Drones can crash planes or enact terrorism, FAA fears. Pilots say new rules would ruin their hobby

[xAaron]

Drones can crash planes or enact terrorism, FAA fears. Pilots say new rules would ruin their hobby

The FAA's log of drone sightings by pilots showed more than 2,000 encounters last year. Its proposed drone rules are getting pushback from enthusiasts

www.usatoday.com

 

[xspwhite]

Good article. Thank you.

 

[steve_lyt]

so can cars , or any other vehicles, are they going to restrict them. I think not

 

[old man mavic]

if all these restrictive rules come into force we will have to rename this forum
"memories are made of this mavic forum"

 

[steve_lyt]

it seems to me if a pilot sees something in the sky they cant identify , its a drone until proved its not

 

[xspwhite]

At least they admitted that the people in Colorado and Nebraska were hallucinating.

 

[OurAngryBadger]

so can cars , or any other vehicles, are they going to restrict them. I think not

Cars are very well restricted... Tons of vehicle laws, rules, regulations, licensing, taxes, fees, etc.

I'm not saying that I want drones more regulated. But I would like to see equal regulations and enforcement between commercial and hobbyist. Hobbyist should be required to take test and get license too.

As it is now 107 commercial pilots are safe operators. Safe enough. The studying and licensing helps. No more regulations needed.

If you go on Wikipedia youll see that 100% of drone collisions with manned aircraft are hobbyist that had no clue about airspace laws or safe practices, stuff we all learn from 107 testing.

 

[steve_lyt]

they wont stop cars traveling along a stretch of road for one accident , they are more likely to do a temporary no fly zone for one drones

 

[old man mavic]

Cars are very well restricted... Tons of vehicle laws, rules, regulations, licensing, taxes, fees, etc.

I'm not saying that I want drones more regulated. But I would like to see equal regulations and enforcement between commercial and hobbyist. Hobbyist should be required to take test and get license too.

As it is now 107 commercial pilots are safe operators. Safe enough. The studying and licensing helps. No more regulations needed.

If you go on Wikipedia youll see that 100% of drone collisions with manned aircraft are hobbyist that had no clue about airspace laws or safe practices, stuff we all learn from 107 testing.

while your comments may or may not have some merit, with regards to those who have collided with manned aircraft,just having a part 107 does not make someone a safer pilot,just as having a driving license does not make someone a safer driver, i agree it will give you a better understanding of the regs for flying ,and one of the reasons that all these new rules are being forced on us is because anyone can go online or into a store and purchase a drone ,and then fly it without bothering to find out what is required, if that had happened 3 or 4 years ago that a drone could not be purchased without the purchaser showing they had a knowledge of the rules ,then maybe we would not be having this knee jerk reaction,that governments are rolling out now

 

[OurAngryBadger]

while your comments may or may not have some merit, with regards to those who have collided with manned aircraft,just having a part 107 does not make someone a safer pilot,just as having a driving license does not make someone a safer driver, i agree it will give you a better understanding of the regs for flying ,and one of the reasons that all these new rules are being forced on us is because anyone can go online or into a store and purchase a drone ,and then fly it without bothering to find out what is required, if that had happened 3 or 4 years ago that a drone could not be purchased without the purchaser showing they had a knowledge of the rules ,then maybe we would not be having this knee jerk reaction,that governments are rolling out now

True, people can still break rules if they want, but it's definitely helpful if people at least know what the rules are, and are tested on being able to remember them. That's where 107 helps. Even if only 50% of 1,000 commercial pilots actually follow the rules it's still 500 people flying safely vs 0 people flying safely that have no idea of what the rules and best practices are.

 

[old man mavic]

just to add to your comments about hobbyists in the UK now in order to fly legally everyone needs to register their drone and take a 20 question test ,this is an actual law and can be punished with a up tp £1000 fine ,the only drone in the DJI stable that does not have to register now is the MM, and in July this year that will need to be registered as well

 

[crlmjohnson]

I feel like, if a individual takes the time to study and spend their own money for the test, then I feel like they will try and fly safe, and stay out of trouble.

"just a thought"

 

[Fearless Flight]

They are both right.
The disconnect is that no rule or law is going to make a terrorist decide not to be a terrorist.

 

[Deleted member 109934]

That article is one of many FAA propaganda articles to come. Total bunch of made-up statistics to illustrate their point. 2000 drone encounters a year...We need perspective, how many FAA non-drone encounters were observed? 100 drone incidents a month??? What a bunch of total nonsense, notice the *

*incidents are defined as sightings

with this approach each time you see a drone FAA calls it an accident...Guess how the public will react.

There is somebody very interested in banning drones, motivation is always money, if we would analyze who will benefit the most out of it, we would know who is that mystical force pushing FAA to this extreme. I doubt FAA in itself is that overprotective, as a matter in fact they are not, and we have good examples of that in the past.
Somebody is on the mission to get rid of the drones completely.

 

[NTCooper]

While the known threat posed by firearms continues its Righteous and near sacred walk upon the safety of all; the FAA is concerned about the possible corrupted use of my photographic drone.

 

[Deleted member 109934]

They are both right.
The disconnect is that no rule or law is going to make a terrorist decide not to be a terrorist.

Please don't say this is about terrorism, it is not. It would be much easier to get semi and drive against the traffic on the interstate than take DJI Mavic 2 and takedown passenger plane, that's actually impossible. it would be close to impossible to take down Cessna not to mention a big plane. Until now with millions of drones in the air, not a single serious incident, except the sightings defined as incidents...

 

[Deleted member 109934]

just to add to your comments about hobbyists in the UK now in order to fly legally everyone needs to register their drone and take a 20 question test ,this is an actual law and can be punished with a up tp £1000 fine ,the only drone in the DJI stable that does not have to register now is the MM, and in July this year that will need to be registered as well

Did they announce MM will require registration as well? How do you guys know? I'm trying to find analogy to the Canadian market.?

 

[OurAngryBadger]

That article is one of many FAA propaganda articles to come. Total bunch of made-up statistics to illustrate their point. 2000 drone encounters a year...We need perspective, how many FAA non-drone encounters were observed? 100 drone incidents a month??? What a bunch of total nonsense, notice the *

*incidents are defined as sightings

with this approach each time you see a drone FAA calls it an accident...Guess how the public will react.

There is somebody very interested in banning drones, motivation is always money, if we would analyze who will benefit the most out of it, we would know who is that mystical force pushing FAA to this extreme. I doubt FAA in itself is that overprotective, as a matter in fact they are not, and we have good examples of that in the past.
Somebody is on the mission to get rid of the drones completely.

I want to know if it's actually possible a pilot in a plane can spot a small drone while flying at typical speeds. Seems hard to do. Not saying it can't be done, but how reliable are these reports? How many could be birds mistaken for a drone?

 

[g36pilot]

That is the most inaccurate article I've seen in a long time. Most of the hazard references used had either bad, no evidence (Gatwick, possibly Colorado), or poor statistical analysis.

Edit: I am mistaken about Dayton's test and deleted the reference. Please disregard that reference with my apologies to all. The Mooney M20's Vne, never exceed speed, of 196 kt/224 mph combined with the Phantom's max speed can exceed Dayton's 238 mph impact test. Though neither aircraft normally operate at those speeds, I consider testing under worst case scenarios desirable.

 

[Classic flyer]

while your comments may or may not have some merit, with regards to those who have collided with manned aircraft,just having a part 107 does not make someone a safer pilot,just as having a driving license does not make someone a safer driver, i agree it will give you a better understanding of the regs for flying ,and one of the reasons that all these new rules are being forced on us is because anyone can go online or into a store and purchase a drone ,and then fly it without bothering to find out what is required, if that had happened 3 or 4 years ago that a drone could not be purchased without the purchaser showing they had a knowledge of the rules ,then maybe we would not be having this knee jerk reaction,that governments are rolling out now

Well said sir...be smart fly safe