Pile on and Tell Me Why I am Wrong

[High_Order1]

There is a middle ground...

While holding back on reporting to authorities, you could publicly comment on the post with citations for section/chapter in the regulations for what is being clearly violated.

He may be totally dismissive (that's what I'd expect), but others would be educated, and FAA bots might find the discussion on their own. Also, he may have better angels that do kick in. You never know.

That's the "civil" way to do this, free of Soviet report-on-your-friends style behavior...

I felt like, given the audience (facebook), I would come off as nosy and pretentious by spouting regulations.

Instead, I asked him how hard it was to get the waiver for that flight, which I hoped spurred discussion.

Instead he blocked me, and I see he has posted he will be putting more clips up soon, which tells me that he is unconcerned about his actions being reckless and potentially not legal.

I really didn't intend for this to be my windmill to tilt against. For now I've adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards it. If he persists... guess we'll see

 

[jaja6009]

My son, who lives in northeast Albuquerque, tells me that the FAA designates the Balloon Fiesta grounds as an airport for the duration of that city's Balloon Fiesta (hundreds of balloons extant for nine days in early October) with the customary restrictions in place for a radius of 5 nautical miles. I don't know whether it would be possible to obtain LAANC approval to intrude on that space but would guess not since balloons are subject to the vagaries of local winds and can stray far and wide. There are also pre-sunrise and dusk mass ascensions.

I'd imagine that balloon events involving fewer balloons at other venues around the country observe different rules.

I thought balloon races issued a NOTAM and TFR with a radius around an event. And if it is a TFR, LAANC will not work. You would have to get permission from the entity that issued the TFR to fly in it.

 

[Aerophile]

We could also show the drone community that we don't RAT out [non elementary school term for ya] fellow drone members. Wearing big boy pants doesn't mean ratting out others. Educate instead of being punitive!
Besides, you don't have all the facts and are just promoting hysteria...

To "rat out" someone is a term commonly used by members of the mafia, and other violent criminals, when someone decides to cooperate with a police investigation against them. It's also a term used by the current US administration, but that's beside the point.

If someone is flagrantly and repeatedly breaking regulations and endangering the public, it's entirely ethical (and I'd say needed) for other more responsible operators to bring it to the attention of authorities. Failing to "rat out" individuals who ignore regs and endanger the public exactly are why we are all facing so many restrictions. Want even more restrictions? Just keep shrugging when you see some jackass behaving like a drunken 13-year old.

Go look up "anti-authority attitude" on any FAA reference page (and perhaps then go look in a mirror).

 

[Dronecation]

To "rat out" someone is a term commonly used by members of the mafia, and other violent criminals, when someone decides to cooperate with a police investigation against them.

Wrong...but I don't expect a 26 year old to know any better. But you're part of the hyena pack now...lol

 

[Dronecation]

There is a middle ground...

While holding back on reporting to authorities, you could publicly comment on the post with citations for section/chapter in the regulations for what is being clearly violated.

He may be totally dismissive (that's what I'd expect), but others would be educated, and FAA bots might find the discussion on their own. Also, he may have better angels that do kick in. You never know.

That's the "civil" way to do this, free of Soviet report-on-your-friends style behavior...

Good point... but with some minor issues.

 

[Dronecation]

These days it's called "If you see something, say something" renaming it as if that makes a difference; so it's quite common and acceptable for Americans to snitch on this friends and neighbors and often even their relatives.

That can easily go sideways. Look what happened during Covid. Depending on how updated/informed one can be on the whole Covid scenario, it is a perfect example on why you would NOT snitch.

 

[Cafguy]

No-one is talking about "outing" your neighbor as a Communists, or Ranting about their personal habits, We are talking about keeping the public safe.
Drones can fail and when we forget about that and treat them differently, Thats when an incident will take place. I have no Hot-line to the FAA and I am not gonna report my buddy because he went BLOS for a few seconds...IF you are doing something that could harm the public, Then as a fellow "professional" I feel it almost an obligation to police my own industry. Most pilots I think, Feel the same way.
I aint no Barney Fife. I am more like Andy, Fair, Jovial, and fun to be around...NOW if some Bank robbers come around pretending to be Hollywood writers...I'm ratting them out!
LOOK I don't think at this time we should tell the public that we are in an industry that refuses or does not wish to police itself!
Do you?

 

[Felix le Chat]

To "rat out" someone is a term commonly used by members of the mafia, and other violent criminals, when someone decides to cooperate with a police investigation against them. It's also a term used by the current US administration, but that's beside the point.

If someone is flagrantly and repeatedly breaking regulations and endangering the public, it's entirely ethical (and I'd say needed) for other more responsible operators to bring it to the attention of authorities. Failing to "rat out" individuals who ignore regs and endanger the public exactly are why we are all facing so many restrictions. Want even more restrictions? Just keep shrugging when you see some jackass behaving like a drunken 13-year old.

Go look up "anti-authority attitude" on any FAA reference page (and perhaps then go look in a mirror).

"Anti authority attitude"... is that like "Attention Deficit Disorder"?... a load of psycho-babble aimed at anyone who is "habitually naughty" or refuses to comply? Apart from the convenient pigeonholing: the first term applies to rogue pilots of proper aircraft - not people who put drones up in the air.

Until Aviation Authorities recognise drone users as legitimate pilots and afford them the same rights and protections as 'conventional' pilots: these aviation rules are a one-way street.

This is what comes as a result of misguided opinions as to the current status of anyone who flies a drone... there isn't one of us who is officially classed as a genuine "pilot".

 

[hank970]

To "rat out" someone is a term commonly used by members of the mafia, and other violent criminals, when someone decides to cooperate with a police investigation against them. It's also a term used by the current US administration, but that's beside the point.

If someone is flagrantly and repeatedly breaking regulations and endangering the public, it's entirely ethical (and I'd say needed) for other more responsible operators to bring it to the attention of authorities. Failing to "rat out" individuals who ignore regs and endanger the public exactly are why we are all facing so many restrictions. Want even more restrictions? Just keep shrugging when you see some jackass behaving like a drunken 13-year old.

Go look up "anti-authority attitude" on any FAA reference page (and perhaps then go look in a mirror).

I haven't researched the matter extensively, but it seems that FAA regulations governing UAS haven't changed much, if any, in response to reported violations, and I hardly think that the existing restrictions and limitations in Part 107 are onerous. Local jurisdictions (like the famous "Villages" discussed at length in another thread) may be more inclined to establish knee-jerk reactions to citizen concerns and complaints, whether legitimate or unfounded, but then such entities have no control over the nation's airspace. They can control only activities on the ground within their boundaries, such as launching, landing, and operating drones.

I'd be willing to bet that a chorus of drone operators "ratting" to the FAA about every infraction they perceive would be more likely to result in additional restrictions than would random complaints from citizens, many of whom are either completely oblivious of our activities or, if they see a drone in flight, couldn't care less.

Can you cite an example of an additional FAA regulation that was promulgated in response to a citizen complaint of, in your words, "some jackass behaving like a drunken 13-year-old?"

 

[mavic3usa]

Can you cite an example of an additional FAA regulation that was promulgated in response to a citizen complaint of, in your words, "some jackass behaving like a drunken 13-year-old?"

Didn't they go back to the 5-mile rule (all recreational drones prohibited within 5 miles of *any* airport...period) because of this incident? Cancel LAANC? Because if this doesn't trigger more rules, I'm not sure what will.

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

 

[hank970]

Didn't they go back to the 5-mile rule (all recreational drones prohibited within 5 miles of *any* airport...period) because of this incident? Cancel LAANC? Because if this doesn't trigger more rules, I'm not sure what will.

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

Didn't they go back to the 5-mile rule (all recreational drones prohibited within 5 miles of *any* airport...period) because of this incident? Cancel LAANC? Because if this doesn't trigger more rules, I'm not sure what will.

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

I guess not. There's nothing on the FAA website (faa.gov) to suggest that all recreational drone flights are now prohibited within 5 NM of airports. In fact, the FAA website still outlines the procedure for obtaining LAANC authorization for such flights. And so, business as usual.

The appropriate agency response to a violation would be to bring charges against the perpetrator, not to penalize all operators by tightening regulatory restrictions due to the actions of one miscreant. That's how the FAA handled the case when an air tanker collided with a drone over an active wildlands fire operation in California a few months ago. I hope that the FAA was also able to identify the operator of the drone which encroached without authorization on restricted airspace in San Diego.

 

[Occams Razor]

Here's a hypothetical for everyone. What if you knew the drone operator that was flying near the Palisades Fire (Los Angeles) and were aware that he was going to fly in the area prior to any incident? Would you have contacted authorities and reported him while he was flying? Why or why not? For those of you that are not familiar with the incident, the operator eventually crashed his Mini into a Super Scooper creating a 3" by 6" hole in the wing. This grounded 1 of 2 Super Scoopers that were fighting one of the most devastating fires in Southern California history.

 

[Riptide]

Here's a hypothetical for everyone. What if you knew the drone operator that was flying near the Palisades Fire (Los Angeles) and were aware that he was going to fly in the area prior to any incident? Would you have contacted authorities and reported him while he was flying? Why or why not? For those of you that are not familiar with the incident, the operator eventually crashed his Mini into a Super Scooper creating a 3" by 6" hole in the wing. This grounded 1 of 2 Super Scoopers that were fighting one of the most devastating fires in Southern California history.

Would've stopped him from flying in that situation to begin with.

 

[mavic3usa]

I guess not. There's nothing on the FAA website (faa.gov) to suggest that all recreational drone flights are now prohibited within 5 NM of airports. In fact, the FAA website still outlines the procedure for obtaining LAANC authorization for such flights. And so, business as usual.

The appropriate agency response to a violation would be to bring charges against the perpetrator, not to penalize all operators by tightening regulatory restrictions due to the actions of one miscreant. That's how the FAA handled the case when an air tanker collided with a drone over an active wildlands fire operation in California a few months ago. I hope that the FAA was also able to identify the operator of the drone which encroached without authorization on restricted airspace in San Diego.

Hehe, in case I didn't make my point I agree with you. I believe in false flag type incidents and if it were just as easy to roll back regulations by citing an "incident" then friends of the FAA would have long since been dispatched to a controlled environment to "wreak havoc" and get the ball rolling in reverse. In fact, still might happen to rid the airspace of pesky recreational flyers; not beyond the pale. Something tells me NJ is one such attempt; spur the state and local governments to take action because the central government will not.

 

[Cafguy]

Can you cite an example of an additional FAA regulation that was promulgated in response to a citizen complaint of, in your words, "some jackass behaving like a drunken 13-year-old?"

How much did the RID rule set you back? as far as other new regs set by the FAA, incidents that have been caused by idiot pilots have their stamp all over the regulations!
More importantly lets discuss the local regulations and public hysteria caused by little Tommy and the shiny new Drone Daddy got him at Walmart that very morning. or the moron that runs into best buy and purchases his "Laceration maker" without so much as a mention of a TRUST card.
I am not saying an open market on Drones is the problem, but long ago before the advent of Drones we all started to loose our sense of responsibility as a society. What we are discussing here is simply a by-product of that.
In 4 weeks a majority of companies that use Drones and part 107 operators will start to shutter their doors. Only because they chose the best most reliable Drones (DJI) for their work.
This would not have had such grand public approval if idiots were not flying their Drones over Crowds of people or generally making an *** of themselves in public with the very tool we put food on the table with !

 

[Dronecation]

I'd be willing to bet that a chorus of drone operators "ratting" to the FAA about every infraction they perceive would be more likely to result in additional restrictions than would random complaints from citizens, many of whom are either completely oblivious of our activities or, if they see a drone in flight, couldn't care less.

Precisely! I like the cut of your jib!