Drones can crash planes or enact terrorism, FAA fears. Pilots say new rules would ruin their hobby
- Thread starter xAaron
- Start date
@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
OurAngryBadger
Well-Known Member
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
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.
Baseballs are way more dangerous than a drone
The Dayton study was not bad science, not matter how much you would like it to have been that.
g36pilot
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
UAS_Dude
Well-Known Member
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.
That’s exactly what it’s about. I just don’t like the ridiculous fear tactics they are using to sell everyone on it.
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.
Look at the headline. Unless the author of the article lied about the FAA’s fears It does exactly as intended.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
DJI Air 2S Fly More Combo (w/ 4th Battery) FOR SALE $650- Started by Dan AISCF
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
