Excellent news concerning Drones

Itchy said:
Eh?
My point was there are already existing laws on the book to "prevent" these occurrences. They obviously don't weed out the bad characters. That was my point. If you go back to my first post in this thread, I stated that it was not the commercial operators crews have to worry about, it is the Richard Cranium with his new "toy".
How is it you want to twist those words?
Click to expand...

I'm not twisting anything. Your (incorrect) argument is that laser laws don't deter laser crimes, so regulation of drones isn't justified because it won't work. If that's your argument, then it stands to reason that you would also argue that laser laws shouldn't be on the books, either.

BTW, since those laws against pointing lasers at aircraft have been on the books, there has been a significant drop in the number of reported laser incidents. You can never eliminate problems, but you can certainly reduce them.
 
I never said "no regulation".
However, some common sense without emotional input is required also.
There are already regulations pertaining to FPV or "drones". Flying beyond visual line of sight was never legal. Enforcement needs to happen. Clear and unambiguous language needs to happen.
 
Enforcement is impossible of the regulations you're talking about. You can't monitor every brat kid with a quadcopter to see if he's keeping it within line of sight. We need things that are easily enforceable. A law that requires manufacturers to electronically limit the altitude of a drone is very easy to enforce. A law that requires you to present proof of certification in order to purchase a drone is easy to enforce. Etc.
 
Itchy said:
I never said "no regulation".
However, some common sense without emotional input is required also.
There are already regulations pertaining to FPV or "drones". Flying beyond visual line of sight was never legal. Enforcement needs to happen. Clear and unambiguous language needs to happen.
Click to expand...
Actually there really aren't any laws in the area you are talking about from an FAA standpoint.

The FAA issued an Advisory Circular in the early 80's talking about RC aircraft. That has been their sole regulatory guidance on the subject. It talked about voluntary measures, such as keeping it below 400'. There has been nothing preventing (law wise) folks from flying their RC aircraft thousands of feet and behind LOS as of yet.

The FAA recently took the position that suddenly RC aircraft = real aircraft and should be governed by part 91. A federal judge decided that no, that isn't correct and they had no jurisdiction over RC aircraft. Even so, the FAA solely went after a non-US citizen who did it for money, no action has been taken against private citizens doing it as a hobby.

That sets a dangerous precedent IMO because the issue isn't "brat kids" IMO (of which I have big hunch ATN actually was and still is) but large corps with lots of money flying around Cessna 172 sized RC planes (or bigger).

The blame for this lies squarely on the FAA who knew about this issue and has put off for a decade any sort of rulemaking on the subject. They have routinely missed deadlines set by Congress. The FPV movement started in the mid 2000's.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Enforcement is impossible of the regulations you're talking about. You can't monitor every brat kid with a quadcopter to see if he's keeping it within line of sight. We need things that are easily enforceable. A law that requires manufacturers to electronically limit the altitude of a drone is very easy to enforce. A law that requires you to present proof of certification in order to purchase a drone is easy to enforce. Etc.
Click to expand...

Are you feeaking serious right now? A law that requires you to show proof in order to purchase one? When was the last time you had to do that buying a car? Hell, an airplane? And then you're going to ask a private business to do the government's job?

"Excuse me sir, do you plan on using this for commercial purposes?"

"Uhh, no."

Our should the average hobbyist be required to be "licensed" as well. This honestly sings like Diane Feinstein and listening to on gun control.
 
The traditional route the FAA has gown down is requiring a commercial license when carrying passengers or cargo for hire. The reason being the FAA believes it needs to protect the "public" from unscrupulous operators which I tend to agree with. The public has a certain assumption that when they get on an airplane it has been maintained and is flown with properly trained and qualified crew members.

A private pilot can operate large turbine equipment on their own without a commercial, say a King Air even, while a 135 operation has to employ a commercial pilot flying a Cirrus or 210, but the very basic license (PPL) gives the knowledge to operate in the environment.

This doesn't pertain to the unmanned aircraft argument. Requiring a commercial license to operate for hire only, serves no real purpose when you are letting hobbyist operate seemingly larger equipment on their own without any sort of license.

I think it's pretty obvious we want those who share the road with us to be trained and licensed but that would be more applicable to size and capability more than use (hobby vs. commercial).

Requiring some sort of license to operate any RC aircraft is just downright stupid, precedent has been set on that as well. No, you aren't going to have a license to fly your $50 quad around your living room.
 
Itchy said:
Eh?
My point was there are already existing laws on the book to "prevent" these occurrences. They obviously don't weed out the bad characters. That was my point. If you go back to my first post in this thread, I stated that it was not the commercial operators crews have to worry about, it is the Richard Cranium with his new "toy".
How is it you want to twist those words?
Click to expand...
This.

The laws that are on the books in many cases aren't even aviation related statues. Reckless endangerment or other violations are handy, and the local sheriff could easily be the enforcement arm for many of these instances.

LC
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I think that's a very "traditional" way to view the issue. These devices are anything but traditional. You don't need to be able to fly an airplane to fly a device like this. You just need understanding of airspace and understanding FARs. That can be done without being a "pilot."

Smart regulations are needed, and blanket rules are not smart by definition. I would support some sort of certification procedure for commercial applications flying over 400 AGL or for devices over 15-20 lbs.

The position that "pilots" should be flying these things seems mostly to be about self-interest and/or ego.
Click to expand...

Until a "professional RC operator" takes a passenger plane out of the sky.

If you learn how to maintain SA in an aircraft to a commercial level, you will be better qualified to then add an additional layer of SA complexity by operating the vehicle remotely. There's no way around that. Early on in the game when the system is still being figured out I really think we should have pilots at the helm. Maybe once the industry stabilizes and it becomes a lot more commonplace/low risk we can have non-licensed individuals. I wonder if the armed forces have any research on pilots vs non-pilot UAV operators and how they perform. I'd bet big on pilots performing better, but it would still be a bet.

The tech will eventually catch up and make the whole argument pointless, but right now sense-and-avoid is the barrier that is slowing the industry down.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Very much so. A niche hobby isn't more important than public safety.
Click to expand...

Pleeeeaase. This is about ego, not safety.

There need to be regs, but not crazy overbearing regs. I'm not scared of hitting a 5 lb quad copter. It won't bring down a transport category jet. Period.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Pleeeeaase. This is about ego, not safety. There need to be regs, but not crazy overbearing regs. I'm not scared of hitting a 5 lb quad copter. It won't bring down a transport category jet. Period.
Click to expand...
Careful. This could turn into weekend warriors too.
 
I'll take this off the deep end. A couple Canadian geese (average weight from 3 to 18 pounds depending on subspecies, according to Google) brought down the Hudson river Airbus. While a goose is not a drone, and it was a bunch of bad luck to take them into the engines, the Hudson plane was a couple thousand feet in the air going 200 knots or so when it hit them. Right where the d-bag drone altitude record YouTubers might be fooling around.
Combine small drone mass with big aircraft velocity and that can be a lot of energy to damage an aircraft. Might not happen often, but it could easily be very bad if it does.
I don't see a problem with trained, licensed commercial drone operators who would presumably be interested in following safety rules in order to preserve their business. Some acceptable FAA training and license program for that should be doable. It would also be good to require a commercial license to reign in the inevitable loss of actual pilot jobs that will happen when companies look to drones instead of aerial survey, hiring a local low-time commercial pilot to get your photos, etc.
Now, the old-school model airplane club folks probably do follow the rules about not flying near airports or above 400'. But the d-bags completely oblivious to the potential danger to real aircraft who are putting up their YouTube vids of their drone/model waaaay higher than 400' and the folks who are going to see those vids and follow suit need to be dealt with.

How about a rule where you can't buy a drone capable of going higher than 400' (or modify one to do so) unless you have some kind of model aircraft or drone license? Maybe you could require membership in a sanctioned R/C club to get the license. And if you get caught, you pay a penalty. While perhaps not many would be caught, local authorities can handle this on the rare occasion someone reports an ignorant drone owner is flying right next to the airport. (Gotta admit, not sure how you catch the YouTube altitude record guy hovering at the FAF for a runway)

Sure, it would suck for some retailers who might lose drone sales money for a while, and put a temporary slowdown on the toy / drone / R/C industry maybe. But maybe R/C hobby shops could make money by offering government-required drone safety classes as is done with gun safety training for concealed carry permits, etc.

Edit: typo and I forgot a couple comments in my novel
 
These things are more popular than most people I think realize. I would be willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of them.

Should we license kite operators? I saw what I would consider close calls on the Cape last summer between the kite and banner tow. Should the kite flyer have a medical and certs?
 
tbstanto said:
You are not helping your argument by posting this. Their proliferation will be their demise.
Click to expand...
There will be no demise. In your utopia, would they all get impounded? Authorities showing up at doors and demanding them?
 
Itchy said:
These things are more popular than most people I think realize. I would be willing to bet there are hundreds of thousands of them.

Should we license kite operators? I saw what I would consider close calls on the Cape last summer between the kite and banner tow. Should the kite flyer have a medical and certs?
Click to expand...
Ironically enough there are tethering systems using fishing line to circumvent the FAA wrath (making a quad essentially a kite).

http://skypixel.org/post/73217886967
 
Most of them are junk and will last only a short time. There is no need to take them away. They have a finite life expectancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top