Olav van Gerven
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2019
- Messages
- 616
- Reactions
- 741
- Age
- 64
I have hesitated to react, simply because the topic of "flying within legal limits" is to important to every single drone-pilot that it should become a freudian shouting match.
One thing I notice is, that legislators more and more tend to restrict the use of UAV in public. To some extend it is understandable, more drones mean more risks for incidents and a certain amount of regulation then is benificial to all users.
You can say the same for vehicle and traffic codes, as the first automobiles appeared on the streets, it became obvious that some regulations where needed. Today, most people accept the fact that you need a drivinglicence and that there are speed limits on certain roads etc. And it is widly accepted because we all can see that without the regulations, there would be a big problem on the roads.
Back to drones or UAV (in general). We see roughly to groups of pilots - the fast majority are those who "always" flay within the legal limits (equivalent with those who never drove to fast or park at a wrong spot) and a smaller group that has decided that they need no rules for they know what they are doing and always are in control. (In fact, no one always is flying wihtin the legal limits and no one always is ignoring them.)
The problem is, that opponents of UAVs use the actions of those who decide to ignore the rules to pressure legislators into strickter rules. One thing adding to the fears of the opponents are hollywood productions showing UAVs doing things that the average drone is unable to do. The opponents, supported indirectly by the media that publish incidents with negativ outcome instead of publishing stories about the lawfull use, force legislators to act, which they do with strickter (and more) rules.
Considering all this, people who knowlngly and willingly ignore rules (VLOS as the most common rule ignored) contribute to the increased restrictions for all UAV-operators.
Considering all this, I think that this gives those who practice within the legal boundaries a right to point the rules out to those who do not abbide them, since they are affected by new legislations. Now, I am realistic, I do not think that my comment on someone complaining about the limited range (only 800 meters) of his drone will ensure he/she/it will not try to fly that far. Nor will someone bragging about what he/she/it all can film with their drone will stop doing so because people tell them it is unlawfull. Just like there are still people that think it is okay to drive intoxicated.
But that should not stop them from being confronted (in a friendly, decent way) wiht what they are doing wrong.
One thing I notice is, that legislators more and more tend to restrict the use of UAV in public. To some extend it is understandable, more drones mean more risks for incidents and a certain amount of regulation then is benificial to all users.
You can say the same for vehicle and traffic codes, as the first automobiles appeared on the streets, it became obvious that some regulations where needed. Today, most people accept the fact that you need a drivinglicence and that there are speed limits on certain roads etc. And it is widly accepted because we all can see that without the regulations, there would be a big problem on the roads.
Back to drones or UAV (in general). We see roughly to groups of pilots - the fast majority are those who "always" flay within the legal limits (equivalent with those who never drove to fast or park at a wrong spot) and a smaller group that has decided that they need no rules for they know what they are doing and always are in control. (In fact, no one always is flying wihtin the legal limits and no one always is ignoring them.)
The problem is, that opponents of UAVs use the actions of those who decide to ignore the rules to pressure legislators into strickter rules. One thing adding to the fears of the opponents are hollywood productions showing UAVs doing things that the average drone is unable to do. The opponents, supported indirectly by the media that publish incidents with negativ outcome instead of publishing stories about the lawfull use, force legislators to act, which they do with strickter (and more) rules.
Considering all this, people who knowlngly and willingly ignore rules (VLOS as the most common rule ignored) contribute to the increased restrictions for all UAV-operators.
Considering all this, I think that this gives those who practice within the legal boundaries a right to point the rules out to those who do not abbide them, since they are affected by new legislations. Now, I am realistic, I do not think that my comment on someone complaining about the limited range (only 800 meters) of his drone will ensure he/she/it will not try to fly that far. Nor will someone bragging about what he/she/it all can film with their drone will stop doing so because people tell them it is unlawfull. Just like there are still people that think it is okay to drive intoxicated.
But that should not stop them from being confronted (in a friendly, decent way) wiht what they are doing wrong.
