Amazing Coincidence

[superstarpup]

While there is certainly some "lack of consistency" with the current sUAS regulations in terms of how it's worded on different "Official" sites... (some actually state moving vehicles etc) how would any even partially sane person rationalize that flying a sUAS directly over lanes of traffic is even remotely smart, legal, ethical in ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER? These sUAS have multiple Single Points of Failure and ZERO redundancies built in.

Here's a direct pull from the Know Before You Fly (.org) website:

Do not intentionally fly over unprotected persons or moving vehicles, and remain at least 25 feet away from individuals and vulnerable property.

You’re a pilot. Pilots tend to think of “what if’s?” Non-pilots often don’t. They don’t think in terms of redundancies and failures much less risk mitigation and management. Look how many people do/post about stupid things on this forum alone, and presumably those on a forum are the more interested and knowledgeable operators.

As far as multiple sites, .gov is the source that should be referred to over .org. The FAA could easily include “don’t fly over cars,” and in fact did operating under 107. They didn’t bother to do so with recreational flyers.

I think there should be at least a minimum amount of training required before being able to operate something beyond a toy drone, the registration size threshold is probably reasonable, and you’d see a lot less non-sense

 

[AMann]

”How do you know they are operating illegally?”

It’s flying at night with no supplementary anti-collision lighting, etc. That’s why it’s hard to see where it is landing exactly. I know the general area, just not the right house.

I have enough Firehouse LED’s to make mine look like a flying police cruiser and wish I could follow it, but no, not going to chase it especially aince I want to keep my 107 certification.

It’s obviously a local fool, probably not registered either.

 

[GDadd]

Consumer drones so easily establish a false sense of security and safety (note the countless "didn't realize" writings on this site), and many operators have units which required no faa registration before getting up in the air. I suspect many don't think of themselves as being rogue, idiots, or acting unsafe.

For those who understand the rules and disobey, I suppose that's the value of this thread - exploring ways to keep things safe in order to keep regulated limits to a minimum.

But at somewhere around 1.3-1.5M drones registered in the US against 5-6M drones sold in the last 5 years, it's a good bet many owners are oblivious to any rules.

I still can't figure out why so many people don't think before opening their car door and whacking another vehicle. Expecting common sense out of several million drone owners, many of them casual and unlicensed, is a bit of a false hope, I think.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

In my opinion it's a wasted call. Was the expectation they were going to drop whatever they were doing and come with lights and sirens to the scene of the "crime"?

Is hovering over a highway with traffic dumb and potentially dangerous? Yes. But unless I actually saw the person controlling the drone I'm not going to be wasting my time or LE's time calling them on it. Now this in part has to do with location. I'm in a highly populated suburban area. They are not going to be coming with lights and sirens. You'd be lucky if they got to your location in 30 minutes if they'd come at all.

I'm all for doing good deeds but some wisdom and sense of priorities is in order.

 

[deleted member 877]

In my opinion it's a wasted call. Was the expectation they were going to drop whatever they were doing and come with lights and sirens to the scene of the "crime"?

Is hovering over a highway with traffic dumb and potentially dangerous? Yes. But unless I actually saw the person controlling the drone I'm not going to be wasting my time or LE's time calling them on it. Now this in part has to do with location. I'm in a highly populated suburban area. They are not going to be coming with lights and sirens. You'd be lucky if they got to your location in 30 minutes if they'd come at all.

I'm all for doing good deeds but some wisdom and sense of priorities is in order.

Yeah, well we've already established that the O.P. acted with abundant wisdom and the right sense of priorities. As I suggested earlier there may very well have been a squad car close by - in that case it would have been highly possible to follow the drone until it landed next to the operator. Busted!

In no way would it have been a waste of the LE's time - that's what they're there for. There was no expectation that the cops would drop whatever they were doing and come with lights and sirens. However, by making the call the O.P. was doing the wider drone flying community a favour by increasing the chances that one more bad apple would be dealt with accordingly.

As for whether or not flying a drone over moving traffic on a road is properly specified in the FAA regulations my guess is that there will soon be an amendment to address this.

 

[passedpawn]

Yeah, well we've already established that the O.P. acted with abundant wisdom and the right sense of priorities. As I suggested earlier there may very well have been a squad car close by - in that case it would have been highly possible to follow the drone until it landed next to the operator. Busted!

In no way would it have been a waste of the LE's time - that's what they're there for. There was no expectation that the cops would drop whatever they were doing and come with lights and sirens. However, by making the call the O.P. was doing the wider drone flying community a favour by increasing the chances that one more bad apple would be dealt with accordingly.

As for whether or not flying a drone over moving traffic on a road is properly specified in the FAA regulations my guess is that there will soon be an amendment to address this.

How was that established? I see plenty of counter opinions here.

 

[deleted member 877]

How was that established? I see plenty of counter opinions here.

I pretty much disregarded the "counter opinions" because they simply don't seem to be based on common sense IMO. Unfortunately there are members of that annoying but thankfully minority element on this forum who will go to great lengths to defend and make knee-jerk excuses for those who choose to make up their own rules and insist on doing whatever they wish regardless of the law or how it makes the rest (majority) of us look to the authorities and general public.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Yeah, well we've already established that the O.P. acted with abundant wisdom and the right sense of priorities. As I suggested earlier there may very well have been a squad car close by - in that case it would have been highly possible to follow the drone until it landed next to the operator. Busted!

In no way would it have been a waste of the LE's time - that's what they're there for. There was no expectation that the cops would drop whatever they were doing and come with lights and sirens. However, by making the call the O.P. was doing the wider drone flying community a favour by increasing the chances that one more bad apple would be dealt with accordingly.

As for whether or not flying a drone over moving traffic on a road is properly specified in the FAA regulations my guess is that there will soon be an amendment to address this.

Who's we?

Abundant wisdom and right sense of prioities? Give me a break.

A squad car would have come and do what, shoot the drone out of the sky?

Local LE isn't there to enforce FAA regulations.

If there was no expectation they would drop what they were doing to come (an expectation I share) why make the call?

If there was no expectation of them coming how was it increasing the chances"one more bad Apple would be dealt with accordingly"? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[deleted member 877]

Who's we?

Abundant wisdom and right sense of prioities? Give me a break.

A squad car would have come and do what, shoot the drone out of the sky?

Local LE isn't there to enforce FAA regulations.

If there was no expectation they would drop what they were doing to come (an expectation I share) why make the call?

If there was no expectation of them coming how was it increasing the chances"one more bad Apple would be dealt with accordingly"? Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

It seems obvious that you’re one of that minority element I referred to.

There may have been no expectation but at least there was a chance that the cops would respond. The sensible people have made their opinions on this issue clear - the others can happily wallow in their ignorance.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I pretty much disregarded the "counter opinions" because they simply don't seem to be based on common sense IMO. Unfortunately there are members of that annoying but thankfully minority element on this forum who will go to great lengths to defend and make knee-jerk excuses for those who choose to make up their own rules and insist on doing whatever they wish regardless of the law or how it makes the rest (majority) of us look to the authorities and general public.

Common sense requires rational answers to the questions above. It seems common sense is annoying to you. My response isn't a knee jerk reaction but a reaction based a little thought on the answers to some basic questions. What's irrational is to claim you don't expect LE to respond but claim the call might get one "bad apple" dealt with. If your expectation is LE won't respond that statement makes no sense and you're assuming by calling the person a bad Apple" they are doing the flying with the intention of breaking the rules versus doing it out of ignorance regarding the rules.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It seems obvious that you’re one of that minority element I referred to.

There may have been no expectation but at least there was a chance that the cops would respond. The sensible people have made their opinions on this issue clear - the others can happily wallow in their ignorance.

If you say no expectation then it isn't a stretch to say the chances are slim to done. You say "sensible", I say nonsensical.

 

[deleted member 877]

Common sense requires rational answers to the questions above. It seems common sense is annoying to you. My response isn't a knee jerk reaction but a reaction based a little thought on the answers to some basic questions. What's irrational is to claim you don't expect LE to respond but claim the call might get one "bad apple" dealt with. If your expectation is LE won't respond that statement makes no sense and you're assuming by calling the person a bad Apple" they are doing the flying with the intention of breaking the rules versus doing it out of ignorance regarding the rules.

Now all you’re doing is nitpicking and you’re not doing it well. As I and the other people who actually have a clue have already indicated their full support for the O.P.’s actions, that’s all that really matters IMO.

Harping on about expectations and what constitutes a bad apple does not help your argument. It simply shows that you don’t have one that holds any water.

 

[Thomas B]

Gentle folk... please try to express your opinions without personal attacks. Opinions are fine. We all have them... right or wrong.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Now all you’re doing is nitpicking and you’re not doing it well. As I and the other people who actually have a clue have already indicated their full support for the O.P.’s actions, that’s all that really matters IMO.

Harping on about expectations and what constitutes a bad apple does not help your argument. It simply shows that you don’t have one that holds any water.

First, stop appealing to "the other people". It makes your argument appear weak.

Asking direct questions related to specific aspects of your argument is only nitpicking when you can't provide a rational answer. Attempting to mischaracterize the questions as nitpicking also doesn't bolster the lack of legitimacy of your argument.

I wasn't "harping on about expectations" but repeating the expects of the OP and pointing out the irrationality of the conflicting statements (no expectation LE responses but increase the chances of removing a "bad apple").

Wrong, your opinion is NOT all that matters.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

As expected. When no rational, logical response can be made the snowflake resorts to emojis.

 

[Thomas B]

Apologies to the OP