Damage assessments.

[MBurris]

Are there any valid statistics on serious injury or property damage caused by recreational flying? Is there significant governmental overreach with the proposed new ID regulations? Is the FAA proposing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist?

 

[PhantomFandom]

I believe the number of serious injuries or property damage are incredibly low. However I see where this is an area that the FAA needs to stay ahead of the curve. Any kind of decent forecasting tells us that the number of drones taking to the skies will increase drastically over the coming years. The FAA can't wait until after the injuries start to pile up; especially at the glacial pace that they must necessarily move at, being a government agency.

If one is to believe the rationale behind that document, the purpose of the new regulations are not just to prevent accidents prevent acts of terrorism (yes that's in there), and ensure safer skies, but also as a stepping stone to an easier (waiver free) method to fly above people, in darkness, and BVLOS.

 

[MBurris]

I would think that if there has been no serious rate of injury/property damage to date, then any proposed regulatory change should grandfather in existing drones.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I posted this in another thread but the accident rate is going up with respect to general aviation accidents (that would include recreational flying).

"Data showed that 381 people (or 97 percent of all fatalities) were killed in general aviation operations in 2018, compared with 331 people in 2017."

Also as mentioned the 400' VLOS rules has worked well (no confirmed collisions between drones and manned aircraft) and no injuries or fatalities with respect to aircraft collisions in spite of the media generated hysteria.

In my mind it would be more appropriate to devote the $500 million to doing something to prevent fatalities in the area where fatalities ARE occurring.

As far as terrorism is concerned whether or not a drone is going to be used as a terrorist tool isn't going to be diminished by having ID technology on every drone. This technology can be bypassed, an older drone without the technology could be used and there is no way to tell that I'm aware of whether the drone in flight is a 249 gram drone exempt from the ID requirement or something larger.

The reasons given don't add up in my opinion and I'm more incline to believe some politician or corporate executive has positioned themselves to make a fortune from the implementation of this system.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Any kind of decent forecasting tells us that the number of drones taking to the skies will increase drastically over the coming years. The FAA can't wait until after the injuries start to pile up

Indeed all air authorities in developed countries are bringing in similar rules, some slightly different in their rules around people and urban environments etc.

With the supposed boom in hobby use, it certainly seems like proactive regulation, but coupled (in general) with reactive enforcement.

This may change to proactive enforcement with new tech coming along to monitor and know where various brands of consumer drones are flying.

 

[MBurris]

I posted this in another thread but the accident rate is going up with respect to general aviation accidents (that would include recreational flying).

"Data showed that 381 people (or 97 percent of all fatalities) were killed in general aviation operations in 2018, compared with 331 people in 2017."

Also as mentioned the 400' VLOS rules has worked well (no confirmed collisions between drones and manned aircraft) and no injuries or fatalities with respect to aircraft collisions in spite of the media generated hysteria.

In my mind it would be more appropriate to devote the $500 million to doing something to prevent fatalities in the area where fatalities ARE occurring.

As far as terrorism is concerned whether or not a drone is going to be used as a terrorist tool isn't going to be diminished by having ID technology on every drone. This technology can be bypassed, an older drone without the technology could be used and there is no way to tell that I'm aware of whether the drone in flight is a 249 gram drone exempt from the ID requirement or something larger.

The reasons given don't add up in my opinion and I'm more incline to believe some politician or corporate executive has positioned themselves to make a fortune from the implementation of this system.

These are the worst accidents I could find. Mostly near misses that could have been bad. But no deaths from flying. And no heavy damages. Would like to see other incidents. 17 drone disasters that show why the FAA hates drones

 

[MBurris]

I just may be hyper-skeptical, but exactly how serious is the problem, if there really is a problem, that needs such a draconian solution. Wouldn’t mandatory insurance go a long way to resolve whatever problem they perceive? I’d rather pay a few bucks in a potentially robust insurance market than be limited to VLOS when I’m flying over Area 51.

 

[MaxE1955!]

Any time the government can get into your pocket, or control an aspect of your life they will. It’s a shame the government has to create regulations to the very lowest common denominator Instead of the average person with some common sense!

 

[Dale D]

Are there any valid statistics on serious injury or property damage caused by recreational flying? Is there significant governmental overreach with the proposed new ID regulations? Is the FAA proposing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist?

US Federal Aviation Administration proposes rule to track most drones within 3 years-
This was the headline on my news yesterday. There will be a discussion period before institution of the new regulations. The government proposal would enable tracking to the owner and location of all drones. Probably a good thing for those few renegades who refuse to obey the rules, but every time the government gets involved, it can escalate, and cost us money (permits, licenses, certification, etc.).

 

[Huckleberry]

but every time the government gets involved, it can escalate, and cost us money (permits, licenses, certification, etc.).

Agreed, and already has. Look at the $5 registration fee. If in fact there are 1.5 million UAVs in the US (as indicated by the FAA) and if 1/3 of them are registered, that’s a cool 2.5 mil already.

 

[llbaker2]

I believe the number of serious injuries or property damage are incredibly low. However I see where this is an area that the FAA needs to stay ahead of the curve. Any kind of decent forecasting hetells us that the number of drones taking to the skies will increase drastically over the coming years. The FAA can't wait until after the injuries start to pi of le up; especially at the glacial pace that they must necessarily move at, being a government agency.eh
ha
t, the purpose of the new regulations are not just to prevent accidents prevent acts of terrorism (yes that's in there), and ensure safer skies, but also as a stepping stone to an easier (waiver free) method to fly above people, in darkness, and BVLOS.

I don't think its necessarily a given "that the number of drones taking to the skies will increase drastically over the coming years" given all the new regulations. The FAA seems to be over zealous in efforts to control recreational use. So much so that their actions are proving to be detrimental to the industry. Many will opt to pass on the hobby due to restrictive regulations and additional expenses resulting from those regulations. I know of at least one (me) that has decided to wait until the FAA has finished implementing their new regulations. I for one am not willing to pay as much as $150 for a recreational license on top of registration fees and all the other taxes and fees that they will undoubtedly tack on. The initial cost of a nice drone is bad enough. Tacking on a bunch of recurring charges such as registration, license fees, data connection charges, CBO membership fees etc. will be the straw that breaks that camels back for me. Over regulation will very likely kill drone use as a recreational pursuit. Maybe that's the FAAs intent. Its kinda looking that way.

 

[Dale D]

I don't think its necessarily a given "that the number of drones taking to the skies will increase drastically over the coming years" given all the new regulations. The FAA seems to be over zealous in efforts to control recreational use. So much so that their actions are proving to be detrimental to the industry. Many will opt to pass on the hobby due to restrictive regulations and additional expenses resulting from those regulations. I know of at least one (me) that has decided to wait until the FAA has finished implementing their new regulations. I for one am not willing to pay as much as $150 for a recreational license on top of registration fees and all the other taxes and fees that they will undoubtedly tack on. The initial cost of a nice drone is bad enough. Tacking on a bunch of recurring charges such as registration, license fees, data connection charges, CBO membership fees etc. will be the straw that breaks that camels back for me. Over regulation will very likely kill drone use as a recreational pursuit. Maybe that's the FAAs intent. Its kinda looking that way.

Both writers have a point! I love flying this little guy so much that I would really be reluctant to give up the hobby. It enriches my photography so much! Yes, it might increase our costs but I would think that if it does come to some fees, as long and they are reasonable, that it still would amount to far less than most hobbies. I have already invested lots of $$$ in cameras, tripods, software (Adobe) music rights, etc. That's what hobbies are! I was out today and I spent more time trying to scout a location that would be safe to fly than actually flying. It is really getting awful. (I went to downtown Miami near the waterfront).

 

[Thomas B]

Agree the monetary cost to users would be small compared to regulatory hindrances in flying.

 

[llbaker2]

Agree the monetary cost to users would be small compared to regulatory hindrances in flying.

You must be much better off than I. A license fee of as much as $150 (who knows at this point) is not exactly pocket change. License will most likely have to be renew every few years if not annually as well. Chances are it will be a recurring expense. On top of license fee there will be a recurring registration fee, a recurring remote-id service fee, a data plan fee and a network fee. All together theses excessive fees could amount to hundreds of dollars a year. This may not be a big deal for commercial pilots but will be a deal breaker for an occasional recreational user regardless of where you can or cant fly.