DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

I wish regulations were sensible but strictly enforced.

Heindrich1988

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
324
Reactions
867
Location
China and the UK
Is it just me or does it feel like drone regulations were written by people completely out of touch with the technology? The standard regulations are something like, 120m altitude limit, VLOS, no flying over people and private property... or some variation of that. It feels like it was written by people who either think that drones are toy planes.

The problem is that given the capability of consumer drones like the Mavics, it is virtually impossible to adhere to those rules 100%. And if you did, you are missing out on the majority of the capability of something like the Air 2. The silly thing is, when it comes to VLOS for example, flying by VLOS is far more dangerous than looking at your screen and keeping a safe altitude, because it's very hard to fly by sight and it forces you to stay low and at risk of collision with all sorts of obstacles like trees and power lines.

As a result, if we are being brutally honest, the majority of pilots do not strictly adhere to their local regulations and a significant minority downright ignore them. Enforcement is also extremely patchy and inconsistent. For example there's people in the US openly doing range tests flying in cities, whilst a very responsible pilot still got in trouble with the FAA for flying over private property and minimally populated areas. I am currently in China and went on a DJI organised drone travel trip last weekend... let's just say that even DJI employees openly disregarded China's official regulations (which are similar to the US) because there is basically no enforcement outside of big cities.

I wish governments approached drones like cars. I actually don't think you should be able to just take it out of the box and fly at will. Something like a Mavic is fast and heavy enough to potentially cause serious injury or property damage, so pilots should be regulated and take a test to prove their competency before being allowed to fly. There was a moron in my drone club who, as a total beginner, thought it was a good idea to make his maiden flight from the balcony of his apartment, and of course wrecked his drone within seconds, putting people on the ground at risk. There's so many more examples of idiots on the internet doing things like plane spotting with their drone or insisting on their individual freedom to fly in no-fly zones. These people shouldn't be allowed to fly at all, just as we don't let children drive cars and ban reckless drivers.

However, we don't restrict cars to absurd rules like 10 mph just because they could potentially crash and hurt people. By the same token, drone regulations should reflect the technology of the drones on the market. All my Air 2 flights automatically generate flight logs detailing every aspect of each flight. Regulations should be relaxed to a reasonable extent to allow responsible utilization of the available technology, just as we allow cars to drive at 70 mph on the motorway (in the UK) despite the risk.

It is better to have relaxed rules that are respected and adhered to, than overly draconian rules that are completely ignored or regulate the life out of the technology and makes it useless.
 
The problem is that given the capability of consumer drones like the Mavics, it is virtually impossible to adhere to those rules 100%.

It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the drones - it is entirely the responsibility of the pilot to adhere to them and you’ll find the majority of people do.

The silly thing is, when it comes to VLOS for example, flying by VLOS is far more dangerous than looking at your screen and keeping a safe altitude, because it's very hard to fly by sight and it forces you to stay low and at risk of collision with all sorts of obstacles like trees and power lines.

Absolute rubbish. It is not very hard to fly by sight. You have no situational awareness of anything around your aircraft unless you are looking directly and around it. No one cares if you hit a tree with your drone and wreck it. People rightly do care if you hit someone, an aircraft such as a helicopter, crop sprayer, building or vehicle. That is why VLOS is compulsory.

As a result, if we are being brutally honest, the majority of pilots do not strictly adhere to their local regulations

So you have statistics to prove this or just a wild speculation?

I agree there should be some form of compulsory flight test but who is going to pay for all of the work involved? And it will only increase regulation in the long term.
 
Try driving down the road in your car and you can ONLY look through a small tube straight ahead. In order to look around you have to rotate your whole car around (you're looking through a fixed tube with a very narrow FOV). How safe is that? That's what flying looking at your display device is doing.
 
Visual line of sight is the regulation I have most issue with. Any drone flown beyond 300m is a tiny speck in the sky. Even at that you cant tell which way its facing. If I had to restrict my flights to this range I'd pack in the hobby altogether.
I'm sure the holier than thou drone police will critisize me for this , but I can't respect this stupid regulation if flying in a rural setting far from people and property. Besides , they wont force these same regulations on goggle or amazon drones.
Someone like to tell me what possible harm was caused by filming the video below - where I flew well beyond vlos?
 
Visual line of sight is the regulation I have most issue with. Any drone flown beyond 300m is a tiny speck in the sky. Even at that you cant tell which way its facing. If I had to restrict my flights to this range I'd pack in the hobby altogether.
I'm sure the holier than thou drone police will critisize me for this , but I can't respect this stupid regulation if flying in a rural setting far from people and property. Besides , they wont force these same regulations on goggle or amazon drones.
Someone like to tell me what possible harm was caused by filming the video below - where I flew well beyond vlos?

Hollier than thou huh?
Drone Police huh?

Just because no one was harmed in your one example doesn't mean it's a good idea. The Rules & Regulations can't have a "Carve Out" for every single scenario otherwise we wouldn't live long enough to read through all of them.

Here's an example of why we need to always be in VLOS..... if you're flying beyond LOS how can you See & Avoid other aircraft? Odds are you probably won't have to worry about it but just WHAT IF?

That's Trent Palmer and he's one of US! Actually he's an Industry Leader and well on the high end of UAS operations. Check out his videos they are a lot of fun to watch even if you aren't into Manned Aviation.
 
Is it just me or does it feel like drone regulations were written by people completely out of touch with the technology? The standard regulations are something like, 120m altitude limit, VLOS, no flying over people and private property... or some variation of that. It feels like it was written by people who either think that drones are toy planes.

I disagree and think the rules are quite sensible, moreso since I've spent time on this forum. Many of the crashes on this forum occur when people are flying significantly without VLOS and have no idea what happened to their drone because they couldn't see it, never mind react in any way. If it wasn't for some of the incredible expertise offered here in working out what happened and where the drone ended up otherwise they'd likely never have been recovered.

There's also an active topic in this forum where someone's car has been damaged by a drone landing on it and clearly the drone should not have been flying above people or private property. It's bad enough it's damaged a car but could have been worse if it injured someone on the ground.

I follow the rules carefully and get a lot out of my drone, neither of them had crashed and that is partially down to flying within the rules since I've been able to deal with a problem that I've seen many others lose their drones over. And at the very worst if the drone does crash it's not going to hit any one or anyone's property, it's going to land in the countryside where the only damage is to itself and my wallet.

I don't bother being the 'drone police' on people since it's clearly just a waste of time although I do find it unfair to criticise DJI for enforcing regulations where there's no end of evidence on this forum alone of people who given the free choice will not follow the rules.
 
Visual line of sight is the regulation I have most issue with. Any drone flown beyond 300m is a tiny speck in the sky. Even at that you cant tell which way its facing. If I had to restrict my flights to this range I'd pack in the hobby altogether.
I'm sure the holier than thou drone police will critisize me for this , but I can't respect this stupid regulation if flying in a rural setting far from people and property. Besides , they wont force these same regulations on goggle or amazon drones.
Someone like to tell me what possible harm was caused by filming the video below - where I flew well beyond vlos?
VLOS creates situational awareness. Harm was inadvertently encouraging others to do the same when they can’t see the drone.
Add strobes; red, green, and white in aircraft fashion to increase your ability to see your drone and it’s orientation.
 
Something like a Mavic is fast and heavy enough to potentially cause serious injury or property damage, so pilots should be regulated and take a test to prove their competency before being allowed to fly.

So you’re saying that someone who’s taken a test to prove their competency and flies beyond VLOS is going to do less damage to a passing aircraft than someone who’s new to drones and is flying in the same place? The rules are there for the safety of others. If you can’t see your drone it doesn’t matter whether you have thousands of hours of drone experience or just a few minutes, it makes it potentially just as dangerous.

It’s the very fact that people are ignore the rules that‘s causing the ongoing introduction of more restrictive ones.

Someone like to tell me what possible harm was caused by filming the video below - where I flew well beyond vlos?

Would you have been able to see the helicopter coming up behind you who could legitimately have been at the same height?
 
I can see its orientation quite clearly using the screen thank you . And would I have seen the helicopter ? Whatever about seeing it I definitely would have heard it. You can hear a chopper coming from miles away. Same with a Cessna. Now your going to tell me they're very quiet arent you? and they can be on top of me before I know it. We have no crop dusters or fighter jets in this country.
The SAR helicopters are big Sikorskys and they are noisey and can be heard approaching from miles away even against the wind. But I know I may as well be doing something else against the wing in trying to win this argument lol
 
I can see its orientation quite clearly using the screen thank you . And would I have seen the helicopter ? Whatever about seeing it I definitely would have heard it. You can hear a chopper coming from miles away. Same with a Cessna. Now your going to tell me they're very quiet arent you? and they can be on top of me before I know it. We have no crop dusters or fighter jets in this country.
The SAR helicopters are big Sikorskys and they are noisey and can be heard approaching from miles away even against the wind.

Ok let's play your game for a moment.... when flying BVLOS and you CAN see "orientation" on your display device, what happens when your display device goes BLANK? What if, that's the same moment you HEAR a big Sikorsky SAR aircraft approaching your area? How do you ensure Aviation Safety?

You've set yourself up for a Perfect Storm/Disaster and AVIATION is about taking the needed precautions to do everything we can to PREVENT incidents! If you're going to play in the Big Boy arena shouldn't you also play by the Big Boy rules?

.....Now your going to tell me they're very quiet arent you? and they can be on top of me before I know it.....
In the right circumstances YES they can seem quite and be upon you much quicker than you suspect. Trees, Structures, Terrain can easily distort/block the incoming sounds until the aircraft is incredibly close. Maybe in your area you don't have these hindrances?

....But I know I may as well be doing something else against the wing in trying to win this argument ....

That's the most factual statement you've made in this thread.

While I'm sure you're thrilled your country has minimal UAS regulations there are some of the UAS regulations that make sense and those of us taking this seriously understand WHY they are in place and strictly adhere to them.
 
We have no crop dusters or fighter jets in this country.
The SAR helicopters are big Sikorskys and they are noisey and can be heard approaching from miles away even against the wind. But I know I may as well be doing something else against the wing in trying to win this argument lol

I’m sure the RAF would be amused by your comment. Maybe they just fly too low and too fast for you to see and hear them - they are certainly there. Recent probing by a USSR Bomber over Ireland was intercepted by six RAF Typhoons that were scrambled from England and Scotland. They have shoot-to-kill rights over Irish airspace in a covered up agreement with the UK. You may not have fast jets yet but your government is in the process of buying some. In the meantime the UK is providing support and training across the country.

And the Sikorsky’s aren’t that big neither are the Robinson’s.
 
Last edited:
And would I have seen the helicopter ? Whatever about seeing it I definitely would have heard it. You can hear a chopper coming from miles away.

Not necessarily. You can certainly hear helicopters, at height, from some distance away (but not miles, for most helicopters). However, if they were low enough that your drone would pose a danger, the sound carries significantly less distance and it's much more difficult to pinpoint the direction. If they were downwind from you, the chances are good that you wouldn't hear them at all. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why helicopters (in particular) may be down at these heights - pipeline or powerline inspections, aerial surveys, filming, environmental research, military low flying, air ambulances to name just a few. Just because it's a remote area, that doesn't mean that no one will ever fly there.

But going back to your comments for a moment, if you heard an aircraft would you immediately land your drone (or at least descend rapidly) because, after all, you wouldn't be able to see how close your drone was to it? If not, how would you know that your drone (which you can't see) didn't constitute a hazard? If you did descend, you'd then potentially lose signal prompting an RTH which could then make your drone a hazard once again.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, the regulations are not there simply to spoil the enjoyment of drone flyers and no one has a right to fly wherever (or however) they want with no regard to the potential consequences.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: BigAl07
Age old argument on automobiles. Automobiles have been the basis of arguments for a very long time. And mostly for a good reason. Gun debates have been used again and again with cars. We’ve had cars in friendly debates here as well. Perhaps the reason we base automobiles against other arguments is because of their complexity and operational rules. Here in the USA, the generally accepted driver license age is 16. A simple knowledge test and practical exam are generally administered prior to one receiving a license. Then the new, young driver gets behind the wheel and all bets are off! “If I wasn’t supposed to drive 120 mph, then why did they put a speedometer and engine capable of reaching 120 mph in the car?” Likewise with drones, if they make a drone with the capability of going over 5 miles and still has the ability to respond to the controller, then why not fly 5 miles distance? Point is, both are illegal operations and the end result is the operator has and assumes the responsibility for safe and legal operation, regardless! OpEd, that’s all! Fly safe, fly within the rules!
 
Well, great comments all around, or corse we have seen and heard most of this before. One thing I don't understand is how all these beautiful videos we see of towns and landscapes, views of zooming in and turning so gracefully that we comment on,
can be accomplished while only looking at the drone, you can't. So unless your AC is within a couple hundred meters you might be able to look up and down very quickly and watch the drone. Most of the time the AC is quite far away and we can still see the speck or strobe,
and when you look down you lose it, it happens to us all. Once lost in the bright sky you have to trust your instruments just like fixed wing pilots are taught, then get it back in sight, but keeping your eye on it without looking at what you want to photograph or video
not possible. We follow the rules the best we can, but use common sense.
 
Well, great comments all around, or corse we have seen and heard most of this before. One thing I don't understand is how all these beautiful videos we see of towns and landscapes, views of zooming in and turning so gracefully that we comment on,
can be accomplished while only looking at the drone, you can't. So unless your AC is within a couple hundred meters you might be able to look up and down very quickly and watch the drone. Most of the time the AC is quite far away and we can still see the speck or strobe,
and when you look down you lose it, it happens to us all. Once lost in the bright sky you have to trust your instruments just like fixed wing pilots are taught, then get it back in sight, but keeping your eye on it without looking at what you want to photograph or video
not possible. We follow the rules the best we can, but use common sense.


Manned aircraft have multiple layers of redundancy on almost every system. Our HOBBY aircraft have a slew of SINGLE FAILURE POINTS.
Manned Aircraft pilots have many many hours of training for WHAT IF situations. UAS operators usually NONE.
Manned Aircraft fly strictly VFR unless they are LICENSED, CURRENT, and the aircraft is EQUIPPED for IFR flight. Any other time they are required to always be able to See & Avoid with the good old eyeballs.

Comparing our Hobby grade UAS to Manned Aircraft is like comparing an apple to a frog. That just doesn't work.
 
It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the drones - it is entirely the responsibility of the pilot to adhere to them and you’ll find the majority of people do.



Absolute rubbish. It is not very hard to fly by sight. You have no situational awareness of anything around your aircraft unless you are looking directly and around it. No one cares if you hit a tree with your drone and wreck it. People rightly do care if you hit someone, an aircraft such as a helicopter, crop sprayer, building or vehicle. That is why VLOS is compulsory.



So you have statistics to prove this or just a wild speculation?

I agree there should be some form of compulsory flight test but who is going to pay for all of the work involved? And it will only increase regulation in the long term.
I completely agree with you. These rules are not only here for your protection, they are here to protect the public. It's the one bad apple kinda thing. If rules are "relaxed there's always someone who will see how relaxed they really are. It's difficult enough dealing with law enforcement who 60% of the time think they are the end all be all of Drone enforcement law and don't really understand all the rules. I'm good with the rules and laws. I have no issues following them. You need to think about what might be coming down the road from our FAA Overlords who are in the pocket of Amazon, Google, and other Big Business. They want our space and I'm sure will get some of it. This response just nails it.
 
Is it just me or does it feel like drone regulations were written by people completely out of touch with the technology? The standard regulations are something like, 120m altitude limit, VLOS, no flying over people and private property... or some variation of that. It feels like it was written by people who either think that drones are toy planes.

The problem is that given the capability of consumer drones like the Mavics, it is virtually impossible to adhere to those rules 100%. And if you did, you are missing out on the majority of the capability of something like the Air 2. The silly thing is, when it comes to VLOS for example, flying by VLOS is far more dangerous than looking at your screen and keeping a safe altitude, because it's very hard to fly by sight and it forces you to stay low and at risk of collision with all sorts of obstacles like trees and power lines.

As a result, if we are being brutally honest, the majority of pilots do not strictly adhere to their local regulations and a significant minority downright ignore them. Enforcement is also extremely patchy and inconsistent. For example there's people in the US openly doing range tests flying in cities, whilst a very responsible pilot still got in trouble with the FAA for flying over private property and minimally populated areas. I am currently in China and went on a DJI organised drone travel trip last weekend... let's just say that even DJI employees openly disregarded China's official regulations (which are similar to the US) because there is basically no enforcement outside of big cities.

I wish governments approached drones like cars. I actually don't think you should be able to just take it out of the box and fly at will. Something like a Mavic is fast and heavy enough to potentially cause serious injury or property damage, so pilots should be regulated and take a test to prove their competency before being allowed to fly. There was a moron in my drone club who, as a total beginner, thought it was a good idea to make his maiden flight from the balcony of his apartment, and of course wrecked his drone within seconds, putting people on the ground at risk. There's so many more examples of idiots on the internet doing things like plane spotting with their drone or insisting on their individual freedom to fly in no-fly zones. These people shouldn't be allowed to fly at all, just as we don't let children drive cars and ban reckless drivers.

However, we don't restrict cars to absurd rules like 10 mph just because they could potentially crash and hurt people. By the same token, drone regulations should reflect the technology of the drones on the market. All my Air 2 flights automatically generate flight logs detailing every aspect of each flight. Regulations should be relaxed to a reasonable extent to allow responsible utilization of the available technology, just as we allow cars to drive at 70 mph on the motorway (in the UK) despite the risk.

It is better to have relaxed rules that are respected and adhered to, than overly draconian rules that are completely ignored or regulate the life out of the technology and makes it useless.
There's so much here to tear apart but I think you've completely missed the point. These Laws or rules protect not only you as a pilot but the public. Are you the "One bad Apple"? We deal not only with our FAA Overlords but our good friends in Law Enforcement. many don't know the rules and will pound there're chests when it comes to our flying. Do you really wanna end up in the back of a squad car? Better yet, flying over Crowds, what it you're Drone drops out of the sky and hurts or worse kills an innocent? Really to spend some serious time in prison for such a heinous mistake. 2 weeks ago a Drone was spotted at Wrigley Field during a Cubs Game, They had to stop the game for an hour while law enforcement looked for the moron that pulled that stunt. I don't think they were found but is that the relaxing you want?

As far as VLOS, Sorry no reason to even think of relaxing that rule. I own a Red MA, but at 1/2 a mile it's barely visible on a GOOD day. If my wife isn't with me 70% of the the time it could be worse. I've never understood the need to see if our Drones could fly the distance that we are told they can. What real purpose does it serve to know that 1000.00+ of your money is 2 miles away over land and just like that something goes wrong and it's gone. I prefer to keep my money in my pocket. There's no real reason you need to be able to fly out of range and IF you do then you need to make sure you have spotters there who can keep line of sight and make sure your precious doesn't vanish into the either. Otherwise you kinda got what you deserve.

Right now the World-UK included is watching to see what the Overlords at the FAA do here and the rest will follow suit, bet on it. Big money is trying to sleep with the FAA, Amazon, Google, UPS and so on trying to seize our Air space. It's ugly and we we're invited to the party. I wrote a 4000+ work comment to the FAA on why things needed to happen and what I felt was a fair compromise for all. I'm sure it was deleted. But of the 150,000 registered Pilots here 17,000 wrote something, pretty poor.

You're going to do as you wish. I think if somehow we escape with remote I.D. and a traffic control system that works it's a win??? Maybe. My feeling is that we right now are living in "The Good Ole Days" when it comes to our flying privileges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mazdaman323lx
Look at the data! How many injuries to people or property on the ground have their been? If common sense prevails....ATP helicopter = 30+ years.
 
Manned aircraft have multiple layers of redundancy on almost every system. Our HOBBY aircraft have a slew of SINGLE FAILURE POINTS.
Manned Aircraft pilots have many many hours of training for WHAT IF situations. UAS operators usually NONE.
Manned Aircraft fly strictly VFR unless they are LICENSED, CURRENT, and the aircraft is EQUIPPED for IFR flight. Any other time they are required to always be able to See & Avoid with the good old eyeballs.

Comparing our Hobby grade UAS to Manned Aircraft is like comparing an apple to a frog. That just doesn't work.
I don't disagree with you at all, I am not comparing drones to manned aircraft, you missed my point completely that when you have to look
away, and we all do to photograph or for whatever reason, trust the instrument.
 
Look at the data! How many injuries to people or property on the ground have their been? If common sense prevails....ATP helicopter = 30+ years.

Injuries to the public have probably been avoided because of the regulations rather than in spite of them (even if not everyone obeys them). You simply can’t trust people to use common sense and self-regulate - things like speeding and drink-driving are perfect examples of this.

By the way, having a pilot’s license doesn’t make you any more of an expert on drone laws or their relevance. I recently retired as an ATPL (H) holder with 32 years experience and I’m still learning about drone regulations.
 
Last edited:
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,586
Messages
1,554,109
Members
159,586
Latest member
DoubleBarS