Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New drone rules
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
cascadeclimber
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1325 | TRs

cascadeclimber
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 3:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Requiring every drone over 0.55 pounds to be trackable and setting up a national tracking infrastructure because a tiny fraction of users misbehaved is akin to requiring every motorized vehicle larger than a skateboard to have a breathalyzer that is tracked in real time.

Or requiring every backcountry user in a permit zone to carry a location beacon that reports back their location so they don't go anywhere not allowed by their permit.

--------------
If not now, when?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11031 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((>
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 3:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ oh yeah.... you mean like requiring my 89-year-old mother to remove her shoes before boarding a commercial airline flight?

remember that we're all taking our shoes off to board airplanes because of one incompetent bumbler who couldn't manage to get the fuse lit on his "shoe bomb".

in relative terms, the proposed requirements for drones aren't even on the same scale of ridiculousness.

just banning the goddam things outright would be much simpler.

like gasoline-powered backpack leaf blowers: the only people who are in favor of their use are those using them. everybody else hates them.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 7303 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 3:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
cascadeclimber wrote:
Requiring every drone over 0.55 pounds to be trackable and setting up a national tracking infrastructure because a tiny fraction of users misbehaved is akin to requiring every motorized vehicle larger than a skateboard to have a breathalyzer that is tracked in real time.

Or requiring every backcountry user in a permit zone to carry a location beacon that reports back their location so they don't go anywhere not allowed by their permit.

Or like requiring all vehicles to have airbags even though 99.9+% of drivers are ever involved in a collision where airbags are beneficial.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sore Feet
Random Quippy Bit



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6219 | TRs
Location: I'm on a boat
Sore Feet
  Top

Random Quippy Bit
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 7:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
yeah... all of those news articles on all those websites I posted in that list on the previous page were all "straw men".

I'm not trying to argue that those aren't legitimate issues, I'm pointing out that the bulk of *your* argument seems to be "drones annoy me, therefore they should be banned", and that's a load of crap - and you know it - unless anything that annoys anyone else can also be banned for being annoying.

Once again, the problem here is that drones are a device that have plenty of legitimate uses, and like any such toys which can and / are owned for recreational or personal use, there are a considerably larger number of responsible users out there than there are people who don't know what they're doing, or can't be bothered to learn / follow the rules.  When you focus on the incidents like in the articles you pointed out, you paint a picture that these devices are inherently dangerous when that simply isn't the case.

Should an entire industry be shut down just because a few people decide to misbehave with their toys?  Maybe apply that argument to something other than drones for some much needed perspective that you seem to be highly resistant to?

--------------
Bryan Swan
Pictures - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanswan
Waterfalls - www.waterfallsnorthwest.com
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
cascadeclimber
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1325 | TRs

cascadeclimber
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 7:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
^ oh yeah.... you mean like requiring my 89-year-old mother to remove her shoes before boarding a commercial airline flight?

remember that we're all taking our shoes off to board airplanes because of one incompetent bumbler who couldn't manage to get the fuse lit on his "shoe bomb".

in relative terms, the proposed requirements for drones aren't even on the same scale of ridiculousness.

just banning the goddam things outright would be much simpler.

like gasoline-powered backpack leaf blowers: the only people who are in favor of their use are those using them. everybody else hates them.

1. You sound like me.
2. I don't take my shoes off because I've demonstrated that I'm well behaved. Same with all other TSA Precheck and Clear people.
3. We tried "just banning the goddam things" with alcohol and marijuana. Neither was effective.
4. (editing to add) I don't own a backpack leaf blower and I don't hate them.

Making rules that screw up something for the VAST majority because a tiny percentage cannot refrain from being a-holes isn't a solution that is in harmony with free societies.

I mean, that would be like banning deeohgee-ess because a few people are irresponsible with them, right?

--------------
If not now, when?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 8:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I despise the darned things, but even I don't think a ban is just.

New regulation for new tech makes some level of sense in this situation.

Lumping in old tech which was never a problem and still isn't, is over reach.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 11031 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((>
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 8:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sore Feet wrote:
"drones annoy me, therefore they should be banned"

No, that's not the case at all. You're trying to put words into my mouth.

FAIL.

Drones annoy a great number of people. Had you bothered to read the articles I cited, you would have noted that virtually the entire crowd gathered around the crater rim at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was screaming at the guy operating the drone.
Had you bothered to read the articles I cited, you would have noted that a large group of people had their experience watching the sunset from the rim of the Grand Canyon (in Grand Canyon National Park) compromised by some idiot flying a drone.
Had you bothered to read the articles I cited, you would have noted that an entire community in West Hollywood, California was left without electrical power because of some moron flying a drone over a fire event.
I get it that you would prefer to dismiss the facts out of hand, because they simply do not fit your narrative. I understand that. Unfortunately that doesn't change the reality for the rest of us, nor does it change the facts.
The devices in the hands of novices, or "hobbyists" as you and another member contend, have proven to be a public nuisance.
Certainly they have legitimate uses, as I've cited above.

Do yourself a favor and focus your energy and attention somewhere that it might be effective, because you're not going to change my mind about drones. As far as I'm concerned, their use should be outlawed, as has been the case in several countries. Unfortunately the U.S. is way behind the curve on this one.

cascadeclimber wrote:
I don't own a backpack leaf blower and I don't hate them.

You are the exception to the rule.

cascasdeclimber wrote:
Making rules that screw up something for the VAST majority because a tiny percentage cannot refrain from being a-holes isn't a solution that is in harmony with free societies.

Drones and gasoline-powered backpack leaf blowers are not owned and operated by any "vast majority" - not by any stretch of the imagination. Your use of hyperbole here is laughable.
The reality is that dozens of municipalities in California (and other states) have banned the use of gasoline-powered backpack blowers primarily due to citizen complaints about noise. (There are as well arguments which revolve around particulate emissions and hydrocarbon outputs of two-stroke engines, but those are not issues within the scope of the statutory authority of municipal governments. Rather, those issues have to be addressed by State and Federal agencies, such as California's C.A.R.B..)
I suppose if you want to argue that dozens of municipalities in California are no longer part of a "free society", you could contact the Governor's office in Sacramento.

As a member of a "free society", I should be free from having to hear your drone buzzing overhead or listening to the screaming two-stroke gasoline engine on a leaf blower. Your putative "right" to engage in your "hobby" does not take precedence over my right to enjoy the peace and quiet of my own back yard. Moreover, it most certainly doesn't trump my right to enjoy silence in a National Park, National Forest, State Park, or any other piece of publicly-owned real estate on which I might seek quiet and solace.

Your "right" to engage in your hobby ends when it interferes with or compromises my right not to be bothered by you.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 7303 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 11:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Lumping in old tech which was never a problem and still isn't, is over reach.

Yasureyabetcha -- Shipping containers on freighters are also "old tech" and have never been used in a terrorist attack -- but there still subject to much more stringent inspection regimes in a post 9/11 world..

Get your head out of the sand.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 4279 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
  Top

Faster than light
PostWed Mar 04, 2020 11:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I knew the minute I saw my first multirotor over a decade ago that these things possessed the ability to severely impact and perhaps wipe out classic RC flying because people would not recognize the differences or be willing to make distinctions between them, in spite of the demonstrable differences... especially in capabilities.

Standard RC aircraft have no more capabilities than they ever did, for all that time...30-50 years minimum (depending upon how granular we wish to get on control capabilities).

You were refusing to acknowledge the difference between human powered bikes, and motorized ones.  This seems like a good analogy.  Ironic.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2020 9:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cyclopath wrote:
You were refusing to acknowledge the difference between human powered bikes, and motorized ones.  This seems like a good analogy.  Ironic.

I didn't refuse to acknowledge the differences in any way, shape, or form.  I noted the differences were irrelevant to the arguments being made, since the impact of the differences is a  feeling. Every time I asked what actual harm was done to other users, I got feelings back. They're no louder, no stinkier, few or no external impacts different from regular bikes. In spite of being every bit as quiet and non emitting anything like any other bike, their presence is the issue for those who object. (note the community elitism questions raised elsewhere)

Aside from that, basing an argument on what I never did renders the analogy argument false.

Classic tech cannot takeoff, land, or even remain in controlled flight without continual human input and at a distance limited by sight to short distances. They cannot hold a heading, altitude or perform any task not under the direct instantaneous control of the pilot. Drones can do all of this and more, including very complex routes without a single human input during the flight, or even any part of the flight from launch to landing.

It's curious that after arguing I wouldn't recognize differences, your arguments seem to imply you won't.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12000 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2020 9:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
Yasureyabetcha -- Shipping containers on freighters are also "old tech" and have never been used in a terrorist attack -- but there still subject to much more stringent inspection regimes in a post 9/11 world..

Get your head out of the sand.

Arguing for over regulation by citing over regulation elsewhere is what's called a circular argument.

You can't show an actual problem, you can't show past problems, you can't show anything except fear. Yet you have 30-50 years minimum to search for evidence of the problems caused, and come up empty.

The saddest part is what you support that has no impact on the people who will do bad things, and all it's impact on those who won't.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 7303 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2020 10:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Classic tech cannot takeoff, land, or even remain in controlled flight without continual human input and at a distance limited by sight to short distances. They cannot hold a heading, altitude or perform any task not under the direct instantaneous control of the pilot. Drones can do all of this and more, including very complex routes without a single human input during the flight, or even any part of the flight from launch to landing.

So exactly how does the FAA distinguish between a "classic tech" fixed wing RC aircraft from a fixed wing RC aircraft with a remote video feed and/or an AI guidance system -- when said aircraft is approaching Husky Stadium or The Gorge Amphitheater?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 1232 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2020 10:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
So, two types of Remote ID: Standard (RF broadcast + internet) and Limited (internet only).  If I'm reading correctly, Limited would require a connection for takeoff, but Standard only if available?

Seems like a cheap solution could be for the operator to pick up the broadcast ID with a device tethered to his/her cell phone (which, conveniently, has an internet connection).  Old units could be easily retrofitted (with some officially-ID'd cheap GPS+transmitter gizmo) if it weren't for that serial-number-at-manufacture requirement, which seems like the real draconian bit.

I get the intent behind the proposal, but think a few simple changes could make it just as effective and much more palatable to those with time-honored hobbies.  Reads like security theater at this point.

Also while I share the annoying-drone concern, I don't see how this fixes it.  When (if) it takes effect in 5 years or whatever, people will have to buy new drones, and there will be further incentive to not be a complete idiot (because every move is being tracked).  That's great, but they'll be much more ubiquitous (again, I don't think the internet requirement will be cost prohibitive) with plenty of jerks happy to continue testing the boundaries.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
cascadeclimber
Member
Member


Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1325 | TRs

cascadeclimber
  Top

Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2020 4:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
Drones and gasoline-powered backpack leaf blowers are not owned and operated by any "vast majority"

I left out "users". The vast majority of *users*. I agree that most people do not own hobby drones or backpack leaf blowers. And my point stands: Imparting onerous rules or bans on an entire user base over the misbehavior of a tiny, tiny fraction of them is not something that is done in free societies.

And just because a handful of places in California have done so doesn't change that. Nearly half the country voted for a cretin who thinks it's okay for powerful men to molest women. Does that make it acceptable? Nope.

Drones are banned in national parks. You get your solace.

Drones are banned in wilderness. You get your solace.

They are not banned in national forests and some state parks. Neither are snow mobiles and in some place motorcycles and motorized bicycles and RC planes and helicopters and chainsaws and logging and mining. I don't care for those things, but I also don't complain when I run into snow mobiles low on St. Helens or on their pie-wedge on Baker. They are allowed and following rules. I do get upset when a small fraction of those users ride to the summits illegally. But I'm not here suggesting that snow mobiles be banned or real-time tracked to prevent it.

I also don't like fighter jets screaming over my head in wilderness areas. Maybe we should ban airplanes?

Ski wrote:
Your "right" to engage in your hobby ends when it interferes with or compromises my right not to be bothered by you.

Uh, no. Your choice to be bothered is your choice and does not get to compromise anyone else's actual rights under current law. You do NOT have a "right" to not be bothered. People blaring music from cell phones on trails annoys me to no end; it's highly inconsiderate. So am I good saying we should ban cell phones and all portable music players?

Snow shoers ruining skin tracks bothers me. Ban show shoes?
Snobby skiers whining about their skin tracks probably annoy some snow shoers. Ban skis?

Are drones bothersome when used inconsiderately? Yes.
Are drones potentially dangerous when used stupidly? Yes.

Could a nearly endless list of things that are not banned or tracked be substituted for 'drones' in those two statements? Also yes.

--------------
If not now, when?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 7303 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2020 7:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
cascadeclimber wrote:
People blaring music from cell phones on trails annoys me to no end; it's highly inconsiderate. So am I good saying we should ban cell phones and all portable music players?

Well actually

Quote:
Noise Control Act of 1972
This act establishes a national policy to promote an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare. The Congress declares that "it is the policy of the United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of this Act to establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control, to authorize the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce, and to provide information to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products

In NPS and USFS Wilderness status lands amplified sound is prohibited.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New drone rules
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy