Lots of drones are flying illegally around airports (DroneDJ)?

[lakshadvio]

I think the methodology is flawed (they didn't check for waivers or authorizations, or even for structure height at flight locations), but it's exactly the kind of press that leads to regulatory outcomes that further restrict our ability to fly (for both pleasure and business). The study itself (here, p. 20 (p. 22 of the PDF)) notes these weaknesses, but without any discussion of them. I operate under a Wide-area-authorization, and all my local flights (every one I've flown, in fact, except one) would be found by this study to be in violation because LAANC doesn't operate at my local airport. I wouldn't care to guess what the ratio of waivers/authorizations is, but mine was incredibly easy to obtain, so I think it's probably not negligible.

 

[OptikN3rv]

Yep I saw a great video on Youtube about someone coming to the Netherlands (Amsterdam) and flying in the middle of the city making great films but 100% illegal as he was flying near an airport, over people and over roads and getting up very close to boats full of people and buildings. He then said Oh he didn't know it was illegal in the Netherlands lol like ignorance is a good excuse.
People like this ruin it for everyone that stays within the law and slowly we are losing the rights and spaces to fly in.

 

[sar104]

I think the methodology is flawed (they didn't check for waivers or authorizations, or even for structure height at flight locations), but it's exactly the kind of press that leads to regulatory outcomes that further restrict our ability to fly (for both pleasure and business). The study itself (here, p. 20 (p. 22 of the PDF)) notes these weaknesses, but without any discussion of them. I operate under a Wide-area-authorization, and all my local flights (every one I've flown, in fact, except one) would be found by this study to be in violation because LAANC doesn't operate at my local airport. I wouldn't care to guess what the ratio of waivers/authorizations is, but mine was incredibly easy to obtain, so I think it's probably not negligible.

As an argument that is a real stretch and your own anecdotal argument is even more flawed because, as you note, your local airport doesn't use LAANC. That's why they picked one that does, and in that environment the vast majority of authorizations will be under LAANC, not WA or 107.41.

 

[bonzo]

You ever think stories are made up for the press as an excuse for new regulations as well?

 

[sar104]

You ever think stories are made up for the press as an excuse for new regulations as well?

So you think this study didn't happen, or the results were fabricated? Or are you just making a general philosophical point apropos nothing in particular?

 

[bonzo]

So you think this study didn't happen, or the results were fabricated? Or are you just making a general philosophical point apropos nothing in particular?

Not these results particularly, but possibly in the past, or future.

 

[sar104]

Not these results particularly, but possibly in the past, or future.

Any examples of such a thing?

 

[Motorcycle Rider]

All I can add, is feeling very blessed to live in the country. My 37 acres of land, backs onto thousands of acres of government owned crown land. The nearest airport is 15 kms away in a straight line, and the nearest town is 11 kms. In this area, lots are a minimum of 5 acres, up to thousands of acres.

 

[bonzo]

Any examples of such a thing?

Sure, here's one from my local area last year:
Prairie Village seeks to control drones.

 

[sar104]

Sure, here's one from my local area last year:
Prairie Village seeks to control drones.

Still not following your train of thought here - what part of that news article was made up, or false?

 

[bonzo]

Still not following your train of thought here - what part of that news article was made up, or false?

the women on the city council in prairie village don't like drones, so this hit piece was written. it would be no surprise to me if the story about drones flying over kids was created by them, to push through new regulations they are not authorized to regulate, pure speculation on my part but I know the back story about the women.

electric bicyclists are experiencing the same thing right now here.

I hope you understand the gist of what I'm saying in regards to scenarios in politics to meet agendas. if you don't think this is possible then I don't understand why.

 

[sar104]

the women on the city council in prairie village don't like drones, so this hit piece was written. it would be no surprise to me if the story about drones flying over kids was created by them, to push through new regulations they are not authorized to regulate, pure speculation on my part but I know the back story about the women.

electric bicyclists are experiencing the same thing right now here.

I hope you understand the gist of what I'm saying in regards to scenarios in politics to meet agendas. if you don't think this is possible then I don't understand why.

I certainly wouldn't rule out inaccurate stories being fabricated to pursue an agenda, political or otherwise. It happens. On the other hand, the fact that it happens in some situations doesn't mean that it happens everywhere. And so, for example, you cannot reasonably dispute a news article just because you don't like the implications. That's the entire basis for the "fake news" fallacy. In the article you referenced the allegation of a drone flying over kids at a swimming pool was made by a named person at a council meeting. That was presumably accurate reporting. Whether or not she made up the story is both irrelevant and doesn't support your assertion that "stories are made up for the press as an excuse for new regulations". The "story", true or not, was made at a council meeting. By the time it was reported by the press the decision was made.

 

[bonzo]

I certainly wouldn't rule out inaccurate stories being fabricated to pursue an agenda, political or otherwise. It happens. On the other hand, the fact that it happens in some situations doesn't mean that it happens everywhere. And so, for example, you cannot reasonably dispute a news article just because you don't like the implications. That's the entire basis for the "fake news" fallacy. In the article you referenced the allegation of a drone flying over kids at a swimming pool was made by a named person at a council meeting. That was presumably accurate reporting. Whether or not she made up the story is both irrelevant and doesn't support your assertion that "stories are made up for the press as an excuse for new regulations". The "story", true or not, was made at a council meeting. By the time it was reported by the press the decision was made.

The "decision being made" sometimes needs a "reason" to be more palatable for the public.
Also, I never said it happens everywhere, that was an assumption on your part.
You misrepresenting what I am saying to appear correct is exactly the same thing I am saying happens in the press to meet agendas, thus providing towards my opinion.
We can all agree to disagree, that's why they are called opinions.

 

[sar104]

The "decision being made" sometimes needs a "reason" to be more palatable for the public.
Also, I never said it happens everywhere, that was an assumption on your part.
You misrepresenting what I am saying to appear correct is exactly the same thing I am saying happens in the press to meet agendas, thus providing towards my opinion.
We can all agree to disagree, that's why they are called opinions.

You asserted that false information is reported by the press to bolster someone's (unspecified) goal to create regulations. Then you apparently couldn't provide even a single substantiated example of that happening. I misrepresented nothing. You, on the other hand, then asserted that I argued that you were saying it happens everywhere, which I didn't, so you are the one misrepresenting. But you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, even if you cannot support it in any way.

 

[bonzo]

........On the other hand, the fact that it happens in some situations doesn't mean that it happens everywhere.

Well Spock now you are just being untruthful, so you either must have some beef with me I don't know about, or just like to argue without being truthful, so at this point I am not going to waste my time with childish antics.

 

[sar104]

Well Spock now you are just being untruthful, so you either must have some beef with me I don't know about, or just like to argue without being truthful, so at this point I am not going to waste my time with childish antics.

Bravo - nice removal from context. You know perfectly well what I was saying, which is that the fact that it can happen doesn't mean that it is happening in a specific case. And that was relevant because you asserted that it happens, and then you presented that as an example with exactly zero evidence that it was happening in that case. Don't bother trying logical obfuscation with me - it won't work.

 

[lakshadvio]

I think the methodology is flawed (they didn't check for waivers or authorizations, or even for structure height at flight locations), but it's exactly the kind of press that leads to regulatory outcomes https://19216801.onl/ https://routerlogin.uno/ https://192168ll.link/ that further restrict our ability to fly (for both pleasure and business). The study itself (, p. 20 (p. 22 of the PDF)) notes these weaknesses, but without any discussion of them. I operate under a Wide-area-authorization, and all my local flights (every one I've flown, in fact, except one) would be found by this study to be in violation because LAANC doesn't operate at my local airport. I wouldn't care to guess what the ratio of waivers/authorizations is, but mine was incredibly easy to obtain, so I think it's probably not negligible.

thank you my issue has been solved