I wish regulations were sensible but strictly enforced.

[Lets Fly]

With all the rules and regulations for passenger jets, private jets, small fixed wing and helicopters with all the built in safety features, we still average thousands of deaths a year.
I don't know of any deaths by (I imagine) hundreds of thousands of recreational drone pilot flights each year. We need to keep that statistic going, and follow the rules for the safety
of anyone under us, and for the hobby.

 

[iaincaradoc]

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.

Got link? A quick search doesn't find it.

 

[Thomas B]

Got link? A quick search doesn't find it.

Don’t have the link, but it was a child flying over a car show and hit a car.... damages to car owner have been recouped.

 

[iaincaradoc]

Don’t have the link, but it was a child flying over a car show and hit a car.... damages to car owner have been recouped.

Interesting. There was a Reddit thread a few hours ago from someone who posted their own video of hitting Billy Bolt in the middle of an Enduro competition run. For some reason, all of his posts have since been deleted, and that account is gone.

The remnants can still be seen here, but may disappear soon:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[SkyeHigh]

This was the recent article:

DJI Drone crashed into my vehicle at car show

DJI Drone crashed into my vehicle at car show

Hoping you all may be able to provide some insight here. Located in Dallas, TX. This past weekend I was at a car show, my vehicle was parked and I was standing behind it. A large DJI drone came crashing straight down into my hood/driver’s side fender, leaving significant dents and scratches on...

mavicpilots.com

 

[dronerdave]

I often fly off a couple active runways and anybody that says they can always hear a full sized aircraft on approach hasn't had much experience around aircraft. They can often be on you before you can react. Very important to have a spotter looking out for planes planning to touch down. But even in rural areas, aircraft can be on you quickly. This plane was very quiet as he was coming in and the only reason I got a picture was that I knew ahead of time he was on approach.

 

[Heindrich1988]

Recognizing that I don't know everything there is to know about drones and their regulations, I decided to observe the ensuing debate for a while before commenting on it. Clearly, at least in this forum, my views as they were expressed are in the minority.

Firstly, the reason for my rant didn't actually arise from a rebellious sentiment railing against government regulation. The trigger for my rant was actually going on a trip with people who I felt were too irresponsible and incompetent to be trusted with drones, and led by DJI employees who disregarded their own national regulations.

I reflected on why this occurred, and came to the conclusion that the rules as they stand are too restrictive to be strictly adhered to and too inconsistently enforced to have much of a deterrence. Thus my call for smarter and more enforced rules.

To answer @SkyeHigh ... No I don't have statistics on the proportion of drone pilots who strictly obey their location regulations. That's like asking for data on the proportion of drivers who break traffic laws and get away with it. I accept that one weekend trip with 20 people and a WeChat group with 300 enthusiasts from China is a small sample size. But I seriously doubt things are better in other countries. Look at any Drone-focused YouTube channel and you can pretty much always find one video where the pilot has broken their local drone rules. A lot of beautiful pictures and videos shared on this very forum could not have been done without breaking the letter of the law.

Like @Mazdaman323lx my biggest gripe with current regulations is the VLOS requirement. Realistically, you cannot see a drone clearly beyond maybe 200m. Strictly obeying that rule restricts my Air 2 to a range befitting a toy, not the amazing machine that it is.

I appreciate what others have said about the risks to manned aircraft, particularly helicopters, and I admit that I perhaps was not best informed about the risks. I assumed that helicopters and small planes can be heard from miles away if they got low enough to hit a drone. I guess that's not necessarily the case.

@harle83 I know that regulations are to protect the public. I agree that they are needed. My point was that as it stands, due to the strictness of the law, most pilots break them intentionally or otherwise, at some point, to some extent. The truly irresponsible "bad apples" are not treated any differently to "mostly-responsible pilots" and enforcement is entirely inadequate and inconsistent. I fear you maybe right in that governments will not adopt smart solutions and instead just regulate the hobby to death.

Regarding @BigAl07 's point about multiple redundancies on manned aircraft vs single failure points on our drones... You have a point, but on the other hand, there is a reason for that. A manned aircraft suffering a catastrophic technical failure puts all its occupants and people on the ground in mortal danger. My 570g Air 2 is far less capable of causing death and destruction if it happened to drop out of the sky.

@maelstrom I totally agree with your point of NOT trusting people to self-regulate. I am very frustrated by those who treat drones like toys and totally disregard the safety of others. I believe pilots should have to take a theory test AND a practical test before being allowed to fly anything that can put others in danger. I WANT rules to be strictly enforced, I just wish those rules can be a little more lenient than they are now so the majority of pilots don't easily run afoul of them.

Anyway thanks for everyone's input. I hope things change for the better because the status quo is going to see a high-profile disaster sooner or later. There's too many "bad apples" flying recklessly and completely inadequate enforcement. Unfortunately, enforcing the current rules to the letter (or a even more restrictive future rule-set) will destroy the joy of the hobby for many responsible pilots, but maybe that is unavoidable. Hopefully technology will provide solutions to keep the hobby fun, legal and safe. (I'm thinking legally required ADS-B, drone pilot tests and licenses, instantaneous uplink of flight data to central database, enforced geofencing etc...)

 

[ninja_geezer]

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?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Spot on there is no real point in having a drone,if you cannot use its capabilities Jesus i cant see mine past 200 yards ,,,,,,

 

[SkyeHigh]

A considered and well constructed response Heindrich1988, thank you for coming back to the table.

We get many rants about regulations in the forum and usually from those who don’t believe rules and regulations apply to them.

Regulations are only followed by those who are responsible and truly understand the need for them - they are purely there for the safety of us all. There will always be those selfish and arrogant people who don’t care about anyone else and no kind of regulation will ever change that but will lead to further restrictions on those that have always followed the rules. It’s always the good that get punished.

 

[BigAl07]

Spot on there is no real point in having a drone,if you cannot use its capabilities Jesus i cant see mine past 200 yards ,,,,,,

I agree. If you can't see it further than 200yds then maybe it should stay within 200yds. It might be different over there.

 

[maelstrom]

I WANT rules to be strictly enforced, I just wish those rules can be a little more lenient than they are now so the majority of pilots don't easily run afoul of them.

I see the rules differently from you as I don't find them that difficult to comply with. With regards to VLOS, if it's too far away to see, how can you be sure that it doesn't pose a danger to a passing aircraft, for example? You could say "I don't fly it too far beyond VLOS so I'd spot an aircraft nearby", but if you changed this rule some people would (and currently do) fly significantly beyond VLOS and would have no idea what was happening where their drone was flying. It's like those people who want to have waypoint missions which continue when they lose contact with the drone. For me, that's even worse than just flying beyond VLOS. If you're still in contact with your drone you could at least descend or land if you spotted an aircraft in the area which isn't possible if you've lost the signal to it.

 

[Mazdaman323lx]

For gods sake , what passing aircraft ? . I'm talking about flying 100 feet in the air in the middle of nowhere , over a forrest or up a ravine or out over shorelines. Im not flying at 400m near airports or over roads , cars , people , factories , nuclear power plants , houses , refineries etc etc.
If there is a aircraft in my vicinity , at my drone height , I can assure you that my drone is the least of its problems.
And how do we feel about about FPV drone users ? Dont tell me they have situational awareness , theyre wearing encapsulating googles for gods sake . Ive seen videos of FPV drone users diving down cliff faces and skyscrapers well out vlos . Are they all to be shunned also ?

 

[maelstrom]

For gods sake , what passing aircraft ?

Military low-flying, air ambulances (particularly in remote areas), police helicopters, pipeline inspections, powerline inspections, aerial surveys - and there may be plenty more legitimate reasons to fly at or below 400ft.

And how do we feel about about FPV drone users ? Dont tell me they have situational awareness , theyre wearing encapsulating googles for gods sake . Ive seen videos of FPV drone users diving down cliff faces and skyscrapers well out vlos . Are they all to be shunned also ?

Unless they're in a protected area, they're supposed to have a separate observer watching the drone to remain legal.

 

[ninja_geezer]

I agree. If you can't see it further than 200yds then maybe it should stay within 200yds. It might be different over there.

how many of us can actually see the tiny mavic at several hundred yards away yards especially in a grey sky ?? NONE that's how many ...

 

[Riteguy]

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.
Once you are a quarter of a mile away, that situational awareness declines substaintually, especially if you have obstructions such as hills and trees off on each side of the drone. This is where the monitor is better used when flying that VLOS. Another post mentioned taking a small tube and flying by viewing thru it to simulate flying by monitor, yet he fails to take into consideration if you hold a 24" tube up to your face (simulating the wide angle view of the drone camera) you have a pretty darn good view of what is in front of you. Perhaps we ought to suggest to DJI they provide a backward facing camera and be able to toggle between the two.


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.

 

[Riteguy]

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?


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?



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.

Taking your example of losing video display of your drones situation, what would a military UAS do should that same thing happen? RTH...... enact manuevers to try and regain signal..... land and destroy itself??

 

[maelstrom]

Taking your example of losing video display of your drones situation, what would a military UAS do should that same thing happen? RTH...... enact manuevers to try and regain signal..... land and destroy itself??

You can’t possibly equate military drones to those we fly. Military drones often have missions were lives are at stake or have national security implications. Even military drones have failsafe systems which could well involve an RTH or a diversion to a pre-planned alternate.

 

[Thomas B]

how many of us can actually see the tiny mavic at several hundred yards away yards especially in a grey sky ?? NONE that's how many ...

Using Firehouse ARC XLs on my M2P I can see it at least a mile in the Phoenix midday sun and 1.5 to 2 miles away easily at night. The lights are certified for 3.5 mile visibility, but my old eyes can’t see it at that distance.

 

[Cymru]

VLOS for me is the most important safety rule we have. Its impossible to act safety using the typical technology and training around a consumer, off the shelf drone.

For safe BVLOS flying the drone needs to be able to interact with other airspace users (passively and actively), potentially controlling agencies and so on. Typically that means some sort of transponder (1 or 2 way) and an operator in direct contact with either the control agency for the airspace or at least a common radio channel for other users. If that isnt possible a pre-filed flight plan and NOTAM is needed to notify other users.
Google/amazon and other drones will likely have transponders and pre-cleared flight plans along with an operator with a phone or radio to ATC if needed. A consumer flying for leisure typically has none of these.

If you're outside VLOS you cant see other traffic or if you do, potentially cant get the drone down or out of the way fast enough. You have no depth perception to judge closure rates, distances or relative positions. You have absolutely no situational awareness what-so-ever.
You wont hear anything if your drone is 2 miles away. Even if its closer good luck hearing that low flying jet at 500kts or that paraglider that just crested a hill. Or the guys flying a high performance kite 1 mile from you.

The whole point of line of sight is to allow you to identify and mitigate risk and threats from airborne and ground based objects in the area. To do that, you need to be able to see exactly where the drone is in 3D space. The rules stem from Visual Flight Rules for manned aircraft.

If every drone operator was made to sit a lengthy course with an effective exam and made to liaise in real time with ATC for each flight combined with the drone having transponders you could make an argument for BVLOS. But for just regular hobby fliers who want to look at stuff 3 miles away with no pre-planning and permissions then no. Its a very bad idea.

 

[Heavydpj]

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.

They're written by people who put manned aircraft safety first

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.

No, it's not. If you can't see where your craft is, then you literally have no idea how to "see and avoid" a manned aircraft. Better to risk a collision with powerlines or trees, where you only harm your craft, than, say, a US Army Blackhawk Helicopter with four people on board (as happened in 2017). Perhaps things are different in China, who knows?

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.

Yes, there are stupid and irresponsible people out there.

For example there's people in the US openly doing range tests flying in cities,

See above

whilst a very responsible pilot still got in trouble with the FAA for flying over private property and minimally populated areas.

No, they don't because neither of those things are against FAA rules.

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.

I agree with you! Personally, I think that EVERYONE who operates a UAS should. be required to get an FAA permit to operate one (like a driver's license). The challenge is that (unlike China) we have this silly thing called "freedom" which often triumphs, and so government generally tries to give people enough rope to hang themselves before getting draconian in its attempts to balance safety of flight versus protection of a monetary investment.

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.

True, but we don't drive cars via remote control, either, when people are involved.