 years, accident rates have grown in proportion to the market size, and more than half the accidents are caused by technical failures [2]. What used to be a relatively inaccessible hobby by a few tens of thousands of people flying gas powered model airplanes, and only in parks because model airplanes require wide open spaces, is now tens of millions of people flying drones than can launch literally anywhere. I never used to see model airplanes flying around tourist destinations, and today I can’t go without seeing one.

If you were flying before 2012, think about the fact that more than 90% of the people flying today have less than 5 years experience, and about half have less than 1 year experience. Also pretty likely is that the majority of drone pilots today are children under 20 years old.

If that doesn’t make you think a small amount of regulation is a good idea, consider that the drone market is still expected to triple or quadruple in the next 5 years, so in short order the majority of drones flown will be piloted by someone who hasn’t flown yet, and has never thought about any of these issues, or about safety, nor ever considered flying some sort of god given right. For both our sakes, I think asking those people to register and do a small amount of safety training is a good idea. While you can, you don’t have to view this as intervention, there are legitimate reasons to regulate hobbies that cause potential harm to others.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/drone-sales-in-us-chart-2017...

[2] https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/drone-statistics/

While I am sure this is the public feel good justification for massive new regulations, it is unlikely to be the actual reason which will be steeped in commercialization of the Hobbyist Airspace.

To remove hobby / amateur flying to make way for the Pizza Delivery and Police Surveillance Drones in that valuable airspace

Remember that pilots (mostly private) make mistakes and kill people, a lot, and they get a lot of goodwill from the authorities and the press for just wearing an uniform. And also they tend to lie on their drone encounters. No actual drone incident has even been reported where the owner of the drone was not violating an obvious rule (either line of sight or zoning), ie the rules don't need to change.

The other thing to consider is that drones are not more dangerous than birds, and they don't fly near airports and they don't form flocks.

Now there will be way more use for small UAV than manned aviation, so one logical thing to do is strictly separate the airspace (400ft- for drones 500ft+ for planes, increase 100ft every 5 years) by preventing manned aircrafts from flying low, in particular on near the coasts, just give them a few dedicated zones for airports and helicopter work, and open most of the rest to unmanned.

What we really need is

0-100 property Owner controlled

100-400 Hobby non-commercial

-400 the FAA does not need to be involved at all

400+ Commercial and this is where the FAA comes in and provides regulations for Commercial UAV and Manned Aircraft to operate in this Commercial Zone

leave us Hobbyist alone.

If a flying drone was as quiet as a flying bird, I would have no problem with them flying around the city where I live. That is not the case, so anywhere not next to a busy road and the drone noise is going to be easily heard and annoying to many people. Over your own property or places where you have permission, fine. Over public or someones else's property, no thank you.

Maybe we could let quite drones (not sure of the dB at ground level that would be acceptable) fly over cities and that would push the development of quieter flying systems.

Why does the FAA need to get involved with any of the stuff you mentioned? Not everything needs to be a Federal matter.

Why is the sound of a drone of such great concern to you? Cars and motorbikes are louder. Jetskis. Scenic flights and helicopters are louder. Leafblowers and many other power tools too. What makes this new sound so objectionable that this is your reaction? I'm curious.

On closer reading FAA shouldn't not be involved and the issues I have can be dealt with at more appropriate levels of government.

Last a checked noise pollution was a local ordinance issue, my city has all kinds of regulations around noise.

Also last I checked no drone I have ever seen is louder than my Lawn Mower, Weed Eater, Snow Blower, Trimmer, leaf Blower, Table Saw, Chop Saw, Metal Grinder, or 100 other pieces of equipment I have that is perfectly legal to use on my property

You are right. The FAA is not a good place to regulate low level drone flights.

This tends to support my notion that the issue is insufficient enforcement of existing rules, requiring registration is one way to make enforcement easier. Which may be a major goal of revising the rules.

Drones are more dangerous than birds. Birds at least try to see and avoid other aircraft. And upon impact drones cause a lot more damage than birds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH0V7kp-xg0

Other studies were not as scary, that's why it's the only one releasing images.