It seems the drone world is full of hypocrites

[slimcobra]

I don't want to poke the bear but it seems like there a lot of hypocrites in regards to the rules of flying a drone. Pretty much anyone you ask on how should you fly your drone they say not to fly over people, you should always fly withing a line of sight, and not within five miles of an airport. How the hell does anyone keep their drone within a line of sight when it's more than 500 feet away? In video after video you see drones flown over people in public places. Has anyone stopped to think about this. While I'm waiting for Best Buy to start stocking the Mavic I continue to fly my Syma X8 and without thinking about how I was flying I flew over some people in the park. When I later watched the video and saw it I thought to myself I need to be more careful. Then I started to think about it some more, and it seems it could be rather challenging not to fly over people. As far as line of sight goes I bet there is only a hand full of Mavic owners that have always flown their Mavic with view. Am I wrong in thinking this? Should I not worry about flying over people and as long as I have GPS not worry about being able to see it with my eyes? Like I said I'm not trying to start a fight just wondered what peoples thoughts were on this.

 

[Squamer]

In my opinion there is a difference between not following the rules and being reckless. But some would say not following the rules is reckless. So to each their own. I personally didn't spend $1000 to keep the drone 200 feet away from me at all times, but yet I'm also not sending it 6 miles over the city at 600'.

 

[Kestrel]

I can see my Phantom from 500 feet away but when it starts getting around 1000 it starts getting hard to see. But yes you are right. Lots of people preaching the rules but also breaking them.

 

[Anthony Viscomi]

In the last 2 days there were 2 separate private plane accidents within 25 miles of my home. Each crashed in residential communities and caused damage/injuries. Not sure what point I'm trying to make here, but if I had may choice of a plane mishap or drone mishap I would opt for the latter. The "drone police" should be commenting shortly...stay tuned.

 

[Alex Baxter]

I have a theory....
When driving a car, it's not always speed that kills, but frequently either carelessness or recklessness. I'll bet there are drivers that consistently break speed limits but do not cause accidents, and drivers that never break the speed limit and have caused plenty of accidents. You've seen them yourself (can't be bothered to look at junctions, cruise through roundabouts, park in disabled spaces etc...) So I try and be careful and considerate, and try to stay within the rules, but I've (ahem) 'cleaned my diesel particulate filter' by thrashing the car on an empty motorway. Likewise, I try and be careful and considerate when droning..

 

[AC Flyer]

Yes, the "rules" get broken all the time. But it's a lot easier, and a lot safer, to break them with an advanced drone like the Mavic than with a Syma X8. I had an X8 and that thing should never be flown over or around people and absolutely never out of sight. Or in the wind. But with the excellent FPV camera, altitude hold and auto hover, return to home, etc. on the Mavic you can fly a lot further much, much more safely. But any responsible pilot still needs to be cautious, considerate and exercise good judgement regardless of all the built-in tech.

 

[Alex Baxter]

And a Hayabusa can do 300 kph (on the autobahn of course) when conditions allow, its probably safer than a BSA Bantam at 100kph.

 

[Foxtrot Uniform]

I am going to wait for greywolf to chime in before I give my take...

 

[Squamer]

I have a theory....
When driving a car, it's not always speed that kills,

Speed doesn't kill, but suddenly coming to a stop does.

 

[joet]

The current US FAA rules do not classify different types of UAS by risk for a given aspect of flight. The same rules apply to advanced quads like DJI, cheap $80 crap with no GPS, RTH, auto hover in position, etc, fixed-wing model airplanes, R/C helicopters - and all of these could weigh up to 50 lbs!

They have said that the rules would be subject to relaxing (well, Part 107, anyway), and I am hoping that they come out with UAS classes, each of which must observe some or all of the existing rules based on their risk profile. For example, it's a very low risk that a properly flown DJI quad will hurt someone while flying over them, as there are safety features that cover positioning, altitude, loss of control signal, etc. That's a lot different than an R/C copter, which generally upon LOS will simply crash.

However, my concern is that the more we have incidents involving quads - and really, 95%+ of the incidents I've read about appear to be DJI equipment - the more risk may be assigned to them. RTH works great until someone flies it 5 miles out with 35% battery left, and then it lands on a busy street and causes an accident. The more people obey the law AND guidelines, the more likely that we will have more freedoms, IMO - and the opposite as well.

However, based on the responses I get on here when I am trying to explain the actual law, not that many people are interested in following it, so I've pretty much given up and - quite frankly - have gotten kinda soured on participating here and in FB groups.. I'll just let the FSDO sort that kind of thing out in the future. My understanding is that they are beginning to look at YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, and forums to find and identify scofflaws..

 

[slimcobra]

So Joet, I have to ask, do you fly to the letter of the law, not going over 400 feet, always have your drone withing site, never fly over people, never fly in parks, always more than five miles away from airports? If so it has to be getting hard in Tampa to find areas that you can fly. It seems just when I think I have come up with a great place to do some videography I then find there is people there or it's in a no fly zone. Heck the one day I went out to my front door early one morning testing a change I made and I kid you not I was up for less than 2 minutes and there were kids on the street wanting to watch my quad and chase it. I think ACFlyer put it best

any responsible pilot still needs to be cautious, considerate and exercise good judgement regardless of all the built-in tech.

 

[Kilrah]

There are 2 types of people... those who are happy for their "permanent online record" to contain evidence of their illegal actions (regardless of how responsible or not they were) and post in "how high/far have you gone" threads, and those who'd rather their permanent and easily found traces to be about reminding the rules. Not to say they aren't breaking them themselves, but at least they're bright enough not to hand out the stick to be beaten with.

 

[slimcobra]

Kilrah that makes sense!

 

[Wombat55]

I can see my Phantom from 500 feet away but when it starts getting around 1000 it starts getting hard to see. But yes you are right. Lots of people preaching the rules but also breaking them.

I guess that I'm not quite clear on the "remain in the visual line-of-sight" rule. It seems that if they meant that the aircraft was to remain within sight, then they would have simply said "the aircraft must remain within sight". But, no, the wording is that the aircraft must "remain within the visual line-of-sight", which I have been interpreting as meaning that there must be no obstructions (e.g., fences, trees, houses, hills, etc.) in the direct path (or "line-of-sight") between you and the drone which would interfere with RF communications.

 

[joet]

So Joet, I have to ask, do you fly to the letter of the law, not going over 400 feet, always have your drone withing site, never fly over people, never fly in parks, always more than five miles away from airports? If so it has to be getting hard in Tampa to find areas that you can fly. It seems just when I think I have come up with a great place to do some videography I then find there is people there or it's in a no fly zone. Heck the one day I went out to my front door early one morning testing a change I made and I kid you not I was up for less than 2 minutes and there were kids on the street wanting to watch my quad and chase it. I think ACFlyer put it best

Well, that depends:

Over 400 feet is a Part 107 regulation and a Part 101 guideline. I stay under 400' simply because I have no reason to go that high when flying.

Never over people: Yup - although I have had people cross my flight path that I couldn't avoid flying over once or twice. That is one rule I expect the FAA would like to relax.

Never fly in parks: Never in those that do not permit it. Absolutely in those that do. I have a growing list of permitted/prohibited parks here in Tampa area.

Always more than 5 miles: That is not a requirement. You must notify the airports within 5 miles if you plan to fly in that area recreationally, and under Part 107 it's regulated by airspace classification, which usually but not always restricts flight near airports and is not always 5 miles. The class B airspace around Tampa International, for example, varies from 4.2 miles to around 7. Peter O'Knight Airport, on the other hand, is in class G airspace and therefore has no restrictions other than the common-sense "don't interfere with manned aircraft".

Most of what I do professionally is real estate work, and that's usually easy-peasy 5 minutes in the air and done. Sometimes I get asked questions, most often not.

Recreationally, Pasco County parks are the best bet for permission, low people quotient, and lack of airports to notify.

 

[joet]

I guess that I'm not quite clear on the "remain in the visual line-of-sight" rule. It seems that if they meant that the aircraft was to remain within sight, then they would have simply said "the aircraft must remain within sight". But, no, the wording is that the aircraft must "remain within the visual line-of-sight", which I have been interpreting as meaning that there must be no obstructions (e.g., fences, trees, houses, hills, etc.) in the direct path (or "line-of-sight") between you and the drone which would interfere with RF communications.

The FAA clarified this: The aircraft must be able to be seen at all times without visual aids other than normal corrective lenses by the person operating the aircraft. Under Part 107 you can use a spotter, but not recreationally.

 

[m0j0]

My understanding is that they are beginning to look at YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, and forums to find and identify scofflaws..

Maybe so but that is an absolute waste of my tax dollars. I'm all for authorities focusing on activity that actually cause harm.. not made up harm. Not imaginary harm. Not theoretical harm.. real harm real danger.

Maybe someone needs to stop watching YouTube for guys flying out of VLOS and pay more attention to the Harrison Ford's of the world. Just thinking out loud.. SMDH


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[joet]

Maybe so but that is an absolute waste of my tax dollars. I'm all for authorities focusing on activity that actually cause harm.. not made up harm. Not imaginary harm. Not theoretical harm.. real harm real danger.

Maybe someone needs to stop watching YouTube for guys flying out of VLOS and pay more attention to the Harrison Ford's of the world. Just thinking out loud.. SMDH

You do realize that there are lots of documented cases of crashes that have caused property damage or injury, right? Heck, one toddler that I read about lost an EYE.

If they do nothing, then what?

 

[m0j0]

I guess that I'm not quite clear on the "remain in the visual line-of-sight" rule. It seems that if they meant that the aircraft was to remain within sight, then they would have simply said "the aircraft must remain within sight". But, no, the wording is that the aircraft must "remain within the visual line-of-sight", which I have been interpreting as meaning that there must be no obstructions (e.g., fences, trees, houses, hills, etc.) in the direct path (or "line-of-sight") between you and the drone which would interfere with RF communications.

You personally have to be able to see it. That is the intent of the rule. That way you can see and avoid the idiot pilot flying 100 feet off the deck over a residential area.. clear enough? Lol.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dirkclod]

I don't want to poke the bear

.

Think ya did .