You are so far off base with your posts and what this "ridiculous" hobby is about, there is no point in trying to educate you about shy of it. I've been find it for almost 30 years. It will be 30 in another three. I have never had an accident where someone or property was damaged or hurt. But there have been hundreds of accidents where people have been killed from flying the task thing recklessly from flying free real thing. You honestly remind me of velocipede, who was eventually banned IIRC because of his crass and argumentative posts about banning "little airplanes" because they are dangerous. Get an education on "model airplanes" and the "ridiculous" hobby, then come back and have an educated discussion. Until then, all it really sounds like is "rabble rabble, them's the devil Bobby!"
Excellent news concerning Drones
- Thread starter Seggy
- Start date
You are so far off base with your posts and what this "ridiculous" hobby is about, there is no point in trying to educate you about shy of it. I've been find it for almost 30 years. It will be 30 in another three. I have never had an accident where someone or property was damaged or hurt. But there have been hundreds of accidents where people have been killed from flying the task thing recklessly from flying free real thing. You honestly remind me of velocipede, who was eventually banned IIRC because of his crass and argumentative posts about banning "little airplanes" because they are dangerous. Get an education on "model airplanes" and the "ridiculous" hobby, then come back and have an educated discussion. Until then, all it really sounds like is "rabble rabble, them's the devil Bobby!"
tbstanto
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that people should be able to fly these things wherever they want, with no regard for public safety?
5 years ago, how many RC's were flown on an average day? On that same average day in 2015? There are thousands more being flown now. It is one of the hottest "toys" being given as Christmas presents this year. It is only a matter of time before they start hitting real airplanes. It is a big sky, but there are more things sharing the sky every day.
5 years ago, how many RC's were flown on an average day? On that same average day in 2015? There are thousands more being flown now. It is one of the hottest "toys" being given as Christmas presents this year. It is only a matter of time before they start hitting real airplanes. It is a big sky, but there are more things sharing the sky every day.
Last edited:
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Fuel for the fire:
As far as I'm concerned, these things need regulation - some sort. If that makes things tough for the hobbyists out there, that's a bummer, but you can't have these things just blasting all over the place willy-nilly without some sort of structure. How do you control them? How do you separate them from each other? Imagine a couple of things collide over San Francisco and cause a traffic accident. Imagine someone hits takes out the engine on a 757 with one on approach? I'm not trying to appeal to fear, but "meh, nothing bad has happened so far" isn't exactly a good metric for safety.
As far as I'm concerned, these things need regulation - some sort. If that makes things tough for the hobbyists out there, that's a bummer, but you can't have these things just blasting all over the place willy-nilly without some sort of structure. How do you control them? How do you separate them from each other? Imagine a couple of things collide over San Francisco and cause a traffic accident. Imagine someone hits takes out the engine on a 757 with one on approach? I'm not trying to appeal to fear, but "meh, nothing bad has happened so far" isn't exactly a good metric for safety.
esa17
Well-Known Member
They aren't flying RC aircraft in dangerous locations with disregard for anyone's safety. Model aircraft associations are already self-regulating and, has been said, they've operated safely for years. In addition they're already restricted to below 400'.
I'm not concerned with a balsa Cessna. Advanced autopilot with sensor packages are the UAS that concern me and will cause problems in the near future.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
I'm kind of on the fence on this issue, but I will say that I'm uncomfortable with the arguments being given for additional regulation and licensing requirements as they are the same arguments I keep hearing for gun control (and I'm an avid collector and shooter). In society you don't (or at least shouldn't) ban items from everyone because someone abuses them. We should be addressing and criminalizing the behavior rather than the object, because to react to the object rather than the behavior leads to all sorts of potential problems with individual rights. And, often, we as a society react based upon momentary outrage directed at a singular incident, and then later regret it (9/11 vs. invasion of Iraq, anyone? Patriot Act? Silly magazine capacity restrictions in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings?).
There will always be people who will find a way to operate anything in an irresponsible or dangerous manner. Yet we don't require licensing of photographers because of voyeurs, we aren't even touching on the subject of model rocketry for an object that travels at hundreds of miles per hour a thousand or more feet into the air (a real irony considering the discussion), we don't ban pools because irresponsible owners do nothing to keep three-year-olds out of them, we don't require licensing to keep prescription medications at home because someone allows easy access by children or someone bent on suicide, etc.
I guess in the final analysis I'm no longer on the fence. I'm of the view that there are already sufficient regulations in place for these things, and they're the same ones that currently regulate RC flights near airports and above certain altitudes. Criminalize the behavior and take action against the violators, just as we now do with lasers, but don't criminalize the device. Otherwise, it's just a short hop from that to banning all cars because of some drunk driving with a suspended license, regulating computers because of hackers, and confiscating video cameras because some perv used one to make a child porno. It's not the device that's the problem; it's the operator.
There will always be people who will find a way to operate anything in an irresponsible or dangerous manner. Yet we don't require licensing of photographers because of voyeurs, we aren't even touching on the subject of model rocketry for an object that travels at hundreds of miles per hour a thousand or more feet into the air (a real irony considering the discussion), we don't ban pools because irresponsible owners do nothing to keep three-year-olds out of them, we don't require licensing to keep prescription medications at home because someone allows easy access by children or someone bent on suicide, etc.
I guess in the final analysis I'm no longer on the fence. I'm of the view that there are already sufficient regulations in place for these things, and they're the same ones that currently regulate RC flights near airports and above certain altitudes. Criminalize the behavior and take action against the violators, just as we now do with lasers, but don't criminalize the device. Otherwise, it's just a short hop from that to banning all cars because of some drunk driving with a suspended license, regulating computers because of hackers, and confiscating video cameras because some perv used one to make a child porno. It's not the device that's the problem; it's the operator.
Last edited:
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Why is it you keep harping on "No regard for public safety"?
The vast majority of RC hobbyists have a HUGE regard for safety.
Are there a few bad apples? Certainly.
The vast majority have a very vested interest in keeping their investment in the hobby legitimate. You sound extremely ignorant, you seem to have no idea what it is you are talking about. The gun argument is extremely appropriate here. There are Adam Lanza's out there. Same thing with RC models.
Do I think it is an asinine behavior for some jerk to fly miles away through an overcast and up many thousands of feet? Absolutely. I don't like those cats much better than Adam Lanza. Hey, I could be the guy who finally tangles with one of those chumps. That battery could penetrate any number of things on an airplane or helicopter and make for a bad day. I saw a video where one dude was flying 11K feet over northern Virginia, in a particularly high traffic area. At that altitude, folks are doing the better part of 250 or 300 kts.
Some of these cowboys need to be brought back to reality through an enforcement of some type. If it has happened already, it certainly was not public enough.
But you sir, need to jump off the stump a bit.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
The flight school I weekend-warrior CFI at has a few R-44s. We think there have been two separate quad-copter vs. R-44 collisions, but we can't prove it. The quads don't leave snarge marks like the pigeons do.
One of those in the tail rotor would have been tragic.
One of those in the tail rotor would have been tragic.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
People need to stop with the red herring about RC planes being around for decades. Up until now, RC has been a tiny niche hobby. Now when I walk into the Verizon story, they're selling quadcopters that could decimate a jet engine. These things are everywhere, and after this Christmas season, their ubiquity will grow even more. Ever little spoiled brat across the nation will have his own drone. This is a huge issue, and has absolutely no relation to the miniscule RC hobby of decades past.
hook_dupin
Well-Known Member
I think that's the point many folks don't get. A rule set that worked for a very small (and very nerdy) group may not now work for the masses.
Certainly, nobody thought of cyber-bullying in the listserv days. Technology changes... so to must society's bounds on its use.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
A tiny niche hobby? Really? I could not dis-agree more passionately. How can a niche hobby have at at least 5 or more stores in every decent size city, and that does not include the huge majority of sales online (these days). Clubs with 100's of members. Niche? Naw.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I agree. The biggest difference between when I was into RC and now is the ability to remotely view what you are looking at from far away.* That to me makes it way more dangerous. Why would you even need that ability if you are following existing rules.
*I have no idea how they work or what the range actually is. Just that it is beyond visual range.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
I can't walk into a Harbor Freight or a Radio Shack without seeing a several RC aircraft. And a few years ago those were on every brat's wish list as well.
It's not a red herring. It history repeating itself.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Um, yeah, that's a niche hobby.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Really. Well I guess it's semantics. When a club in town has hundreds of members, I would not use niche to describe it. I guess any hobby is a niche hobby now that I think about it.
esa17
Well-Known Member
The big difference between this issue and gun control is there is very specific language in our Bill of Rights regarding firearm ownership.
One is a right endowed by our creator (God, Allah, Jehovah, or Mother Nature, etc) and the other isn't.
The only argument you could possibly make there is that since the regulation of US airspace isn't specifically mentioned then the 10th amendment applies and jurisdiction falls to the States.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
I was merely using gun control as one of several arguments against the concept of criminalizing things versus criminalizing behavior. The fact that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms is really irrelevant to the point I was making, and I cited many more examples to illustrate that point.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You have to realize how ridiculous this argument is. Golf is also a hobby. There are hundreds of thousands of people who play golf in Atlanta. There are probably more members of my one country club than there are RC hobbyists in the entire state. Hell, maybe even the region. It's a niche. And a nerdy one at that. No offense.
tbstanto
Well-Known Member
There have been many court cases about this, and US airspace is controlled by the Federal Government. When the constitution was written, there were many things that the founding fathers could not have anticipated. UAV's was certainly one of them.
This is an interesting case, stating that you do not own the airspace above your home. At this time in history, the airspace starting as low as 83' was owned by the government. Now, it is usually considered 500'.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/328/256
Last edited: