Reactions to drones in public

[deleted member 877]

that's a good thing

I think that there may be something wrong with you. Have you had a few of your "pints" in the last couple of hours?

 

[globetrotterdrone]

It's ignorance of the technology.

Aaaaand a good portion of self-importance is mostly involved too.
I am still baffled when people really think they are so important, that someone, they have never met or known will spy on them after explaining, what was going on or showing them the footage.

 

[davshev]

Thankfully, I've also had plenty of curious people. In fact, I've probably encouraged a few sales of the Mavic 2. People would come up and ask, "is that the Mavic?" Then I spend 5 minutes doing an infomercial for DJI!

 

[Mikezb]

Sorry but seriously if you are flying any where near people. Please please abide by the relevant rules for your country. Every incident that attracts bad press or comments. Is just a another reason to tighten the rules.

 

[MavicFT1P]

Yes, go fly in a field in Nebraska . You can Righten the Tools

 

[deleted member 877]

Yes, go fly in a field in Nebraska . You can Righten the Tools

Why do none of your posts may any sense whatsoever or are you just being a troll ??

 

[AMann]

Why do none of your posts may any sense whatsoever or are you just being a troll ??

It’s Friday.

 

[kensteele]

Why do none of your posts may any sense whatsoever or are you just being a troll ??

i think he's trying to say how it is possible to fly your drone anywhere not near people? unless you live in bnf, nebraska. i find it almost impossible to fly without people being around but i guess that's the nature of the hobby. understand that commercial flyers have no problem achieving this or getting the proper exceptions. i'm finding this no flying over cars to be an impossibility as well. i'm sorry it just isn't going to happen, i'm just being honest. why not just lift the rule entirely or amend it to say irresponsible or careless or reckless flying over people/cars to at least give hobbyist a chance?

 

[deleted member 877]

i'm finding this no flying over cars to be an impossibility as well. i'm sorry it just isn't going to happen, i'm just being honest. why not just lift the rule entirely or amend it to say irresponsible or careless or reckless flying over people/cars to at least give hobbyist a chance?

We need to appreciate the hard reality that FAA and the other airspace regulators are highly unlikely to relax any of the rules - in fact the opposite is already happening. So it comes down to having to choose between travelling as far as required to a place where you will be able to fly without contravening the rules, or giving up the hobby altogether.

Simply saying that you will continue to ignore the regulations for whatever reason/s simply doesn't cut it. For the sake of the vast majority of us who always fly legally, please keep that stuff to yourself - no need to post it in the public domain. The FAA will not reconsider its position because some people don't have respect for its regulatory framework. They are not politicians - they don't need to worry about being voted out.

 

[Thomas B]

We need to appreciate the hard reality that FAA and the other airspace regulators are highly unlikely to relax any of the rules - in fact the opposite is already happening. So it comes down to having to choose between travelling as far as required to a place where you will be able to fly without contravening the rules, or giving up the hobby altogether.

Simply saying that you will continue to ignore the regulations for whatever reason/s simply doesn't cut it. For the sake of the vast majority of us who always fly legally, please keep that stuff to yourself - no need to post it in the public domain. The FAA will not reconsider its position because some people don't have respect for its regulatory framework. They are not politicians - they don't need to worry about being voted out.

Yep, it’s the basic impetus for the new laws and upcoming hobbyist tests.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I think @kensteele was saying though most want to fly within the rules ALL the time, sometimes a place or circumstance can change in an instant to where you are outside the rules, even briefly before you have a chance to correct the situation.

I've spoken to CASA rep at a show, one that is very deeply involved with rules, enforcement, policy etc.
I told him about a flight of mine in the Pilbara WA (Western Australia) where I ended up a km away.
He wasn't fussed at all, and said straight out that isn't the sort of thing they are worried about. At all.

I know if something went wrong, and a person popped up and I happened to crash into him right there, well, I could be in the shi . . . in trouble.
Same as driving a car, you can say you drive to the letter of the law 100%, but fair go, everyone at sometime makes a mistake / minor indiscretion, and it's good luck / bad luck if something right at that instant, the planets line up, and something happens like a crash.

No one wants it to happen, but I bet most hobbyists flying do sometimes find ourselves over a person or small group, or other such, and need to take action to correct, but it still happened.

Our rules are still too wishy washy in regards to 30m rule, they simply state not over a person or people, no mention of buildings or vehicles, apart from "You must not operate your drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person, or property".

It used to also include buildings, but that was removed some time ago (2 - 3 years ?).

 

[deleted member 877]

I think @kensteele was saying though most want to fly within the rules ALL the time, sometimes a place or circumstance can change in an instant to where you are outside the rules, even briefly before you have a chance to correct the situation.

I've spoken to CASA rep at a show, one that is very deeply involved with rules, enforcement, policy etc.
I told him about a flight of mine in the Pilbara WA (Western Australia) where I ended up a km away.
He wasn't fussed at all, and said straight out that isn't the sort of thing they are worried about. At all.

I know if something went wrong, and a person popped up and I happened to crash into him right there, well, I could be in the shi . . . in trouble.
Same as driving a car, you can say you drive to the letter of the law 100%, but fair go, everyone at sometime makes a mistake / minor indiscretion, and it's good luck / bad luck if something right at that instant, the planets line up, and something happens like a crash.

No one wants it to happen, but I bet most hobbyists flying do sometimes find ourselves over a person or small group, or other such, and need to take action to correct, but it still happened.

Our rules are still too wishy washy in regards to 30m rule, they simply state not over a person or people, no mention of buildings or vehicles, apart from "You must not operate your drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person, or property".

It used to also include buildings, but that was removed some time ago (2 - 3 years ?).

All good valid points. My beef is, and has always been, with the "it's all about me" crowd who have no intention of doing the right thing in the first place - the ones who don't believe that the rules apply to them when they are flying their drones.

 

[johnmeyer]

The main problem with blindly supporting some of the proposed and even some of the already-enacted rules is that most of them are about banning use in a large number of areas, rather than providing rules for safe operation.

As a result, I don't support what is being done.

What is needed instead is a framework of rules and guidelines on how to fly responsibly, just like we have for driving, flying a plane, operating machinery, etc. Those activities are not outlawed, and in many ways are not even regulated. There are simply a set of rules that tell everyone how to do that activity safely in a way that maximizes your enjoyment and utility, while minimizing interference with other people.

So, if the imperious bureaucrats who have have issued this increasing list of no-fly zones and restrictions will instead treat drone flying like any other activity which requires following common sense guidelines, I think you'll find a lot more people supporting what they are doing.

 

[kensteele]

All good valid points. My beef is, and has always been, with the "it's all about me" crowd who have no intention of doing the right thing in the first place - the ones who don't believe that the rules apply to them when they are flying their drones.

yeah, no. that's not the way you came off, sir. you sounded like instead of a hobby you wanted this to be more like a science project with rigid rules and no flexibility. like "don't talk about speeding and rolling thru stop signs and talking on the phone while driving else the government will crack down on everybody if they feel people are disrespecting their rules."

news flash, there isn't anybody who participates and comes to a forum like this who thinks they are above the drone laws and rules. i actually signed up for an upcoming drone regulations government seminar, why? because i have no intentions of doing the right thing? C'mon.

you're confused, i think you can't tell when people are just being passionate about their rights and pushing back to keep their government in check and don't feel like bending a knee; so when it comes to that, yeah sure, it's gonna come off like "it's all amount [the people]." fighting for your rights in this country is not pretty; we didn't get here by accident.

again, i'm trying to keep the "hobby" in drone recreational flying. support me in that effort, please.

 

[¬Nomad]

All good valid points. My beef is, and has always been, with the "it's all about me" crowd who have no intention of doing the right thing in the first place - the ones who don't believe that the rules apply to them when they are flying their drones.

Add that to large amount of drone flyers whose posts on here indicate double figure IQs and you can see why problems will arise.
The volume of posts containing rants claiming full size operations are breaking the law coming from posters who know absolutely nothing about aviation law is concerning


In all seriousness, if this place is representative of the community as a whole I despair.

 

[deleted member 877]

news flash, there isn't anybody who participates and comes to a forum like this who thinks they are above the drone laws and rules.

Wrong. You obviously haven't read back through this forum - the thing is infected with all sorts of self confessed miscreants. Also you make too many assumptions about me which doesn't help your argument.

 

[deleted member 877]

So, if the imperious bureaucrats who have have issued this increasing list of no-fly zones and restrictions will instead treat drone flying like any other activity which requires following common sense guidelines, I think you'll find a lot more people supporting what they are doing.

Whether people support the FAA regulatory framework or not is not really relevant. Regardless they will still throw the book at anyone who they deem to have seriously broken the law. At the moment they are taking a "softly softly" approach but how long that lasts is largely up to the actions of the drone flying community. The bad apples will stand out like (Mod Removed ) and continue to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[Manty]

Sadly WE too have to take some of the blame. We will not get through to the general public by complaining on drone forums. How many here have written articles to their local papers explaining all about Drones/ photography/privacy/ the law and rights to fly ( No, I have not either!) . How else is the non drone public supposed to ever find out about us. Perhaps as a start one of the more experienced amongst us might produce a single sheet lowdown on drones which we could ask any complainers to read before we get to chat? Always assuming they can read!Then calmly answer the questions.

 

[FoxhallGH]

While the rules and regulations are there to ensure that we fly safely, the other side of the coin is that those rules are also there so that if there is an incident, and those rules and reg's have not been adhered to, then pre-defined blame and prosecution can be applied accordingly. For example - It was mentioned earlier that rules about flying over vehicles should be relaxed ... I think you'll find that there's no Police task force out there specifically hunting down people who fly their drones over highways or vehicles, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if you have a mechanical failure that drops your Mavic onto the windscreen of a traveling car, you WILL have the book thrown at you and it will be pointed out to you what CAA/FAA rule you have ignored, and what the consequences of that will be.
Most of the time, the consequence of breaking a rule will simply be that you don't get caught ... However, with the number of drones about, if there are regulations not being followed, there will be an incident! ... We just have to hope that the consequences of that incident are restricted to mechanical damage - and that we don't change - or even end - some persons life!

 

[raymo]

Just last night on FOX News, Tucker Carlson ran a story on drones. The upshot of the whole thing is that DJI is using our UAVs to spy on America and the West. Crops are being surveilled and those guys flying drones over the nuclear power plants are being targeted for Chinese surveillance. REALLY. I thought it was illegal to fly anywhere near a nuclear power plant, and I have not seen video to date of one person doing that. I suspect the authorities would be all over that, just like they are all over drones flying over prisons. I would be more suspect of Chinese satellite imaging capability than drone footage that is shot randomly. When I can see parking lines in auto park lots on Google Earth, then spy imaging has got to be at least an order of magnitude better, which means reading a license plate is easy-peasy. Why depend on drones then? Is there something I'm missing?