Drone safety and laws

[kona]

Naive question: how can drone laws like those in Canada be imposed without there being substantial proven risk of drone flight? Statistically speaking they must be dramatically more safe than baseballs or obviously cars, even on a per capita basis. And has anybody actually died as a result of a recreational drone? But if there is no proven risk, how can a push to make something illegal prevail?

It seems to me the rational things to do would be to 1. require liability insurance like they do in parts of Europe (which at existing accident rates would cost near nothing) and 2. an operator certification process to make sure pilots are aware of airspace regulations etc.

I guess what I'm ultimately asking is: do consumers have any legal recourse (i.e., arguing that the factual risk are low) if a similar discussion like in Canada, to effectively outlaw drone flight instead of making it safer, were to happen in the US? Curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Seems like Canada's transportation minister has more power to dictate than the US FAA administrator, although I could be wrong if it were deemed out of "emergency" need. Someone with more legal knowledge than me can clarify.

Anyway, what I do know is that here, with regard to recreational model aircraft, (drones) the US congress has already forbidden the FAA to make laws or rules by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012 . They have succeeded in doing work-around's and legally questionable tactics to gain control over the recreational user despite Congress' intent.

But at any rate, they are much more restrained than their Canadian counterparts, and barring a catastrophic incident, I don't think there is much worry of a Canada style dictate, any time in the near future.

EDIT: And even if congress did, for whatever reason, decide to give the FAA free reign, there is a lengthy and thorough regulation construction process, complete stakeholder input and then a comment and review process. A lot of entities would get to include their input.

 

[tictag]

Canada's laws, IMHO, are an over-exaggeration of fear and paranoia felt across the globe. Here in the UK, one Muppet decides to fly in front of jumbo jet ... reported on the news but, so far, no legislation. Canada has basically decided, "Thou shalt not fly a drone". Muppets can't be helped but as a community we can promote safe flying. I commented recently on a brilliant YouTube content provider called Billy Kyle, his channel really is excellent, but he professed frustration that he was not able to fly in his locale due to it being so close to an airport. I suggested that frustration was not the right emotion he should be sharing with his very many followers - safe flying needs to be the norm. We, as a community, do this willingly and our freedoms will not be curtailed

 

[kona]

What if somebody commits an act of terror with a drone, like they already do in Syria? It could be argued that the same damage could be done with a car or a gun or you name it, but it's not clear that reason would prevail over fear.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

What if somebody commits an act of terror with a drone, like they already do in Syria? It could be argued that the same damage could be done with a car or a gun or you name it, but it's not clear that reason would prevail over fear.

Well like I said, I'm not sure if, even then, the FAA, or Transportation Secretary would have the power to simply ground or ban drones outright. Again someone with aeronautical legal expertise might have to chime in.

What they CAN do, and we are seeing it more and more is, designate lots of NFZs and TFRs. Enough of those and it might as well be a ban.