Is FAA rules such a BIG deal?

[Just_nick]

Lately just browsing through the posts I have seen lots of people nagging on others about how to stay within line of sight, or "Legal altitude" but are these rules really something to take into account? To be honest, who's going to catch you when your 2 miles away and 1500 feet up getting a shot of a life time like I like to do. Just curious on everyone's opinion of following all the rules.

Sounds pretty sweet, dawg. Except, now you've almost hit a police helicopter, so police helicopter follows you and watches you land, with video footage of you flying, and now they come to your door with a warrant and confiscate your drone as potential evidence.

But, at least you got those life time shots.

 

[choo choo]

Thanks to khooper802 for raising such an interesting and thought provoking post. Sort of ‘if a tree falls in a forest and there’s nobody around, does it make a noise?’
It’s obvious from the great and well thought out replies arguing for or against abiding by the rules that self regulation never works, there will be more drone laws and tighter regulation brought in by the authorities sooner or later.

 

[ac0j]

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.

I agree. Sad but true. We will just keep giving them the books, and they will just tearing out the pages. We need to enjoy our freedoms as long as we can. Because we both know there are idiots that WILL ruin for everyone eventually.

 

[Mavflyer]

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.

Drones in the wild, millions. Deaths 0. Huge problem. More regulation required. Makes sense.

 

[ac0j]

Drones in the wild, millions. Deaths 0. Huge problem. More regulation required. Makes sense.

WOW, That was WAY easier than how I was trying to say it!

 

[Just_nick]

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.

If you're referring to being part of a certain group, you have to actually be a member of that organization. Fun fact, you can't claim to be part of the AMA or whatever group, not actually join them, and fly under their rules.

 

[sar104]

If you're referring to being part of a certain group, you have to actually be a member of that organization. Fun fact, you can't claim to be part of the AMA or whatever group, not actually join them, and fly under their rules.

Fun maybe, but not factual. You don't have to be a member of the AMA to follow their guidelines.

 

[ac0j]

Fun maybe, but not factual. You don't have to be a member of the AMA to follow their guidelines.

Thats what he said...... sort of. If you squint, you'll see.

 

[sar104]

Thats what he said...... sort of. If you squint, you'll see.

I squinted pretty hard, but I saw the opposite.

 

[RayOZ]

My take is fly responsibly and try not to cause any incidents or accidents. Law makers and the public are very reactive. If an incident/accidents occur, they'll start putting up more restrictive rules and regulatiosn. We don't need more regulation if we can just regulate ourselves. Wishful thinking I guess.

 

[ac0j]

I squinted pretty hard, but I saw the opposite.

"you can't claim to be part of the AMA or whatever group, not actually join them, and fly under their rules."

I see it both ways now..... I just focused on the Not be with them and fly by their rules. And saw STILL fly by their rules.

 

[ac0j]

My take is fly responsibly and try not to cause any incidents or accidents. Law makers and the public are very reactive. If an incident/accidents occur, they'll start putting up more restrictive rules and regulatiosn. We don't need more regulation if we can just regulate ourselves. Wishful thinking I guess.

Then IF there is any regulation, it HAS to include ALL flying toys. planes, Helli's, andEstes rockets included. I have flown MANY model rockets over 1000' ALL are capable of flying just as high and far as any drone.

 

[RayOZ]

Then IF there is any regulation, it HAS to include ALL flying toys. planes, Helli's, andEstes rockets included. I have flown MANY model rockets over 1000' ALL are capable of flying just as high and far as any drone.

you can bet lawmakers will really get into it and regulate everything when it happens. it's a money maker when they start handing out fines. for now, let's not give them any reason to do it

 

[khooper802]

Are you taking off above the clouds, or flying through them?

Pictures I take above the clouds

 

[khooper802]

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?

Just like all other laws, they weren't there until something happened. There didn't used to be speed limits or requirements to go to school. Stuff happened that caused the law to be there to have to go as a child in the US.

 

[FatherXmas]

Well when out flying, I live in the country, and aircraft's are common yes, but I can hear and see them due to my land that I live on being open. So usually when I hear one I look around as most fly (what looks like) lower than 400 feet. So most of the time I am no where near one but when it is in the general area I turn sport mode on and fly away or come down or go up depending on where it is. My concern also isn't really getting caught because there isn't a way that I know of, of getting caught as they won't know who's flying it, so that doesn't really concern me unless they find a way to track me. Also the "Keep within line of sight" gets me because if I'm only 200 feet up and a couple miles away, I'm not sure whats wrong with that. I personally trust DJI but I'm not sure about anyone else.

So you can see and hear a military jet going mach 2 at 1000 feet and can get out of it's way before your drone gets sucked into an engine? Good luck with that.

 

[BaNZ]

Even if the chance of hitting a plane and causing a serious accident is 1 in a trillion. All it takes is one accident and the media/politicians will make a big fuss about it. We don't want more unnecessary attention.

 

[Chip]

Even if the chance of hitting a plane and causing a serious accident is 1 in a trillion...

Coincidentally, NASA puts the chances of someone on earth getting hit by falling satellite debris at one trillion to 1. It happened to this lady in the 1990s. Suffered a shoulder injury. I don't think anyone apologized or offered to pay for her medical bills.


.

 

[Jake 61]

So you can see and hear a military jet going mach 2 at 1000 feet and can get out of it's way before your drone gets sucked into an engine? Good luck with that.

Well I was kind of thinking about this today, when I was out west. (I'm in Scotland, so for FAA rules, I read, CAA rules). In theory and perfectly legally, I can go climbing in the hills with my drone, ok, the highest we have is 4400 feet. But, legally I could send the Mavic up to 400 feet above that. Line of sight is pretty dismal but I still reckon I could get far enough away from that peak to encounter said low flying military jet, who, as long as he is above 500 feet, is also flying perfectly legally. I say this because there are hundreds of videos on YouTube of people up in the mountains but still within legal and 'safe' limits.
If you want to go higher, you can. You just need to raise the baseline but stay safe with it.
Although there is no supersonic flying over the British Mainland, a military jet can still end up right on your case very quickly and my area is a blanket restricted area for military flights.
It's a real concern with real risks for a multi million $ or £ ending, chances are very, very slim though.

 

[ascension]

In the US, military aircraft do not fly above mach at low altitude.
But they do fly well below 1000'.