Hobbyist Drone use killed?

[Babaganoosh]

Just playing the devil's advocate here..... What allows you to pick which laws you follow and which you don't? I'm not saying I'm perfect and never broken any laws (my driving record says other wise LOL) but I am curious.

Well as I said it's the ones that if I break won't even possibly impact someone else. Sure you could try to put everything under a microscope and play devils advocate to it but it's a waste of my time. I don't have the desire to over think things.

For instance. I don't wear a seat belt at times. It's the law but it's BS. If I decide to ride my motorcycle instead of drive my truck I'm not wearing a seatbelt in that situation. Much more dangerous vehicle yet no law to wear a seat belt. While on the subject, here in NJ I have to wear a helmet to ride my motorcycle. Right next door in PA I can ride with no helmet. Not saying it's smart but I have ridden in PA and Florida without a helmet. I enjoyed it. I wish I could break that law here at times.
On lunch so gotta stop writing

 

[JAW]

it is only logical for things to progress this way, and, well, essentially making a current or similar to - part 107 training - a mandatory step for anybody.

Very possible. The progression of thought might be.....you need to take a test and display proficiency before you are allowed to drive a car, so why not a drone? The quick answer is automobile use kills more people than drones do. The other side of the coin voices the current fears: terrorist inflicted damage which has the potential for exponentially increasing at the hands of bad actors. Thus the need for more Drone Control. Whatever the legislative outlook becomes, it's certain drones will be subject to more and closer scrutiny. It will only take one drone induced catastrophe to radically change (ban?) the hobby side of drone use.

 

[sgrinavi]

I think it's likely that the poster above is just trolling. Despite my earlier comment it's hard to accept that anyone capable of flying a drone is incapable of such basic reasoning.

Nope, sorry, I don't troll. Funny thing is that I see it just the opposite way, my basic reasoning is that if I am operating in a safe manner, in a safe area there is no reason I need to get permission to do so any more that I need permission to drive my car.

I get this guys line of thinking because I hate BS laws too. I'll admit I don't always follow BS laws but my method goes like this. If I break this law will it negatively infringe or potentially infringe on anyone else in any way?

If no it's a BS law. If there's a way it can infringe negatively on someone else don't do it. Not complying with airspace laws has a huge potential to infringe on many people's lives. Obviously not a BS law.

The only reason that it would make sense is if you were trying to fly where you shouldn't be anyhow... over a crowd, over a highway, in a zone where aircraft might be close to your operating area. But right now it's just another government overreach.

[Comment removed by Moderator]

And PROUD of it! I'm saddened that anyone would have a problem with obeying the laws in order to be able to participate in the NAS SAFELY!! Why is it even a debate?

Just playing the devil's advocate here..... What allows you to pick which laws you follow and which you don't? I'm not saying I'm perfect and never broken any laws (my driving record says other wise LOL) but I am curious.

This is my biggest problem with this discussion; I would bet that 95% of you good law abiding folks don't stop at every stop sign, make right on reds when there is a red arrow, don't stop for right on reds, go faster than the speed limit, fly your drones out of your sight and above 400 feet. I don't....

 

[BigAl07]

I've cleaned up this thread and issued some warnings. If you can't be respectful and nice don't take the time to post. If this thread continues to go into the ditches it will be closed.

Community Guidelines

Sincerely,
Allen
Pilots Staff

 

[JAW]

SGRINAVI sez......" there is no reason I need to get permission to do so any more that I need permission to drive my car."

But you do need permission to drive your car. It's called a drivers license, a specific license issued by a State whose requirements you must obey. You signed your name in agreement with its requirements and restrictions. You are free to disregard them at the risk of being cited.

 

[paulatkin73]

Very possible. The progression of thought might be.....you need to take a test and display proficiency before you are allowed to drive a car, so why not a drone? The quick answer is automobile use kills more people than drones do. The other side of the coin voices the current fears: terrorist inflicted damage which has the potential for exponentially increasing at the hands of bad actors. Thus the need for more Drone Control. Whatever the legislative outlook becomes, it's certain drones will be subject to more and closer scrutiny. It will only take one drone induced catastrophe to radically change (ban?) the hobby side of drone use.

well, drone control is same as a gun control - mostly an empty rhetoric aimed only to make a false impression... in the practical reality, the biggest issue is to establish the working model where each legal participant would at least be provided with a minimal sufficient information of what the common rules are, so they would at least know what is it there to follow. or not to.

even in my town i saw a handful of people who obviously simply went to a best buy and bought this 'toy', i saw a guy flying something looking like a phantom 3 in the center square of our town and making it go on top of a 4 lanes wide local state road intersection just slightly above level of traffic lights - that is where i think a generic education and licensing is a must. some stupidity can be prevented, and, it is probably for the best, even if it will cause some additional discomfort for some.

 

[sgrinavi]

SGRINAVI sez......" there is no reason I need to get permission to do so any more that I need permission to drive my car."

But you do need permission to drive your car. It's called a drivers license, a specific license issued by a State whose requirements you must obey. You signed your name in agreement with its requirements and restrictions. You are free to disregard them at the risk of being cited.

True, however I don't need to call the police and ask permission when I want to run down to the grocery store. I do follow the rules of road as, for the most part, they make sense and are not an overreach. Calling the control tower to fly drone around my front yard is an overreach.

 

[sar104]

True, however I don't need to call the police and ask permission when I want to run down to the grocery store. I do follow the rules of road as, for the most part, they make sense and are not an overreach. Calling the control tower to fly drone around my front yard is an overreach.

Is flying it beyond your front yard an overreach?

 

[sgrinavi]

Is flying it beyond your front yard an overreach?

That's a great question, thanks for the civil response

Depends on the location, but for the sake of argument I would follow the rules if I was on public property or on private property without permission.

 

[sar104]

That's a great question, thanks for the civil response

Depends on the location, but for the sake of argument I would follow the rules if I was on public property or on private property without permission.

So how high above your front yard do you think it is fine to fly, if you are in controlled airspace?

 

[sgrinavi]

So how high above your front yard do you think it is fine to fly, if you are in controlled airspace?

I keep it under the 400 feet.

 

[paulatkin73]

So how high above your front yard do you think it is fine to fly, if you are in controlled airspace?

so, where your air rights end and where navigable airspace begins? such a great question

i remembered that case from news and found article reflecting that info:
Air Rights in the Age of Drones - Lexology

outcome is, for those who do not care to click:

"Adding confusion, in response to an administrative subpoena, the FAA has exerted control to grass top, suggesting that an entire backyard is now navigable airspace. “It appears from oral argument as well as from the FAA’s website that the FAA believes it has regulatory sovereignty over every cubic inch of outdoor air in the United States (or at least over any airborne objects therein). If so, that ambition may be difficult to reconcile with the terms of the FAA’s statute that refers to navigable airspace…” Huerta v. Haughwout, D.Conn. 3:16-cv-358 (JAM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92866 (July 18, 2016). "

 

[BigAl07]

It's always been "Navigable" airspace and since sUAS can "navigate" down to the grass level that incorporates grass level even if surrounded by MASSIVE Giant Redwood Trees... Terra Firma to Space

 

[paulatkin73]

It's always been "Navigable" airspace

absolutely not.
it is obvious, naturally, that federals would surely love to have legal rights to land or park their military crafts on any property despite if it belongs to anybody or not, from a false pretense that all air above any land is a federal jurisdiction, but, it is not. at least, it was not ALWAYS like that.

anyway. looking at most reputable source of human knowledge - -
Air rights - Wikipedia

"Case law in the past has used the height of 500 ft (150 m) in urban or suburban areas,[5] and 360 ft (110 m) above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas[6] as the demarcation of where impairment of property rights can occur "

there are references to legal cases there. obviously, FAA has a different opinion. so, as with anything else, until it makes its way up to the supreme court - who knows. but i would not just write off any air rights altogether. as that will result in quite an outcome, like, power companies hanging their high voltage wires right at 8ft altitude across your own backyard.

 

[paulatkin73]

also, good reference from there:
Drone Wars: Who Owns The Air?

"
HENN: During World War II, the Army takes over the airport and suddenly big military planes are followed flying over Causby's chicken coops all the time.
BANNER: All the chickens died. They had to give up chicken farming. They had a baby who couldn't sleep.
HENN: So Causby sued. The case goes all the way to the Supreme Court and he wins. The court ruled landowners might not own the sky to the heavens but they do still own it up to at least 83 feet. To recap, congresses says above 500 feet this is a public highway. The air below 83 feet, according to the courts that belongs to landowners like Causby. But this decision left a gap, it created unclaimed territory in the air. And it is that territory that pilots of tiny little unmanned aircraft, little drones, have their eyes on."

but, naturally, any idea of a private property rights at the times of the aggressive left liberalism is just a silly talk. a new union of soviet socialist republics of america has no place for that.
it is all so familiar to me - all this talk that individual rights and freedoms are negligent compared to demands of the collective. any crimes are allowed, if they are for 'greater good'. share the wealth! tax the rich, and if they refuse - kill them and expropriate. been there, seen that, escaped that, and now, **** it. everything is upside down.

 

[sar104]

I keep it under the 400 feet.

And you think that's safe because you think that aircraft stay above 400 ft, even near airports?

 

[sgrinavi]

And you think that's safe because you think that aircraft stay above 400 ft, even near airports?

as I stated:

Depends on the location, but for the sake of argument I would follow the rules if I was on public property or on private property without permission.

So it would depend on the location, personally I wouldn't even fly near a take off or landing zone.

 

[sar104]

as I stated:

So it would depend on the location, personally I wouldn't even fly near a take off or landing zone.

There are two use cases:

(1) You are nowhere near an airport and in uncontrolled airspace, in which case you are not required to do anything.​

​

(2) You are near an airport or in controlled airspace, and possibly have some combination of notification/authorization requirements. That's because you could be in conflict with air traffic.​

If (1), then you don't need to break the law. If (2) then you say you would not be flying there, so you don't need to break the law. Is that correct?

 

[sgrinavi]

There are two use cases:

(1) You are nowhere near an airport and in uncontrolled airspace, in which case you are not required to do anything.​

​

(2) You are near an airport or in controlled airspace, and possibly have some combination of notification/authorization requirements. That's because you could be in conflict with air traffic.​

If (1), then you don't need to break the law. If (2) then you say you would not be flying there, so you don't need to break the law. Is that correct?

I'm currently on the edge of a controlled area of a very small airport and no where near the approach or take off area, they don't even fly over the house. So I guess I'll be breaking the law.

 

[sar104]

I'm currently on the edge of a controlled area of a very small airport and no where near the approach or take off area, they don't even fly over the house. So I guess I'll be breaking the law.

I see. So you are comfortable flying at 400 ft AGL within 5 miles of airport (assuming that you are working under current Section 336) rules, and can't be bothered to notify the airport. You may or may not be in luck when the new law is codified - possibly you will be in uncontrolled airspace and won't be breaking the law any more.