Busting the GoPro Drone Cowboys

mshunter said:
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.
Click to expand...
The other argument for net neutrality open the door for regulation. Perhaps you misunderstand the issue. The supporters of Net Neutrality want the FCC to regulate the ISP's, thus making the internet a utility. That whole argument has been framed in a way to confuse folks that like free markets into buying into regulation.
 
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...
100% agree. Well, sorta. First none of these things are "drones", they are merely rc aircraft. Prior to the last decade or so, it has been impossible to fly an rc plane outside of line of sight, so the FAA had nothing to regulate.

Fast forward to 2005-ish, and you have all sorts of inexpensive equipment coming online that can turn an rc plane into something that can be flown 20 miles away from the operator and back. Either manually or on auto pilot. Various sensors can be attached, from airspeed, altitude, GPS, etc. You can get a pretty advanced setup from 3-D Robotics for under a grand.

By 2014, the FAA still has not done anything about this new area of aviation. The last time the FAA wrote anything on paper about the RC industry was circa 1981. Advisory Circular 91-57 link from FAA.gov

So are these guys breaking FAR's? Well the answer as of now is NO, because the FAA as no laws on the books to regulate RC aircraft.

Are they breaking local laws? Such as public endangerment ordinances? Possibly. Certainly folks that operate on localize/glide-slope and thereabouts are putting aircraft at risk by getting in their way.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's all of 91.119 which covers both congested and uncongested areas. My point is to illustrate that manned aircraft are prohibited from operating within 500' of the surface unless over open water, whereas UAVs/drones are prohibited from operating higher than 400' above the surface. I don't know if that was the intent when creating regulations for RC aircraft, but that's a reasonable 100' safety buffer.

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 those cases, 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 any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
 
tomokc said:
Here's all of 91.119 which covers both congested and uncongested areas. My point is to illustrate that manned aircraft are prohibited from operating within 500' of the surface unless over open water, whereas UAVs/drones are prohibited from operating higher than 400' above the surface. I don't know if that was the intent when creating regulations for RC aircraft, but that's a reasonable 100' safety buffer.

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 those cases, 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 any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure aircraft aren't prohibited from operating within 500' AGL in operations other than takeoff or landing. You are misreading the intent of the regulation.
 
I'm guessing there are over a million gps/autopilot/stabilized models of one type or another in this country. Most of the enthusiasts are reasonable, responsible folks. There are quite a few cowboys. Until visible enforcement occurs, and the resulting threads flood the various forums discussing it, the risk (IMO, low as it is) will continue to grow.
If something "bad" actually happens though, I would be willing to bet the FAA would step up and actually make some black and white, easy to read, and very public rules.
 
It's only a matter of time before a midair with a hobby drone will cause the death of an air carrier full of people. Then and only then will major laws be passed.

Seems like the FAA has no enforcement power in this area. Laws need to come from federal, state and local codes.
 
fholbert said:
It's only a matter of time before a midair with a hobby drone will cause the death of an air carrier full of people. Then and only then will major laws be passed.

Seems like the FAA has no enforcement power in this area. Laws need to come from federal, state and local codes.
Click to expand...

I hope if something like a FPV model were to hit an airliner, it would just leave a noticeable dent. I really doubt one could "bring down" a jet. Might make for an interesting day for the crew though. Could certainly screw up a windshield, or an N1 or whatever. The batteries on some of them are about like a brick.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
You can fly as low as you want as long as you aren't near persons or buildings, and you won't crash into anything if you lose an engine. The reg says that plainly.

If over a congested area, that's different of course.
Click to expand...


Which is why congested areas are shown in yellow on VFR sectionals.
While flying SAR, or during fire suppression, we routinely flew below 500 AGL, with the FAA's full blessings. Always in rural areas, obviously.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
You can fly as low as you want as long as you aren't near persons or buildings, and you won't crash into anything if you lose an engine. The reg says that plainly.

If over a congested area, that's different of course.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring paragraphs B & C which plainly say is that you can't operate below 1,000 feet in congested areas, or 500 feet in uncongested areas, the only exception being for takeoff or landing.
 
tomokc said:
You're ignoring paragraphs B & C which plainly say is that you can't operate below 1,000 feet in congested areas, or 500 feet in uncongested areas, the only exception being for takeoff or landing.
Click to expand...

In sparsely or unpopulated areas you can operate as low as you want with only the 500 ft restriction. I wouldn't recommend it for most, but it's certainly legal. I've gone Sioux Falls to San Jose with only occasional excursions above 20 ft AGL.
 
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...

And yet, there are videos of folks flying a model 4 or 5 thousand feet above that same area.
 
Itchy said:
And yet, there are videos of folks flying a model 4 or 5 thousand feet above that same area.
Click to expand...

And THESE are the problem people...as the thread title says, the "cowboys" who want to see how much they can do, yet give no thought to the consequences of their actions.
@mshunter has listed examples of responsible hobbyists flying in peace with us full scale types. And we should hope any regulations are based on the good examples those people are setting, and not reacting to some more-money-than-sense d-bag who sent his Quadcopter through the approach corridor.
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
That's not the only exception. Read (c) again.
Click to expand...
I'm continually reminded to "read (c) again" but nobody's saying why. I'll say why I disagree...

It was explained to me by several instructors and former military pilots - usually over beers when debating interpretations of the FARs - that a fence post can be considered a "structure" as it pertains to paragraph (c). Therefore, unless you're certain that there is nothing - NOTHING - on the surface where you're flying in that "sparsely populated area," 500' AGL is the minimum legal altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top