Busting the GoPro Drone Cowboys

NewYorkophile said:
The issue is where you draw the line for altitude limitations. Sure, 400ft sounds fine, but there are a whole bunch of us wearing green pajamas that fly a lot lower than that.

Maybe an altitude & weight limitation. Must weigh under 150lbs, stay below 400ft, within visual range of operator, no closer than 5NM to Class B/C/D, no closer than 1NM to public airfields, etc.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of guys who use public airports(uncontrolled) for their RC stuff. Done responsibly, I see nothing wrong with it.
 
Minuteman said:
I could get behind a couple of new categories and classes in the oldde FAA's pilot certification scheme.

You can fly a LSA with a driver's license and a 3rd class medical, so it's not like the system can't support certification commensurate w/ performance. Also, you can't prohibit things from all of the wide-open, not even in Comm'nist Zhōngguó.
Click to expand...

As could I.
 
mshunter said:
The FAA shouldn't be regulating the average hobbiest. But they should regulate the crap out of the "for hire" guys. I fly a lot of "park flyers." The FAA has no reason to regulate a guy like me. But the videos posted in this thread are a problem.
Click to expand...

This logic would seem to imply that the highway patrol shouldn't regulate non-road-legal scooters scooting down the interstates. As the sole regulator of airspace, of course the FAA should be regulating ALL drones. Commercial or non-commercial, the hazard is the same. The intentions and ambitions of the drone user have little bearing on the gaping hole left in your wing when you collide with the drone.
 
There's REGULATION and then there's ENFORCEMENT. It's relatively simple to both regulate AND enforce violations involving a federally-registered aircraft.

Since these are thousands of unlicensed toys, then regarless of the regulations imposed, the ENFORCEMENT needs to be pushed from the federal level down to local jurisdictions which will receive complaints about violations, and be in a position to enforce. Which goes back to my clear definition of the maximum weight of the UAV/drone, and the airspaces in which flight is prohibited.

I like the 400' AGL cap on the toys because aircraft can't operate below 500' AGL except when taking off or landing. There's your 100' insurance boundary.
 
Crop Duster said:
This logic would seem to imply that the highway patrol shouldn't regulate non-road-legal scooters scooting down the interstates. As the sole regulator of airspace, of course the FAA should be regulating ALL drones. Commercial or non-commercial, the hazard is the same. The intentions and ambitions of the drone user have little bearing on the gaping hole left in your wing when you collide with the drone.
Click to expand...

I guess ignorance leads to fear. Because it's obvious you aren't up to speed of what goes on at a normal model airport, with your average RC airplane. Using your logic, our government should do away with the 2nd amendment because a few lunatics decided to go on a shooting spree. Like I said, regulate it. But properly. Not some damn "RC ERRPLANES IS THE DEVIL. 'MURICA! WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FER YA!" knee jerk reaction. Not all hobbiests are "drone" operators. Hell, Van Nuys has a very busy model airport RIGHT OFF the departure end of 16 AND less that a mile from the approach into Burbank. It's well known it's there, and if you don't know it's there, you had better do a little better briefing before you depart. There has never ever been a case of a model and an airplane colliding. And they have both coexisted for better than 50 years. They have giant scale meets there, turbine models are allowed, they race there, have aerobatic meet's there, etc. And, it sits well inside of controlled airspace. They are the proof that it doesn't need the wrong kind of regulation. It needs the right kind of regulation to control the idiots that do stupid things with "drones." RC airplanes are not drones.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You don't have a constitutional right to fly a drone (or anything else) in the airspace.
Click to expand...

So if I mount a gun on a drone… (kidding, the ATF does not look at all kindly on any kind of firearm that doesn't have a strictly mechanical link between a finger and causing a bullet to leave the barrel (lol bumpfire!))
 
mshunter said:
I guess ignorance leads to fear. Because it's obvious you aren't up to speed of what goes on at a normal model airport, with your average RC airplane. Using your logic, our government should do away with the 2nd amendment because a few lunatics decided to go on a shooting spree. Like I said, regulate it. But properly. Not some damn "RC ERRPLANES IS THE DEVIL. 'MURICA! WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FER YA!" knee jerk reaction. Not all hobbiests are "drone" operators. Hell, Van Nuys has a very busy model airport RIGHT OFF the departure end of 16 AND less that a mile from the approach into Burbank. It's well known it's there, and if you don't know it's there, you had better do a little better briefing before you depart. There has never ever been a case of a model and an airplane colliding. And they have both coexisted for better than 50 years. They have giant scale meets there, turbine models are allowed, they race there, have aerobatic meet's there, etc. And, it sits well inside of controlled airspace. They are the proof that it doesn't need the wrong kind of regulation. It needs the right kind of regulation to control the idiots that do stupid things with "drones." RC airplanes are not drones.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest one of the fine decaf choices available...
 
tomokc said:
I like the 400' AGL cap on the toys because aircraft can't operate below 500' AGL except when taking off or landing. There's your 100' insurance boundary.
Click to expand...

Is that true? My understanding has always been that you cannot operate within 500' of persons or property. If you are out in the country flying over an empty pasture, there's no minimum limit. You just have to be able to land safely if you're engine fails.

§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.
 
Crop Duster said:
Might I suggest one of the fine decaf choices available...
Click to expand...

Just because you don't like my point of view doesn't mean you have to be a smart ass. I've given good example of why I think the regulation needs to be done properly, all I've seen you do is knee jerk, "REGULATE DRONES!"
 
This ^.
The attitude of "Aw, hell.....it ain't hurtin' nothing...." Is the root of the problem. The people who think their actions are totally harmless are usually the ones who end up in civil suits whining about fate screwing them.
 
mshunter said:
I guess ignorance leads to fear. Because it's obvious you aren't up to speed of what goes on at a normal model airport, with your average RC airplane. Using your logic, our government should do away with the 2nd amendment because a few lunatics decided to go on a shooting spree. Like I said, regulate it. But properly. Not some damn "RC ERRPLANES IS THE DEVIL. 'MURICA! WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FER YA!" knee jerk reaction. Not all hobbiests are "drone" operators. Hell, Van Nuys has a very busy model airport RIGHT OFF the departure end of 16 AND less that a mile from the approach into Burbank. It's well known it's there, and if you don't know it's there, you had better do a little better briefing before you depart. There has never ever been a case of a model and an airplane colliding. And they have both coexisted for better than 50 years. They have giant scale meets there, turbine models are allowed, they race there, have aerobatic meet's there, etc. And, it sits well inside of controlled airspace. They are the proof that it doesn't need the wrong kind of regulation. It needs the right kind of regulation to control the idiots that do stupid things with "drones." RC airplanes are not drones.
Click to expand...

LMAO Regulate the internet (another thread) but not my model ERRPLANES!! Yeah that makes total sense. Airspace is already regulated and having some guidelines for drone operators is a necessary evil. Nobody is gunning for your RC airplanes, just ass hats flying their drones at 1200 feet, and potentially killing a plane load of people. Wait for that to happen and you know the gubm't will bring the hammer down hard on your model ERRPLANES.

Your thought process is at least consistently emotional.
 
desertdog71 said:
LMAO Regulate the internet (another thread) but not my model ERRPLANES!! Yeah that makes total sense. Airspace is already regulated and having some guidelines for drone operators is a necessary evil. Nobody is gunning for your RC airplanes, just ass hats flying their drones at 1200 feet, and potentially killing a plane load of people. Wait for that to happen and you know the gubm't will bring the hammer down hard on your model ERRPLANES.

Your thought process is at least consistently emotional.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I kinda thought my stance in tjenother thread was to keep gubmint(regulation) out of it. Maybe I miss spoke and I'll go back and look. As for what you are saying here, that's kind of what I've been saying this whole thread. I can see a knee jerk reaction coming, from our government, again. It needs to be regulated in the interest of safety. Am I missing something?

Edit to add: But grandpa and his RC airplane isn't the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top