Hobbyists: how have the new regulations affected your flights?

[islandflyer]

No effect. besides the class B warning. I'm 10mi away from the airport, a mile from me is a 1000 ft skyscraper. I doubt I will hit a plane flying by. I flying under 400ft.

 

[jzguitar]

Must be nice to be free like a bird
Sheeesh

I Love Australia

Reminds me of the quote:

Q: Is there anything in Australia that WON’T kill you??

A: Yeah - going to school.

 

[johnmeyer]

No seriously - if the law that I quoted above is too complicated for you to understand then you definitely should not be flying around in the NAS.

Wow, that is pretty snarky.

That's because unlike preparing your dinner, flying your drone in the NAS is, in fact, a potential threat to others.

That makes no sense. How many injuries to others have been caused by hobbyists flying drones? Pretty close to zero. By contrast, this quote is from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) web site:

CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States.​

Since the vast majority of those are from home cooking it proves that your statement is completely upside down.

And as for flying in restricted airspace, interference with aircraft operations has been illegal as long as I've been around and requires absolutely no new, additional legislation to regulate it. For instance, there has been interference from laser pointers that has been far more consequential than anything from drones. Illegal fireworks near runways has been a long-standing problem. Radio interference, both intentional and inadvertent can cause problems. I can go on. My dad was a pilot and I have 300+ hours in the right seat so I know quite a bit about those laws and anecdotes about what has actually happened.

The logical extension of your argument would be that no private aviation activities require regulation or licensing.

That isn't my argument at all, nor is it a logical extension of anything I've said. I made a clear distinction between private aviation, which requires a license and therefore is subject to the rules that govern the licensed behavior, and hobby drone flying for which no license is required, but which government agencies are attempting to regulate without the very important step of requiring a license.

I'll tell you another thing that this increasingly messy and stupid government behavior reminds me of and that is tobacco. Cigarettes are a legal product and do not require a license to purchase (that "license" would be a prescription). However, laws have been passed that make it a crime (of sorts) to use them, pretty much everywhere including, in some cases, in your own home if it shares a wall with another dwelling.

That's where we're headed with this unless some of us keep speaking up to oppose this foolishness. If this isn't slowed down or reversed, where we will be in a few years is that you'll be able to spend $1,000 to buy your drone, but you won't be able to use it, even in your own backyard (if that backyard is in a restricted zone).

Just like tobacco: you can buy it, but you can't use it.

I am not a fan of these poorly thought out regulations and hope that most people reading this wake up and realize where this is going, and start speaking up against them.

 

[sar104]

Wow, that is pretty snarky.

Sorry if it came over as snarky - I prefaced it with "seriously" because I was being completely serious.

That makes no sense. How many injuries to others have been caused by hobbyists flying drones? Pretty close to zero. By contrast, this quote is from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) web site:

CDC estimates 48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases each year in the United States.​

Since the vast majority of those are from home cooking it proves that your statement is completely upside down.

There are so many failures of logic in that response that it's hard to know where to start.

Okay - so because there have been only a few injuries and one notable expensive incident, it shouldn't be regulated? The near misses don't count? We don't bother regulating until a hazard starts to cause injury or death at rates significant relative to your CDC figures? No - that fact that those are home-cooking makes my point - home cooking, however bad, isn't a threat to the public.

And as for flying in restricted airspace, interference with aircraft operations has been illegal as long as I've been around and requires absolutely no new, additional legislation to regulate it. For instance, there has been interference from laser pointers that has been far more consequential than anything from drones. Illegal fireworks near runways has been a long-standing problem. Radio interference, both intentional and inadvertent can cause problems. I can go on. My dad was a pilot and I have 300+ hours in the right seat so I know quite a bit about those laws and anecdotes about what has actually happened.

So you would advocate letting hobbyists fly around as much as they like in controlled airspace, as long as they don't "interfere"? By what criteria is "interfere" judged, do you suppose? Do you understand the meaning and purpose of controlled airspace?

That isn't my argument at all, nor is it a logical extension of anything I've said. I made a clear distinction between private aviation, which requires a license and therefore is subject to the rules that govern the licensed behavior, and hobby drone flying for which no license is required, but which government agencies are attempting to regulate without the very important step of requiring a license.

So you really didn't read 49 USC §44809, even after I posted it?

49 USC §44809 (a) (7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.​

That's testing and licensing.

I'll tell you another thing that this increasingly messy and stupid government behavior reminds me of and that is tobacco. Cigarettes are a legal product and do not require a license to purchase (that "license" would be a prescription). However, laws have been passed that make it a crime (of sorts) to use them, pretty much everywhere including, in some cases, in your own home if it shares a wall with another dwelling.

Firearms are a legal product and laws have been passed to prohibit their use in pretty much all the same places. Sex is a legal activity and yet.... alright - the counter-examples to your argument are everywhere. The prohibition of anti-social and hazardous activities seems like the action of a reasonable government.

That's where we're headed with this unless some of us keep speaking up to oppose this foolishness. If this isn't slowed down or reversed, where we will be in a few years is that you'll be able to spend $1,000 to buy your drone, but you won't be able to use it, even in your own backyard (if that backyard is in a restricted zone).

In a few years? That boat has already sailed - I thought those were the regulations that you were complaining about.

I am not a fan of these poorly thought out regulations and hope that most people reading this wake up and realize where this is going, and start speaking up against them.

You are doing a fine job.

 

[tcope]

Question is premature as all of the rules have not gone into effect. Also, I doubt people commenting are really following all of the rules. There is not question that a lot of people did not follow all of the old rules and won't follow all of the new rules.

 

[johnmeyer]

Sorry if it came over as snarky - I prefaced it with "seriously" because I was being completely serious.



There are so many failures of logic in that response that it's hard to know where to start.

Okay - so because there have been only a few injuries and one notable expensive incident, it shouldn't be regulated? The near misses don't count? We don't bother regulating until a hazard starts to cause injury or death at rates significant relative to your CDC figures? No - that fact that those are home-cooking makes my point - home cooking, however bad, isn't a threat to the public.



So you would advocate letting hobbyists fly around as much as they like in controlled airspace, as long as they don't "interfere"? By what criteria is "interfere" judged, do you suppose? Do you understand the meaning and purpose of controlled airspace?



So you really didn't read 49 USC §44809, even after I posted it?

49 USC §44809 (a) (7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.​

That's testing and licensing.



Firearms are a legal product and laws have been passed to prohibit their use in pretty much all the same places. Sex is a legal activity and yet.... alright - the counter-examples to your argument are everywhere. The prohibition of anti-social and hazardous activities seems like the action of a reasonable government.



In a few years? That boat has already sailed - I thought those were the regulations that you were complaining about.



You are doing a fine job.

No interest in continuing with someone who shows no respect., berates the other person, and claims they are too dumb to understand anything he is saying. I've seen this before.

Since I know this is important to you, I'll let everyone reading this know that I hereby concede that you won this argument.

You're just too good for me.

 

[Don Burcham]

So when and where will one be able to take this test ?

 

[tcope]

So when and where will one be able to take this test ?

Online. When the FAA feels like making it available.

 

[DanMan32]

First, though many disagreed with me because of the transition clause, I felt the 2018 law could simply change "notify" to "get authorization" in the same manner as before, pending FAA determine what "administrator" meant. By the way, even with the May change, that still is undefined, so really no change.

Even for part 107 fliers, a good many controlled airspace don't participate in LAANC. What then?

FAA has a grid for ceiling in controlled airspace. In BKS, it is ridiculous. 0 clearance all the way out to 5 miles from airport along glide slope? There are power lines crossing the glide slope at around 4 miles so I should be able to fly at least 100-200 near home.
TIA is less restricted yet much busier and more accommodating with their website.

 

[ChuckNorrisUSAF]

Snitches get stitches? This is intended to break up the tense rhetoric in the thread.

I get the passion in the forums of flying, following the rules, etc. also some of you are very well versed in your dealings and experience. No ones questioning that.

I’m pretty passionate about things I like, but some in here take it to a whole new level on their interpretation of things, or how they “think” it should be.

Rules and regulations will change over time. Sometimes they get way worse before they get better. The industry is maturing and the majority will comply with the changes. Others will eventually get singled out for failing to follow.

In the mean time... let’s not be so tough on each other about it. No one in here is a certified Drone Police Officer.

I want to learn positives from everyone.

Continue on with the discussion. [emoji38]

 

[DanMan32]

According to latest AirMap posting, BKS tower is now LAANC capable as of yesterday.
Perhaps FAA is delaying hobbyists' use of LAANC until all or most the pertinent airspace is LAANC ready.

 

[kensteele]

wow, these arguments start to sound more and more like the gun control arguments. except there is no 2nd amendment to protect us. we're toast...for sure.

 

[Slim.slamma]

You're just too good for me.

I appreciate the homework
@sar104
Could you please dumb down
So I could stick around?

 

[sar104]

No interest in continuing with someone who shows no respect., berates the other person, and claims they are too dumb to understand anything he is saying. I've seen this before.

Since I know this is important to you, I'll let everyone reading this know that I hereby concede that you won this argument.

You're just too good for me.

No - you clearly have no idea what is important to me. I'm here primarily to learn, and help in those areas where I can contribute. I have no particular interest in winning arguments, but I certainly get impatient when confronted with people who can't even be bothered to read about a subject but go ahead and assert their incorrect assumptions anyway, then continue to defend them when it's pointed out, and then act offended once they realize they don't have an argument.

 

[sar104]

wow, these arguments start to sound more and more like the gun control arguments. except there is no 2nd amendment to protect us. we're toast...for sure.

No - I think we'll be just fine - we just have to be patient while this technology is incorporated into existing frameworks.

 

[kensteele]

No - I think we'll be just fine - we just have to be patient while this technology is incorporated into existing frameworks.

hope so. as a hobbyist, i tried a new local airport that was laanc newly included this week and it didn't work. based on the new rules, impossible to fly there. went home where i live within 5 miles of an airport that is still waitlist. i fear i will never been able to fly at home at this rate. but of course, i'm confused about the rules and it's just not open to me yet.

imagine going to the gun shop to purchase a firearm and the bg won't go thru because the gvt won't turn on the system and it's unk when it will go live; until then no firearm. exactly why we will never agree to universal bg checks. right delayed is a right denied.

with drones, i can be more patient because 1) i have other places where i CAN fly and 2) if i ever get boxed in and i feel "otherwise", i'll fly anyway.

the debate disappointment is with the tone of fellow flyers and a few that are simply ok with the shenanigans. it's great to be optimistic and it's good to fight the good fight but downright hostility and animosity for the cause is distressing.

 

[Machineshop]

Here in Canada you have to have a RPAS (drone) licence to fly, either basic or advanced, I have neither yet. But I did manage to register my Mavic, I made a mistake with the on line registration and had to make a small change on my address, and I noticed when I looked over the e form that I now have 31 Mavic Pro drone registered in my name.....nice.

 

[sar104]

hope so. as a hobbyist, i tried a new local airport that was laanc newly included this week and it didn't work. based on the new rules, impossible to fly there. went home where i live within 5 miles of an airport that is still waitlist. i fear i will never been able to fly at home at this rate. but of course, i'm confused about the rules and it's just not open to me yet.

imagine going to the gun shop to purchase a firearm and the bg won't go thru because the gvt won't turn on the system and it's unk when it will go live; until then no firearm. exactly why we will never agree to universal bg checks. right delayed is a right denied.

with drones, i can be more patient because 1) i have other places where i CAN fly and 2) if i ever get boxed in and i feel "otherwise", i'll fly anyway.

the debate disappointment is with the tone of fellow flyers and a few that are simply ok with the shenanigans. it's great to be optimistic and it's good to fight the good fight but downright hostility and animosity for the cause is distressing.

I don't understand where the idea that everyone has a right to fly in the NAS comes from. You really can't compare flying UAVs with owning a gun, which is, for good or bad, a right that is protected under the constitution. There is no right to operate UAVs, and, like many other things, their use is regulated to try to prevent hazards to aircraft, people etc.. You also have no guaranteed right that the processes in place to regulate are implemented instantly. At least a process will be available - Congress could have opted for the simpler solution of banning recreational flight entirely in controlled airspace.

 

[PT_Mavic]

When taxpayer-funded people on the government payroll start being held to account for obvious multiple felonies, then I might become interested in checking out the latest excretions they expect us to adhere to. Until then I'll just keep on keeping on, being of no danger to anybody.

Otherwise I'll just assume it's more Big Stupid Government looking for something to do to justify incinerating over $5 Trillion per year.

 

[strdr]

I don't understand where the idea that everyone has a right to fly in the NAS comes from. You really can't compare flying UAVs with owning a gun, which is, for good or bad, a right that is protected under the constitution. There is no right to operate UAVs, and, like many other things, their use is regulated to try to prevent hazards to aircraft, people etc.. You also have no guaranteed right that the processes in place to regulate are implemented instantly. At least a process will be available - Congress could have opted for the simpler solution of banning recreational flight entirely in controlled airspace.

Of course you have the right. Everyone alive has the God given right to enjoy ALL of the Earth. This is the basis of where unalienable rights come from. Say for example I invented the first drone. I enjoy flying it all the time. Now, someone comes along and says you can't do that. By what authority. Well, the authority of (insert countries name and government here) gives me that power. Power, now we're talking about power. In this situation the power is to use violence if someone doesn't conform to another's "law".
I have the right do to whatever I please down here on the temporal plane. If the government takes issue and kidnaps me through the use of violence, it doesn't make my right disappear.
This is all philosophical argument.
I don't believe in harming any other living thing, or for that matter, energy system. Therefore, I agree to follow the rules. If the rules are unrealistic or unenforceable they will do nothing to curb reckless flying.