"Given that a multicopter capable of carrying a lethal load of explosives or chemical weapons can be had for under $2000"

That simply isn't true. Accessories for my Phantom 2 are typically measured in grams of weight. A multirotor copter capable of carrying a "lethal load of explosives or chemical weapons" would require a 6 or 8 rotor machine that run in the $6,000 and up price range. This response is typical of the hysteria surrounding the use of muti-rotor model aircraft. Single rotor R/C liquid fueled helicopters have been available for decades, with far more range and lift capacity than the battery powered quads, but there was never an outcry to regulate them out of existence. No, this rush to regulate and ban is the result of a handful of sensationalized news stories about the HORRORS of unregulated flying toys.

This Hex rotor Kit from DSLRPros starts at $6,800.

@Gary

The difference is that the common R/C helicopter doesn't have FPV nor GPS nor is it fully stabilized. Yes, you can equip a helicopter with it but it will never be as good and easy to fly as a quad copter. I fly R/C helis, I currently own a 90size Raptor if that tells you anything but I have also flown others.
The problem are really those dumb enough to fly over private properties just get a nice picture, paparazzi's will soon pickup that technology and then what? I am sure you wouldn't like if someone would hover over your backyard or in front of your bedroom window, which ever applies. It doesn't even have to be a Phantom 2, my old Patriot Drone 2.0 has two cameras onboard and can be equipped with a GPS and autopilot. The camera isn't very good but good enough for some "web" videos.
A packed of C4 isn't heavy and for the technical advanced one can sure be mounted even on a Phantom 2.
I hate regulations but I think they will be necessary. I also fly R/C Jets and we are facing similar issue there because with new technology we will see soon FPV on those. With a top speed of over 200mph,a 1gal of kerosene and a take-off weight of 30-50lbs you don't even need any additional explosives.

"A packed of C4 isn't heavy and for the technical advanced one can sure be mounted even on a Phantom 2"

C4 weighs 1.25 lbs per block. You'd have to cut it up into gram sized loads to use a quad as an effective delivery system. Anything more, and the quad would expend all it's energy just getting off the ground. At that point the entire exercise become pointless, with far better alternatives at much lower cost

That said, you just gave every reason why YOUR sport of R/C helis and R/C Jets should be even MORE regulated. They have far more lift capacity, more range, and with $200 worth of electronics can have an FPV capability on par with any quad. You honestly don't believe that some nameless, faceless regulatory bureaucrat sitting behind his desk trying to justify his job, won't envision a model R/C Jet "packed with C4" flying into a building filled with people? And when he does, in that split second YOUR hobby will be toast. You can't make the statement that it's OK to regulate one aspect of model aviation without letting the proverbial Camels Nose under the tent to regulate the ENTIRE field of model aviation.

It is quite technically possible with the R/C equipment and current miniature gas turbine engines, to build a small 'cruise missile' that could deliver a considerable amount of explosive. And I imagine the FAA is well aware of that.

Up until now, the R/C enthusiasts and clubs near where I live demonstrate great responsibility in how they fly their models, but I think the skill required to fly them at all is not easily mastered, and this has had the benefit of limiting ownership to a smaller group.

But all that changes with products like the Phantom, which are much easier to fly and the only barrier to ownership by idiots is money.

C4? Cruise missiles? Am I missing something here? If someone is willing to use explosives, then what in the world do drone laws matter to them? Do you really think they would give a d**n what the FAA says?

There are already enough laws on the books, this is simply going to be more hassle for someone who wants to use a drone in their business. The video possibilities are, or were, incredible. Better be careful if you want to use drone footage in your production.

The problem is the more fools flying these things in a dangerous manner, the greater the need for laws or a structure to control the use of them. I see nothing wrong with having laws to control them, it is more of an issue as to how the laws are applied.

The situation is hardly different in other countries, the relevant civil aviation authorities should be in a position to control any and all forms of aircraft, model or otherwise. It has always been the case with other forms of aircraft, but in most cases the users have been responsible enough to self-regulate themselves and their sport. They have existed and worked under rules about where and how close they fly to populated areas and such.

That has all gone out the window with the cheap availability of UAVs, so now someone like the FAA will have to make an example of a few idiots to sort it out.

Here in Australia the other day we had an example where a real estate company hired a local guy to take aerial photos of a property for sale, and posted the large scale photograph on the billboard out the front of the property. Trouble was, the photo also captured a woman bathing topless in an adjoining property. She objected, the billboard was removed, and the media circus got hold of the whole thing.

In this case, neither the guy flying the UAV or the real estate company picked up on the presence of the woman, amply demonstrating that neither of them had any process in place to make sure the footage was not offensive to anyone. In other words, idiots at large, and the need for a regulating authority to step in and give them a decent fright.

+1 GeeBax

As for R/C Jets, the FAA has already a big eye on it and the AMA is trying very hard to protect the hobby. Also, an R/C jet isn't so easy to carry around and take off from almost anywhere, you need a descent runway to take off.

Every now and then, someone invents a small flying machine and comes up with the same old tired line: 'Soon we will see people getting about in these instead of cars'

This is the latest example: http://www.e-volo.com/ongoing-developement/vc-200

As it is based on a similar principle to the current crop of multi-rotor models, it should be significantly easier to fly than a normal helicopter. And that in itself is a worry, because the last thing I want to see is some of the brain-dead local drongos in my area getting around in something like that. They are dangerous enough in their over-powered utes (read light pick-up truck).

Wow, Gary, I'll have to tell all my friends that I'm hysterical!!!

Suggest you check out some of the multicopter videos on YouTube. You will see that they can lift more than a few grams, and while maximum weight lift does not prove much, it certainly indicates that we're talking more than a few pounds of lifting capability.

Here's one that is certainly not $6000 machine. I suspect it could deliver a few pounds over a considerable height and distance. BTW, Anthrax and Sarin don't have to weigh much to be lethal.

Ralph, what is your point? Are you seriously arguing that an FAA ruling placing model aircraft under their regulatory umbrella will somehow stop a terrorist from blowing up a target using a multi-rotor because they might get in trouble with the FAA? You have got to be kidding. Regulations don't stop people from doing s.t.u.p.i.d things; because people that do s.t.u.p.i.d things are .. well .. s.t.u.p.i.d. This ruling will have little effect in preventing irresponsible acts by irresponsible people. That will only happen if they add them to the regulatory oversight of a federal policing agency. In a few years we may see the emergence of the new B.A.T.F.E.D. -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Drones.

My point, Gary, is that due to the actions of stupid people, UAVs have gotten a bad name. People have flown them into large sports venues, and given the current state of world affairs, bystanders are , not surprisingly, alarmed.

There are no-fly zones over many areas in the US. Since these zones are publicized, anything flying within them is presumed to be a threat and treated accordingly. There are also rules regarding the use of airspace reserved for manned aircraft. For those who wish to operate responsibly, regulation and licensing may be the only answer. Normal people sometimes also do stupid things and those are the people who do respond to rules.

BTW, the FAA does have regulatory authority and can levy fines. I guess their policing agency would be the US Air Force.

So, to agree with your point about terrorists, bad guys are not deterred by laws. However, when an aircraft is operated outside legal limits, it's of value to be able to react immediately on the assumption that it is a threat.

I did a lot of investigation of multicopters earlier in the year because they looked like a lot of fun. However, it was already obvious that the fun was being spoiled by the irresponsible, so I'll have to find some other toys.

Edit: Well now I understand why you were punctuating s.t.u.p.i.d

Ralph, this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. You believe that because of the irresponsible acts of a small number of people it’s acceptable to place, what amounts to a hobby, under sweeping regulatory oversight. And I don’t. Government regulations never go away; they only grow and become more intrusive.

The FAA is conflating the operation of a model aircraft in a hazardous manner to aviation, and invasion of privacy into a single issue. Interfering with the safe operation of aircraft is already covered by existing FAA regulations, so it appears that the invasion of privacy component of this new policy is what’s in play. And if that’s the difference that’s driving this policy, then look to the future when you’ll have regulations requiring you to be licensed and investigated before you can purchase any type of camera.

Yes, the FAA can impose fines. I didn’t say they couldn’t. But they have no law enforcement authority. The FAA is an agency under the Department of Transportation; a cabinet level Department of the Executive branch. They are in no way associated with the U.S. Air Force; a Military branch under the Department of Defense. Enforcement of FAA regulations must be carried out by a law enforcement agency under the Justice Department; another cabinet level department of the Executive branch. Those include the FBI, BATFE, DEA, U.S. Marshals, and about 60 other Federal agencies. I wasn’t kidding about the emergence of a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Drones.

These things are like throwing candy to a baby. (Typical reactions from the human race) I can readily see why they revised the laws. Next law---drones cannot carry bombs .
JJK

Gary's last post....

Ditto.

Gary, I don't see where my postings say I'm advocating, more regulation. I'm simply stating an opinion about what I see coming. You're attributing beliefs to me that I did not state. I am far from being an advocate of bigger government.

Since I spent 38 years supporting federal government comm and IT systerms including DOD and Civil agencies, (about 12 years supporting the FAA) I'm well aware of the structure of the federal govt. and where the FAA and Air Force fit.

As far as policing, when some casual GA pilot doesn't bother to check the applicable NOTAMS and blunders into restricted airspace, it's usually the Air Force that scrambles some F16's. These interdiction alerts may come from either the FAA or military air traffic controllers. Interdiction is part of policing.

Gary, I hope you get to enjoy many hours operating your quad. I'm sure you do it responsibly. Since this discussion seems to be getting unnecessarily involved with personalities, I'll not be participating further.

Ralph

Why is this even up for discussion?

Flying these things over populated areas is a bad idea. It's common sense.

More people buy these, more of them above us, more of them fall on people's heads. Most people don't really know crap about flying these, and even if they do, things do malfunction from time to time. Especially these cheap toys..

I also feel there is a big difference between a R/C pilot and a drone pilot. R/C pilots, planes, jets helis and so on cant just go anywhere to "play". You have to do it in a controlled environment of a R/C Airfield and for that you have to be a member of a R/C club; aside from the park flyers. Here in the US most clubs also ask you to be an AMA member. Such doesn't seem to apply to drones at all.

I would limit the range, altitude, no GPS, and no autopilot for a drone used by the hobbyist and those used by professionals should get a license.

I actually see it differently. I've been a member of many RC clubs dating back to 1985, and there are a large number of crashes with regular RC planes. I feel far safer flying my Phantom around people than ANY other plane or heli I've ever flown, because of it's technology and stability. I've seen RC planes go crazy and fly in to crowds, cars, and each other. Last year I saw a very expensive turbine F-22 go stupid... at well over 100 mph. Yet my Phantom flies at a jog. And with the explosion of Park Fliers, there are more people flying in the open space around the corner than at fields, because you do not need as much runway or flying space, and virtually none of those guys belongs to the AMA (I'm one of them, too).

With all the hysteria about Quads (er, Drones) one thing missing is the injuries. While I'm sure they are out there, the airwaves are not full of people bleeding from wayward quadcopters.

I miss the good ol days, when someone would do something stupid, and they would get smacked down, instead of a blanket cry to "Ban Everything". I guess I missed the day that personal responsibility died.

As for the military, they are not a police force. Other than the ADIZ, the AF will only be called out to intercept aircraft encroaching on the Prohibited area around DC. Unless there is specific actionable intel about a threat, there are not F-16's ready to go intercept runaway civilian planes, much less a quad.

Keith

Terrorist Quad copters carrying explosives? These things must be banned immediately....... Has any terrorist ever packed a car full of explosives? Oh dear, ban these as well.

The world is too dangerous. Next thing you know they will start selling guns in shops that the public can buy. (UK humour)

I don't think I've ever seen a topic go so far into left field that it's landed on the ten yard line.

From the top- The full NTSB said that if it flies, the FAA can enforce 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless or reckless operation. No other use of drones was covered.

Yes, a $2,000 drone could carry maybe as much as five pounds of payload with maybe a ten to fifteen-minute battery capacity. Top speed of maybe 40 MPH and noisy as heck.

Gary said: "No, this rush to regulate and ban is the result of a handful of sensationalized news stories about the HORRORS of unregulated flying toys." I couldn't have said it better, Gary. Of the many thousands of small UAVs flying, mostly Phantom quadcopters, where's the accident history? A small handful of bruises and abrasions don't rise to the level of accident. (The Federal Aviation Regulations defines an accident as:


... so if you die on day 31, it's not a fatal accident.)

Barry said: "If someone is willing to use explosives, then what in the world do drone laws matter to them? Do you really think they would give a d**n what the FAA says?" Unfortunately, this falls into the category of Common Sense which the people crying for laws to protect them from these flying lawnmowers completely lack.

GeeBax - "neither the guy flying the UAV or the real estate company picked up on the presence of the woman, amply demonstrating that neither of them had any process in place to make sure the footage was not offensive to anyone."
Have you seen the photo? Here's a challenge to those who haven't seen the photo. Find the nude. Then try really, really hard to not be offended. (Hint, she is not inside the yellow rectangle).


RalphM - "I suspect it could deliver a few pounds over a considerable height and distance. BTW, Anthrax and Sarin don't have to weigh much to be lethal." Right. A terrorist will use a noisy small aircraft that is guaranteed to attract attention to spread their method of terror because nothing else has been available before drones.

Gary- "Are you seriously arguing that an FAA ruling placing model aircraft under their regulatory umbrella will somehow stop a terrorist from blowing up a target using a multi-rotor because they might get in trouble with the FAA? You have got to be kidding." This is great, I plan to use your quote the next time someone tells me that there ought to be a law.

Deusx- "More people buy these, more of them above us, more of them fall on people's heads". Refer to my response to Gary: Of the many thousands of small UAVs flying, mostly Phantom quadcopters, where's the accident history?

Old Smoke- "Here in the US most clubs also ask you to be an AMA member. Such doesn't seem to apply to drones at all." The AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) has been historically intolerant to multirotors (even to not permitting them to be flown at their fields), openly hostile to FPV and adamantly opposed to using a quad to take videos for (gasp) profit. Given the AMA's open hostility to drones, I am not the least bit surprised that drone operators feel unwelcome there.

And to the OP - " just that the guy was reckless and scared a pedestrian with some kind of kamikaze fly-by. So who knows." Ironic because the pedestrian on the sidewalk was a friend of Pirkers who was trying to hand catch the model. Not an unusual way to end the flight of a four-pound foam model.

>>>> Of the many thousands of small UAVs flying, mostly Phantom quadcopters, where's the accident history? <<<

Are you joking? I'm sure I could find a few hundred crashes on youtube, in less than 5 minutes.

If they continue to be unregulated, more and more of those crashes will happen over populated areas and injure/kill people. The number of these being flown today is nothing compared to what we'll have in a few years.

Fly them all you like, somewhere in the desert or in the mountains.

Typing quadcopter crash into google gives me 38,600 results, on youtube you get 204 000 results

no worries, better than trap shooting with my 12 bore, and much more fun with a .22 with tele sights.

yes, i'm serious.

if you haven't asked permission to fly over my airspace (approx 150mt), then you're by law trespassing... higher than 150mt you'll need a permit from the faa or equivalent