Is FAA rules such a BIG deal?

[tictag]

Thankfully (as far as I know), nobody has used a drone to purposely to cause an incident.

Phantoms have been used in the middle east to drop grenades on US forces, which is one of the reasons why geofencing was introduced.

And to the OP, the rules and restrictions are there to protect both you and the public, created with the hope of educating and thus preventing attitudes like yours. If you feel that the rules aren't for you, have you ever wondered that you might be part of the problem that creates the need for them?

Wise up or choose a different hobby.

 

[Mavflyer]

yes. that's why there's laws against doing such things while driving. and people shouldn't do that, but some think it's ok cos it doesnt harm anyone. what's your point?

My point is the hypocrisy. People do things every day that are incredibly more dangerous. Everyone in this thread has probably flown beyond LOS, they just think the rules apply to everyone else but them.

 

[Chip]

... Finding the pilot just depends on how much stealth is used during the incident and what kind of info is tied to the operators aircraft...

Do we know what information is tied to the drone? Is there a unique registration # carried by or inside every Mavic? Is there a second data card which carries flight logs inside drone?

 

[tictag]

Do we know what information is tied to the drone? Is there a unique registration # carried by or inside every Mavic? Is there a second data card which carries flight logs inside drone?

Yes, the serial number, tied to your DJI account.
Yes, accessible via the DJI Assistant application.

Oh, and at least the Mavic 'squalks' it's ID and, if selected by you, your name and any other identifiable information you choose.

 

[ac0j]

While that's quite true, the risk is obvious. So what should we do? Ignore the rules until a collision with an aircraft does cause a serious event? Ignore the rules even then, since cars will always kill more people than drones? Perhaps repeal the homicide laws, because cars will always kill more people than homicide? Reductio ad absurdum.

I think until it IS a problem, It cant be called a problem. I am not saying its OK to fly in airspace with manned aircraft, but it has been nothing more than close calls and a couple of dings as of now. The other half of my point was danger to people on the ground. I have not heard of a single drone VS person fatality. Nothing more than cuts and bruises. Again, I am not saying it is OK to fly over crowds. But why treat it a real loss of life risk till it is proven to be a life threatening danger? This discussion always has the "sky is falling" tone for no real reason.

 

[tictag]

But why treat it a real loss of life risk till it is proven to be a life threatening danger?

You mean we should wait until somebody dies?

 

[sar104]

My point is the hypocrisy. People do things every day that are incredibly more dangerous. Everyone in this thread has probably flown beyond LOS, they just think the rules apply to everyone else but them.

But your accusation of hypocrisy is based entirely on speculation. You have absolutely no idea whether those criticizing the behavior break those laws. It sounds like projection. Worse still, you are defending the OP's admitted actions based solely on the observation that other people break other laws. That argument advocates anarchy - is that your intent? Or are you simply invoking John 8:7?

 

[Mavflyer]

You mean we should wait until somebody dies?

I think the point is no one has died yet, and the drone industry is fairly large and has been for a while.

 

[ac0j]

You mean we should wait until somebody dies?

Allthough it seems horrible.... YES. If you are proposing laws and regulation. How can you even say it is a threat to life until it proves to be so?

 

[sar104]

I think until it IS a problem, It cant be called a problem. I am not saying its OK to fly in airspace with manned aircraft, but it has been nothing more than close calls and a couple of dings as of now. The other half of my point was danger to people on the ground. I have not heard of a single drone VS person fatality. Nothing more than cuts and bruises. Again, I am not saying it is OK to fly over crowds. But why treat it a real loss of life risk till it is proven to be a life threatening danger? This discussion always has the "sky is falling" tone for no real reason.

Are you not contradicting yourself?

I think until it IS a problem, It cant be called a problem.

I am not saying its OK to fly in airspace with manned aircraft.
​

So the OP flying at 1500 ft and "cloud surfing" is OK or not? Or OK until somewhere, sometime, a drone and aircraft collide with a more serious outcome than the NY helicopter collision?

 

[sar104]

Allthough it seems horrible.... YES. If you are proposing laws and regulation. How can you even say it is a threat to life until it proves to be so?

It's not horrible - it's just not logical. Because the threat is obvious. We know, from basic physics, that UAVs represent a damage threat to aircraft, especially GA aircraft. As backup evidence, we know from bird collisions that significant damage and worse is possible. We know that there has been at least one documented collision, and we know that there have been near misses. What more does one need to conclude that airspace separation is needed?

 

[ac0j]

Are you not contradicting yourself?

I think until it IS a problem, It cant be called a problem.

I am not saying its OK to fly in airspace with manned aircraft.
​

So the OP flying at 1500 ft and "cloud surfing" is OK or not? Or OK until somewhere, sometime, a drone and aircraft collide with a more serious outcome than the NY helicopter collision?

ahhhh YEP! Thats how it works in this country. YOU are often reminding people there is no height limitation for hobbyists. SO thats what it is. That shouldn't be changed until there is a REASON other than a scratch or dent.
AND I also will follow with, Just because I can, doesn't mean I do. I see your point, but until a drone causes a serious accident, (not a helicopter pilot over reacting and clipping trees) The dont have any reason to change or create any laws against drone use.
Just like I cant call you a murderer until you murder someone.

 

[ac0j]

It's not horrible - it's just not logical. Because the threat is obvious. We know, from basic physics, that UAVs represent a damage threat to aircraft, especially GA aircraft. As backup evidence, we know from bird collisions that significant damage and worse is possible. We know that there has been at least one documented collision, and we know that there have been near misses. What more does one need to conclude that airspace separation is needed?

So who is going to tell the birds?

 

[Mavflyer]

John 8:7?

Let's stay on topic and keep fantasy books out of the conversation please.

That argument advocates anarchy

Anarchy....I just...., I tried.

 

[sar104]

ahhhh YEP! Thats how it works in this country. YOU are often reminding people there is no height limitation for hobbyists. SO thats what it is. That shouldn't be changed until there is a REASON other than a scratch or dent.
AND I also will follow with, Just because I can, doesn't mean I do. I see your point, but until a drone causes a serious accident, (not a helicopter pilot over reacting and clipping trees) The dont have any reason to change or create any laws against drone use.
Just like I cant call you a murderer until you murder someone.

That's a complete non sequitur. You also can't accuse someone of damaging an aircraft with a drone until they do so, but you can put rules in place to attempt to prevent that from happening.

I have pointed out that there is no altitude limitation for hobbyists because that is the current state of the law. It's a statement of fact that derives from Congress's ill-judged (IMO) crafting of Public Law 112-95. It does not mean that I agree with it at all.

 

[sar104]

So who is going to tell the birds?

Very amusing, but that's another non sequitur. To illustrate, we don't permit homicide just because people also die of natural causes.

 

[sar104]

Let's stay on topic and keep fantasy books out of the conversation please.

If only.

 

[ac0j]

So, if the OP isnt breaking any current laws, whats with all the Hubbub?

I am with you 100%, I dont go too high or too far. Ever. But does that give me or you the right to tell someone his LEGAL flight is NOT OK?

 

[Mavflyer]

So, if the OP isnt breaking any current laws, whats with all the Hubbub?

I am with you 100%, I dont go too high or too far. Ever. But does that give me or you the right to tell someone his LEGAL flight is NOT OK?

You have holier than thous(hehe) everywhere. Present location included.

 

[sar104]

So, if the OP isnt breaking any current laws, whats with all the Hubbub?

I am with you 100%, I dont go too high or too far. Ever. But does that give me or you the right to tell someone his LEGAL flight is NOT OK?

That's a good point. I think the answer is that the current regulatory restrictions placed on the FAA regarding hobby RC flight are based (in fantasy land) on the concept of the RC community self-policing. I think that what you are seeing here are the futile attempts to educate hobby fliers on what is, and is not, safe or responsible flying.

In my opinion, in the mass market that drones now command and as illustrated repeatedly on this forum, that will fail and Congress will realize the error of their earlier decision. In a limited sense that already happened with registration. Next, most likely, they will repeal the Special Rule, and the FAA will regulate. It will hurt hobbyists and, as a result, hurt the UAV industry. And it will be entirely self-inflicted.