VLOS Reality Check

[Droning on and on...]

With respect, are you suggesting that there is an acceptable death rate for non involved people stemming from the use of something that, for probably the vast majority of users, is an entertainment or passing phase for those users?

Hmmm... like manned stunt flights at airshows?

 

[Droning on and on...]

My perspective is vehicle travel is more or less necessary for the current way a lot of people live, flying a drone is not. Therefore I see the expectation of zero deaths, caused by a hobbyist drone, of uninvolved people is reasonable.

Can you articulate a set of rules that can guarantee that outcome? Or will there be some inevitable rate of accidents involving harm to property and people no matter what system of rules is established and enforced?

In which case a zero standard is simply irrational, unrealistic, and as @Vic Moss said, impossible.

Error is a part of all aspects of life. It can not be eliminated. Vehicle accidents don't occur because driving is a necessity, they occur because people make mistakes, equipment fails, unanticipated events occur beyond their skill or capacity to handle. So whether driving is essential or an utterly trivial pursuit, accidents will occur. A standard of zero harmful impact is impossible as long as people drive at all.

The very same arguments apply to drone flights, recreational or commercial. You can not ever achieve zero harmful incidents. As long as there are drone flights, there will be drone accidents.

Applying an impossible standard is irrational, and unreasonable. It always leads to absurd rules in the quest to achieve the impossible. Actual real-world safety outcomes are irrelevant, as theory becomes dominant due to the need to achieve a goal that is unreachable.

So a realistic expectation of harm from accidents must be anticipated, and rules should be constructed based on their impact on that metric, not a measure of zero.

What is that "structural" level of harm? Well, it's whatever amount of misbehavior we're willing to tolerate from rule-breakers, the level of cluelessness from honest good pilots that have a hard time "getting" this stuff, pilots that do everything by the book but get in over their heads, excellent pilots that have a mechanical failure, nature (birds, weather, etc.) and many other factors.

So, in the end, it's much more complicated than just, "how many deaths are we willing to tolerate". It's actually about a whole bunch of other, "how much of X are we willing to tolerate" that we must if drones are allowed to be flown at all.

 

[Droning on and on...]

"I ... don't give a rat's .... about FAA rules."
User ID = @Rabber
January 7, 2023
Mavicpilots Forum
VLOS Reality Check Post #67

If anyone wants to support an argument that drones require tighter regulation, this is a gem. Drone detractors will be delighted to quote it before any rule-making or regulatory group to support their position that drones are a threat to public safety and conventional aviation.

I give you full credit.

Not following your reasoning.

I see how this makes a case for more vigorous enforcement. I don't see how it justifies tighter regulation.

 

[Droning on and on...]

A danger to us all, too.

This is exactly why the regulations grow more and more restrictive. Expect that trend to continue. Because of yahoos like this.

I asked @MS Coast the same thing... How do more restrictive regulations address refusing to follow the regulations?

Seems like an enforcement problem, not something needing a new, or tighter rule.