Hobbyist Drone use killed?

[Jim Padgett]

@Jim Padgett that's a pinch off topic there bud. Let's reel this one back in and keep it related to sUAS operations.

Yes it might seem a bit off topic , but it's an example of how the government and the FAA/FCC extended it's floor of regulation from 60 ft, now down to 20 ft.

 

[Jscuzz]

Under the current hobby rules (14 CFR Part 101 subpart E), which requires notification to airport towers and operators within 5 miles, they don't get to approve or deny, but then can object if they feel that the proposed flight will endanger air traffic.

The Part 107 authorization process either goes through the LAANC system, which just approves based on altitude restrictions in controlled airspace around airports, or through the older FAA authorization application portal, phone requests are assessed based on location, altitude and other proposed constraints.

If you would like to know where local airports deciding what is a risk to air traffic will go do a Google search on the Sedona AZ Airport Drone No Fly notice. That airport is several hundred feet above the surrounding terrain.

 

[TheWolfen]

If you would like to know where local airports deciding what is a risk to air traffic will go do a Google search on the Sedona AZ Airport Drone No Fly notice. That airport is several hundred feet above the surrounding terrain.

Thank you so much for posting this! I live in Flagstaff and had heard about the signs down there. I had assumed they were posted using a decision by the city to not allow take offs and landings or something. I had no idea it was the airport trying to exert authority it did not have! The next time I go jeeping down there I'm taking my Mavic and following the one rule that matters in Sedona especially: always watch for other aircraft. They can pop up anywhere and at pretty low altitudes.

 

[Thomas B]

Thank you so much for posting this! I live in Flagstaff and had heard about the signs down there. I had assumed they were posted using a decision by the city to not allow take offs and landings or something. I had no idea it was the airport trying to exert authority it did not have! The next time I go jeeping down there I'm taking my Mavic and following the one rule that matters in Sedona especially: always watch for other aircraft. They can pop up anywhere and at pretty low altitudes.

Waste of taxpayer money by uninformed people in charge of enforcing nonexistent laws. I fly Sedona whenever I’m there..
But little to do with this guy dying.

 

[coliwabl]

I hate it when I have to get all libertarian and break the law.

Honestly, I won't comply.

Such disregard for those who do follow the rules. It seems that your choice sets a bad example.

 

[sgrinavi]

Such disregard for those who do follow the rules. It seems that your choice sets a bad example.

I'm not here to set an example for you or anyone else.

 

[DroningOn]

I'm not here to set an example for you or anyone else.

Exactly!

 

[Balushi]

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that without the current FAA drone laws, something really bad would have happened by now with all the proliferation of hobby drones over the past 10 years. Personally, I would be quite nervous taking my next airline flight had the FAA not stepped in.

I used to live life thinking rules were more of a suggestion, but eventually realized that every rule or law is a two sided coin - on one side, many laws are a real pain to comply with, but the other side of that coin is that my personal safety and/or property is being protected by those same laws.

FFA rules have stopped exactly 0 accidents from happening it’s literally done nothing except inconvenience thousands of Americans and waste millions of tax dollars That’s bureaucracy for you

 

[AnzacJack]

Are you serious?

 

[sar104]

FFA rules have stopped exactly 0 accidents from happening it’s literally done nothing except inconvenience thousands of Americans and waste millions of tax dollars That’s bureaucracy for you

That's an interesting assertion. How could you know that no accidents have been prevented? Would you also argue that FAA ATC rules have prevented exactly zero mid-air collisions between commercial airliners?

 

[Matchlock]

In that case I hope you don't live in Canada. You should sell your equipment because you are a disgrace to to the drone community wherever you live.

I'm 72 and have always been a responsible drone pilot, and due to a health/memory issue I am not able to pass the required exam here in Canada so I am grounded as of a couple of days ago.

You make me sick, and people like you, are the very reason they make these rules and now, thanks to you, I can no longer fly here.

Bud

From sgrinavi
I hate it when I have to get all libertarian and break the law.

Honestly, I won't comply.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bigbird48]

In that case I hope you don't live in Canada. You should sell your equipment because you are a disgrace to to the drone community wherever you live.

I'm 72 and have always been a responsible drone pilot, and due to a health/memory issue I am not able to pass the required exam here in Canada so I am grounded as of a couple of days ago.

You make me sick, and people like you, are the very reason they make these rules and now, thanks to you, I can no longer fly here.

Bud

From sgrinavi
I hate it when I have to get all libertarian and break the law.

Honestly, I won't comply.

[/QUOTE]
and you'll most likely pay the price LOL

 

[sgrinavi]

In that case I hope you don't live in Canada. You should sell your equipment because you are a disgrace to to the drone community wherever you live.

I'm 72 and have always been a responsible drone pilot, and due to a health/memory issue I am not able to pass the required exam here in Canada so I am grounded as of a couple of days ago.

You make me sick, and people like you, are the very reason they make these rules and now, thanks to you, I can no longer fly here.

Bud

From sgrinavi
I hate it when I have to get all libertarian and break the law.

Honestly, I won't comply.

[/QUOTE]

I can pass the test AND I follow the rules, sucks that you're grounded, don't take your anger out on me please.

 

[sgrinavi]

and you'll most likely pay the price LOL
[/QUOTE]

Kinda late to the party, read the thread. LOL

 

[dirkclod]

You guys can chill and be civil or I will just close this thread
guys. Let’s not get argumentative .

 

[Balushi]

Flying a sUAS is not a RIGHT given to you. It's a privilege and as such we have rules and regulations in order to keep our NAS safe and the best in the world. Your actions will eventually catch up with you either by an incident or by a fellow R/C enthusiast reporting your actions.

It blows my mind how you think you're ABOVE the law in any way what so ever. I sincerely hope you live no where near any type of airport.

airspace above my land belongs to me. Ill be (Mod Removed Language )if I have to ask permission to fly it. Also, I paid for the drone and land I say that I bought the right to fly at my will.

 

[sar104]

airspace above my land belongs to me. Ill be( Mod Removed Language)if I have to ask permission to fly it. Also, I paid for the drone and land I say that I bought the right to fly at my will.

While you might like to own the airspace, you don't.

 

[paulatkin73]

While you might like to own the airspace, you don't.

like i posted before, there was and still is the supreme court ruling on this matter.
despite of how much FAA presses on the opinion that anything related to air is not a subject of private property ownership, i personally side with the supreme court on this. there is a specific ruling stating the specific altitude above your property as a boundary. anything - everything - no exclusions - what is inside of it is your property. no FAA and no feds have any [Language removed by Moderator] business stating otherwise or expanding their grasp inside of it.

and, yes, there always be other entities to confront that - from home owner associations to the FAA, to claim their divine right to own your [Edited by Moderator].

 

[sar104]

like i posted before, there was and still is the supreme court ruling on this matter.
despite of how much FAA presses on the opinion that anything related to air is not a subject of private property ownership, i personally side with the supreme court on this. there is a specific ruling stating the specific altitude above your property as a boundary. anything - everything - no exclusions - what is inside of it is your property. no FAA and no feds have any ******* business stating otherwise or expanding their grasp inside of it.

and, yes, there always be other entities to confront that - from home owner associations to the FAA, to claim their divine right to own your ****

If you mean United States vs. Causby (1946) then you need to re-read the ruling. The court reject the Causby's ad coelum ownership claim. What it upheld was not his right to fly, but his right to control the space above his property to a reasonable height for structures, trees etc., and that he was entitled to relief from public overflights at low altitude that unnecessarily scared his chickens.

 

[Thomas B]

If you mean United States vs. Causby (1946) then you need to re-read the ruling. The court reject the Causby's ad coelum ownership claim. What it upheld was not his right to fly, but his right to control the space above his property to a reasonable height for structures, trees etc., and that he was entitled to relief from public overflights at low altitude that unnecessarily scared his chickens.

They were awarded a total of $1600. The suit was about intrusion, not use, and took years with no injunctive relief during the life of the case. The average individial would be years doing a similar suit if they could afford it. Plus situations have changed due to congressional law relating to FAA, including drones.