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

[Rodders]

Planes crash into Planes what is done about that.????

 

[Deleted member 114292]

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

Drones are the new UFOs.

 

[old man mavic]

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

@sebodrone it would seem that when the new rules are adopted in July, that the MM will come under a new category, simply because it has a camera on it

 

[Jfvdenning]

Has a drone been responsible for this yet?!

 

[OurAngryBadger]

Has a drone been responsible for this yet?!

To date there have only been 3 confirmed cases of a drone colliding with a manned aircraft.

List of unmanned aerial vehicle-related incidents - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

One case was some guy who didn't know what the laws were or safe flying procedures, probably just bought his drone at walmart and was eager to use it. He was flying 2.5 miles out of VLOS in NYC.

Another case in Canada, where the drone was flying at 1500ft AGL (illegal). Operator was never found, so unknown if he was just another unaware of the rules, or if it was intentional.

Third case was a collision with a hot air balloon. Operator error where the drone pilot lost VLOS to the drone. But he was also violating other rules (not contacting ATC in controlled airspace) so again, probably some jackwagon that just bought his drone and was unaware of the laws.

This is why I argue that even hobbyist pilots need training / certification like 107 pilots are required to take. At the very least, DJI should force a knowledge test inside the DJIGO app before you can fly the drone.

At any rate, all 3 of these collisions did not result in major damage to the manned aircrafts, and no one was injured.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Baseballs are way more dangerous than a drone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/05/make-nets-higher-woman-killed-by-foul-ball-dodger-stadium-family-says/?outputType=amp

 

[sar104]

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

The Dayton study was not bad science, not matter how much you would like it to have been that.

 

[g36pilot]

The Dayton study was not bad science, not matter how much you would like it to have been that.

Cold medications kicking in- no excuse. I'll edit that post to add a correction. I based that on the Dayton test at 238 MPH being above both aircraft's normal operating speed. That impact speed IS possible with those two aircraft and testing under worst case conditions is desirable. A bad statement on my part.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Ok, can someone please explain to me how new FAA rules will prevent “Drones can crash planes or enact terrorism”! Would a terrorist really want to use an off the shelf drone to wreck havoc? I really don’t think so! I would think a home built drone capable of carrying extended weight (read explosives) and not in the least affected by remote ID or NFZs is much more conducive to a terrorist threat than a law abiding pilot. New FAA rules would do nothing for the law breaker. What did the existing rules do? Only make things more constrictive for lawful pilots. I have no problem abiding by the current rules as do the vast majority of you, the readers. We really do not need more government, Shades of George Orwell - Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel

As an example of ineffective laws on top of ineffective laws look to the ATF. Several states/cities have already proven that with the gun issue. Hello Chicago, LA, NYC, Miami, just name a few. Yeah, I’m still waiting (not holding my breath) to see how many criminals are rushing to complete their required background checks with their illegally obtained guns before going to the local convenience or liquor store and robbing it

So, just like the many states/cities that impose more and more laws that succeed in only hindering the lawful and legal gun owners and do nothing to stop the criminals, so be it with the FAA and law abiding pilots.

 

[JAW]

When you and I see a Mavic, maybe our own, cruising along the shoreline, we think, "cool!"
Then there are those who look at the same drone and think "that's a real threat to national security--four flying ounces of Semtex armed with a contact detonator !"
Now you know who's driving this train.

 

[OurAngryBadger]

When you and I see a Mavic, maybe our own, cruising along the shoreline, we think, "cool!"
Then there are those who look at the same drone and think "that's a real threat to national security--four flying ounces of Semtex armed with a contact detonator !"
Now you know who's driving this train.

That, and the people that look at it crusing along the shoreline and think
"Look at that, some pervert is taking photos of me in my bikini"

 

[Classic flyer]

That, and the people that look at it crusing along the shoreline and think
"Look at that, some pervert is taking photos of me in my bikini"

Women are so vain and shallow...lol...be smart fly safe

 

[sar104]

Ok, can someone please explain to me how new FAA rules will prevent “Drones can crash planes or enact terrorism”! Would a terrorist really want to use an off the shelf drone to wreck havoc? I really don’t think so! I would think a home built drone capable of carrying extended weight (read explosives) and not in the least affected by remote ID or NFZs is much more conducive to a terrorist threat than a law abiding pilot. New FAA rules would do nothing for the law breaker. What did the existing rules do? Only make things more constrictive for lawful pilots. I have no problem abiding by the current rules as do the vast majority of you, the readers. We really do not need more government, Shades of George Orwell - Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel

As an example of ineffective laws on top of ineffective laws look to the ATF. Several states/cities have already proven that with the gun issue. Hello Chicago, LA, NYC, Miami, just name a few. Yeah, I’m still waiting (not holding my breath) to see how many criminals are rushing to complete their required background checks with their illegally obtained guns before going to the local convenience or liquor store and robbing it

So, just like the many states/cities that impose more and more laws that succeed in only hindering the lawful and legal gun owners and do nothing to stop the criminals, so be it with the FAA and law abiding pilots.


View attachment 95994

The rules won't prevent the use of drones by terrorists, any more than regular aviation law prevents the use of aircraft by terrorists. On the other hand they might make it easier to notice terrorist drones because there will be fewer illegally-flown non-terrorist drones. But that completely misses the point - the proposals are not simply to prevent terrorism? They are a basic framework to work towards detection and avoidance as a means to mitigate air traffic conflicts.

 

[Classic flyer]

The rules won't prevent the use of drones by terrorists, any more than regular aviation law prevents the use of aircraft by terrorists. On the other hand they might make it easier to notice terrorist drones because there will be fewer illegally-flown non-terrorist drones. But that completely misses the point - the proposals are not simply to prevent terrorism? They are a basic framework to work towards detection and avoidance as a means to mitigate air traffic conflicts.

It really is about risk management/mitigation

 

[UAS_Dude]

The rules won't prevent the use of drones by terrorists, any more than regular aviation law prevents the use of aircraft by terrorists. On the other hand they might make it easier to notice terrorist drones because there will be fewer illegally-flown non-terrorist drones. But that completely misses the point - the proposals are not simply to prevent terrorism? They are a basic framework to work towards detection and avoidance as a means to mitigate air traffic conflicts.

I spent some time reading through this forum before joining a couple of days ago. It is evident that you have a sound understanding and knowledge of many things related to drones. It is also clear that a lot of what you share is ignored or simply cannot be understood by some individuals. For the sake of the hobby I would sincerely hope that they represent the minority of drone enthusiasts.

 

[Fearless Flight]

But that completely misses the point - the proposals are not simply to prevent terrorism? They are a basic framework to work towards detection and avoidance as a means to mitigate air traffic conflicts.

That’s exactly what it’s about. I just don’t like the ridiculous fear tactics they are using to sell everyone on it.

 

[sar104]

That’s exactly what it’s about. I just don’t like the ridiculous fear tactics they are using to sell everyone on it.

Who is "they"?

 

[Fearless Flight]

Who is "they"?

The FAA in this particular article.

 

[sar104]

The FAA in this particular article.

The article was not written by the FAA and only contains a couple of quotes by the FAA and DOT, neither of which mention anything frightening, including terrorism or aircraft crashing.

 

[Fearless Flight]

Look at the headline. Unless the author of the article lied about the FAA’s fears It does exactly as intended.