New York City May Allow Drones to Fly Within the City…

[RoarRoar]

As a former NYC resident (moved to NJ for work but still have lots of business dealings in NY) I am actually for some sort of clear cut rules system. Clearly not this one.

Those of you who don’t live in New York can’t fathom the amount of people that are in Manhattan as well as parts of the outer boroughs. I can totally understand why they want strict regulations.

You can’t have everybody in town for the weekend pull out their mini and zip around Times Square, The United Nations, Wall St, or One World Trade.

Flying in cities is not easy it takes concentration and focus. Not to mention controller interference, winds between buildings etc.

I would have zero problem with a city licensing system. It would still deter people who are novices away from these places. I also know yes “The FAA controls the sky”. We all know taking a test at an FAA site does not make you a good drone operator or skilled one for that matter.

So when you send some sort of “Copy Paste” letter to a city councilman you have never heard of think about explaining why you fly drones, how the community is pretty safe on the whole, how drones don’t just fall out of the sky.

 

[lookout]

Maybe they are just following how the FAA is going about it so far.

 

[Mrprop365]

As a former NYC resident (moved to NJ for work but still have lots of business dealings in NY) I am actually for some sort of clear cut rules system. Clearly not this one.

Those of you who don’t live in New York can’t fathom the amount of people that are in Manhattan as well as parts of the outer boroughs. I can totally understand why they want strict regulations.

You can’t have everybody in town for the weekend pull out their mini and zip around Times Square, The United Nations, Wall St, or One World Trade.

Flying in cities is not easy it takes concentration and focus. Not to mention controller interference, winds between buildings etc.

I would have zero problem with a city licensing system. It would still deter people who are novices away from these places. I also know yes “The FAA controls the sky”. We all know taking a test at an FAA site does not make you a good drone operator or skilled one for that matter.

So when you send some sort of “Copy Paste” letter to a city councilman you have never heard of think about explaining why you fly drones, how the community is pretty safe on the whole, how drones don’t just fall out of the sky.

Times square as well as United Nations and one world trade STRICTLY forbid flying

 

[RoarRoar]

Times square as well as United Nations and one world trade STRICTLY forbid flying

Lots of places forbid flying but people still do it. My point is there is a small group of people who think if they buy a sub 249 drone they can fly anywhere they want. More the reason that Manhattan and a large part of New York actually need some sort of regulation.

The point of my post is that the City of NY should issue a city wide drone license to people who want to fly within the 5 boroughs. I’d gladly pay for a background check, and take a safety test with whatever government agency wants to issue it if it means I can operate my drone(s) at reasonable times and in reasonable places.

 

[mavic3usa]

....there is a small group of people who think if they buy a sub 249 drone they can fly anywhere they want. More the reason that Manhattan and a large part of New York actually need some sort of regulation.

The point of my post is that the City of NY should issue a city wide drone license to people who want to fly within the 5 boroughs. I’d gladly pay for a background check, and take a safety test with whatever government agency wants to issue it if it means I can operate my drone(s) at reasonable times and in reasonable places.

 

[Chip]

Maybe they are just following how the FAA is going about it so far.

The video shows that Remote ID really was just the tip of the FAA iceberg all along. Shocking really that the FAA had the audacity to tell the federal appellate court that Remote ID had nothing to do with air traffic management. Brings to mind the Latin maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus or false in one thing, false in everything.

As for the NYC issue, I still do not see how a police department can presume to regulate and oversee drone flights or to manage a city-wide drone permitting process.

 

[mavic3usa]

As for the NYC issue, I still do not see how a police department can presume to regulate and oversee drone flights or to manage a city-wide drone permitting process.

Probably because they have a lot of experiencing with the permit process since you need a permit for everything including selling "loosies." I mean, how hard can it be to run a permit process where the only option is "NO!"

 

[LoudThunder]

I mean, how hard can it be to run a permit process where the only option is "NO!"

It's all a money grab, the fee does not serve any purpose than to enrich someone's coffers… If they do not approve it for any reason, you forfeit the fee and all you get is a big Red stamp, "TENTATIVELY DISAPPROVED" please resubmit for "FINAL DISAPPROVAL…" L L…

 

[lookout]

The video shows that Remote ID really was just the tip of the FAA iceberg all along. Shocking really that the FAA had the audacity to tell the federal appellate court that Remote ID had nothing to do with air traffic management. Brings to mind the Latin maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus or false in one thing, false in everything.

As for the NYC issue, I still do not see how a police department can presume to regulate and oversee drone flights or to manage a city-wide drone permitting process.

I think RDQ needs to take the FAA to the cleaners over it. It's been foul play the whole time.

Suspicion that the FAA is just going to turn the whole drone thing over to the LEOs while at the same time asserting their authority over the airspace when it comes to commercial interests such as exactly drone deliveries, but the congress pushed on that with the new reauthorization act.

 

[Chip]

I think RDQ needs to take the FAA to the cleaners over it. It's been foul play the whole time.

Suspicion that the FAA is just going to turn the whole drone thing over to the LEOs while at the same time asserting their authority over the airspace when it comes to commercial interests such as exactly drone deliveries, but the congress pushed on that with the new reauthorization act.

Yes, a monumental deception by the FAA. RDQ argued in court that the FAA orchestrated a top secret "off the record" demonstration of network remote ID to corporate VIPs at FBI heardquarters in Quantico VA. Keeping it top secret and limited to their special friends and benefactors ($$) was totally illegal because the FAA had obligation to fully and publicly disclose what it was doing and what evidence and issues it was considering and accepting or disregarding at every step of the way. Its called transparency. FAA caught dead to rights but you know what its defense was? Gee, sorry about that but we decided not to adopt network ID so who cares its no harm no foul. And the federal appellate court swallowed it hook, line and sinker calling it "harmless error." So, as it turns out, FAA has been planning to adopt networked remote ID all along. Its a double deception by an agency dealing from the bottom of the deck.

 

[lookout]

Yes, a monumental deception by the FAA. RDQ argued in court that the FAA orchestrated a top secret "off the record" demonstration of network remote ID to corporate VIPs at FBI heardquarters in Quantico VA. Keeping it top secret and limited to their special friends and benefactors ($$) was totally illegal because the FAA had obligation to fully and publicly disclose what it was doing and what evidence and issues it was considering and accepting or disregarding at every step of the way. Its called transparency. FAA caught dead to rights but you know what its defense was? Gee, sorry about that but we decided not to adopt network ID so who cares its no harm no foul. And the federal appellate court swallowed it hook, line and sinker calling it "harmless error." So, as it turns out, FAA has been planning to adopt networked remote ID all along. Its a double deception by an agency dealing from the bottom of the deck.

From that and Mitch McConnell's wife giving it a CCP blessing, I say we tell them all where they can stick the whole remote ID campaign.

You skin 'em and clean 'em and I'll cook 'em and fry 'em type of thing. A definite answer of non-compliance is in order.

 

[projectarjun]

Check out The Dronalist on YouTube, flies in NYC almost all the time

 

[projectarjun]

Thanks for sharing. Unfortuntely it is being touted as an opportunity to fly in NYC but it's a way to look like they are accommodating us while adding restrictions requirements and permit fees. 30 days written notice, posters and more while they can refuse the permit at the last minute and require you to re apply for another $150. Sad, and if NYC passes this others will follow.

Perfect way to get in trouble at the last second without ample warning

 

[Mrprop365]

Lots of places forbid flying but people still do it. My point is there is a small group of people who think if they buy a sub 249 drone they can fly anywhere they want. More the reason that Manhattan and a large part of New York actually need some sort of regulation.

The point of my post is that the City of NY should issue a city wide drone license to people who want to fly within the 5 boroughs. I’d gladly pay for a background check, and take a safety test with whatever government agency wants to issue it if it means I can operate my drone(s) at reasonable times and in reasonable places.

i think that sounds more reasonable then charging 150$ to apply for a permit