Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

My article was different

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Tricky, Oct 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tricky

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    Westchester County, New York
    Not sure why it was locked. Had new info AND a quote from Brendan Schulman of dji

    Maybe someone should have read it first...this isn't my first day here.
     
  2. msinger

    Approved Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    19,073
    Likes Received:
    5,619
    Location:
    US
  3. Tricky

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    Westchester County, New York
    Interesting... But not accurate. My article was published with new sources from a more reputable news outlet within the last 12 hours, your linked article is different...my whole point.

    But hey. Don't read mine. It's cool.
     
  4. msinger

    Approved Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    19,073
    Likes Received:
    5,619
    Location:
    US
    The mods probably locked your thread because it's not very useful to attempt to maintain countless threads on the same topic. Why not join the existing thread I linked above? Your article would have fit in just fine there.
     
    GoodnNuff, PilotHarry and dirkclod like this.
  5. Tricky

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    Westchester County, New York
    True. But how many of us are still reading that thread, it's turned into a monster, with, in my opinion, less than helpful opinions but a lot of back and forth about government conspirists.

    I truly just wanted to add a fresh perspective from someone at DJI, among others quoted, and thought if I dumped it in the other thread, it would not reach many folks.
    We are all here for each other, I was just trying to help, not to add more of the same.
     
    PilotHarry likes this.
  6. Meta4

    Meta4 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,759
    Likes Received:
    3,468
    Your post may have contained a link to new information - but no-one could tell that without having a subscription to WSJ.

    So your post was meaningless to most readers.
    It would have been interesting to read the article but unfortunately only the first few lines could be read.
    It would have been good if you'd told us what it said.
     
    dirkclod likes this.
  7. Tricky

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    Westchester County, New York
    Not for nothing but my original post had a pretty simple way to gain access. Google.
     
    #7 Tricky, Oct 19, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2015
  8. Meta4

    Meta4 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,759
    Likes Received:
    3,468
    I tried Google and still couldn't find any outer source for the information other than the WSJ article.
    For most readers, your post didn't carry any information, just a link that goes nowhere.
    Just tried Google again and all I can find are a bunch more links to the original WSJ article and still no way to read the content.
     
  9. Tricky

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    Westchester County, New York
    Okay, sorry for all this...it's sort of known by folks who read WSJ but don't have a subscription (like me), all you need to do to beat the subscription wall is copy the article link, Google the exact link, when the article appears as the first Google result in your search, simply click it and read entire article for free.

    It's a pain, but hey, we are all looking to know as much as possible...I'm just trying to help, and I understand where you're coming from Meta...I mean no offense.
     
  10. Tricky

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    88
    Location:
    Westchester County, New York
    U.S. regulators plan to require recreational drone owners to register their devices, an ambitious bid to rein in reckless users that faces a tight timeline and a thicket of legal and practical questions.

    The Transportation Department plans to announce Monday that it wants to soon require registration for all unmanned aircraft “except for toys and those with minimal safety risk,” according to a draft news release reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

    The department plans to create a task force of more than two dozen government and industry representatives to recommend the specifics of a registration policy, including which drones should be included, how users will register and whether the rules will apply to drones already sold, according to people familiar with the plans. The draft news release says the department wants to “create a culture of accountability” for drone operators.

    Several people said the government aims to issue final registration rules before Christmas, an exceptionally fast timeline for aviation regulations. Typical aviation rulemakings take years.

    The Transportation Department said it planned to make a drone-related announcement Monday but declined further comment.

    Advertisement

    Regulators and lawmakers have struggled to keep up with the proliferation of drones as new technology has made them smaller, cheaper and easier to fly, increasing concern that the devices pose a threat to people in the air and on the ground. Industry executives estimate hundreds of thousands of drones have been sold in the U.S.

    Registration would be one of regulators’ most ambitious steps to crack down on unsafe flights and enforce existing rules, including that drones can’t be flown near airports or beyond the sight of an operator.

    Defining which drones would require registration is expected to be a key issue for the task force, several committee members said. Commercial drones are to be regulated by separate rules expected to be completed next year.

    Regulators are expected to require registration for the most popular recreational drones—four-rotor copters called Phantoms made by China’s SZ DJI Technology Co. that sell for roughly $1,000—and similar models. Members said regulators might be willing to exclude smaller devices, such as the 2-ounce, $100 MiniDrones sold by French manufacturer Parrot SA.

    Several drone-industry executives and former government officials expressed skepticism that regulators would be able to meet the year-end goal. One person familiar with the government’s plans said the agency intends to declare the rule an emergency, allowing regulators to short-circuit a process that normally requires monthslong reviews and public-comment periods.

    Completing an aviation rule in three months would be “unprecedented,” said Jim Williams, who retired in June as the top drone official at the Federal Aviation Administration and is now a consultant for the law firm Dentons. “It would be the most amazing feat of governance I’ve seen in my 33 years in the federal government.”

    People associated with the industry raised a host of other logistical questions: Will drone sellers be required to collect customer information? How will the policy account for homemade drones? Can the FAA simplify and streamline a registration process that for manned aircraft typically takes about three months?

    The expedited timeline worries many, including those who support registration to help educate users about airspace rules.

    “It’s a step in the right direction,” said Gretchen West, an adviser at law firm Hogan Lovells LLP. But the government’s timeline “makes me nervous what the outcome will be.”

    Others noted that the commercial-drone rules have been in the works since 2005. “After 10 years of rule making, we suddenly have this scramble to do something within a month, which is terribly short under any circumstances,” said Brendan Schulman, DJI’s head of policy.

    Mr. Williams, the former FAA official, and others also questioned how regulators plan to deal with a 2012 law that generally prohibits the FAA from regulating recreational drones. FAA officials have cited that law as the reason they don’t plan extensive regulations for recreational drones, similar to those for commercial devices.

    “This is a serious open question,” said task-force member Greg McNeal, a Pepperdine University law professor and co-founder of AirMap, an airspace-information app for drone users.

    The person familiar with the government’s plans said that federal lawyers are expected to argue that drones are legally aircraft, and thus the FAA can require them to be registered under other laws.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.