We're going down the path of becoming illegal

[ac0j]

But where are you going with that line of thought? I don't see a conclusion.

You couldn't make your own?

Testing and licensing will NOT be a cure for the things talked about in this thread. Because the trouble isnt with the people doing things right.

 

[sar104]

You couldn't make your own?

Testing and licensing will NOT be a cure for the things talked about in this thread. Because the trouble isnt with the people doing things right.

I can certainly draw my own conclusions, but if you only post half the argument then it's difficult to engage in discussion.

So to follow that line of thought - would you argue that all testing and licensing is pointless (vehicles, aircraft, etc.), or is it specific to sUAS?

 

[Classic flyer]

You can't fight stupidity. Thanks to the incredibly stupid and dangerous practice of flashing landing aircraft with handheld lasers the Canadian government is all but banning them. A few well circulated (even if bogus!) articles on these idiots being caught, fined up the ying yang and doing time as attempted murder would stop things better than heavy handed regulations.

The rules and regulations are only as good as they are enforced...if they aren't enforced they are worthless...be safe fly safe

 

[Twodumbdogs]

The rules and regulations are only as good as they enforced...if they aren't enforced they are worthless...be safe fly safe

The rules and regulations are only as good as the people that follow them....if the people don't care about following the rules, the rules are worthless.
Fixed it for you. If enforcement was the key, there would be no repeat offenders.

 

[drvrbob]

Laws help keep an honest man honest, it means nothing to the the other half of society. We see examples everyday.

 

[Classic flyer]

The rules and regulations are only as good as the people that follow them....if the people don't care about following the rules, the rules are worthless.
Fixed it for you. If enforcement was the key, there would be no repeat offenders.

And that sir is exactly what I meant...no more repeat offenders

 

[Classic flyer]

Laws help keep an honest man honest, it means nothing to the the other half of society. We see examples everyday.

True that

 

[ac0j]

I can certainly draw my own conclusions, but if you only post half the argument then it's difficult to engage in discussion.

So to follow that line of thought - would you argue that all testing and licensing is pointless (vehicles, aircraft, etc.), or is it specific to sUAS?

Not pointless, but not a solution. It will not keep people from flying where they shouldn’t. Just like it won’t keep people from operating anything else in an unsafe matter. It will take more government, more testing equipment, and more people to oversee it all. The cost does not justify the wanted outcome as far as model aircraft are concerned.

 

[sar104]

Not pointless, but not a solution. It will not keep people from flying where they shouldn’t. Just like it won’t keep people from operating anything else in an unsafe matter. It will take more government, more testing equipment, and more people to oversee it all. The cost does not justify the wanted outcome as far as model aircraft are concerned.

Right - testing and licensing is part of an overall strategy to ensure that drivers/pilots etc. are both competent to operate their equipment and understand the rules and regulations under which they operate. It doesn't prevent anyone from breaking those rules and regulations (especially deliberately), or driving/flying unsafely, but it goes a long way to ensuring that they at least understand the rules and regulations and that they are competent enough to be safe.

Part 107 obviously doesn't have a competency element (yet) and focusses on understanding the rules. So what is your basis for arguing that it is not valuable for drones? We see endless examples of pilots having no clue about the rules, so that aspect seems like it would help considerably. Even if it only prevents cases of inadvertent unsafe flying it seems worthwhile, especially since we are talking about devices flying around in the NAS, and potentially conflicting with manned aircraft if rules and guidelines are not followed.

The cost may not have justified the outcome for model aircraft of the past, that had very limited range and were relatively few in numbers. As drones become more common, more capable and flown by people who have little interest in the safety framework under which model aircraft were generally flown, that argument is going to be increasingly less valid.

 

[ac0j]

I agree. BUT. Most laws are created after an activity proves to be a danger to health or property. Not created in anticipation of such events.

 

[Classic flyer]

I agree. BUT. Most laws are created after an activity proves to be a danger to health or property. Not created in anticipation of such events.

Perhaps it should be...good observation

 

[theDRONEranger]

My 2 cents worth.
If it presents a hazard, in any way, shape, or manner, the emergency crews (here in the USA) are required to abort the mission. The down side to the aborting of the mission is that it very well may be a matter of life or death for a stranded person in dire need of medical attention. Generally, any fire/disaster area in the US is designated as a TFR area by the FAA. By following the rules, we are assured of a great future for UAV pilots. If you know of someone who does not adhere to the rules, please help to guide them in the proper direction. Let's keep the UAV arena safe and intact.

 

[Classic flyer]

My 2 cents worth.
If it presents a hazard, in any way, shape, or manner, the emergency crews (here in the USA) are required to abort the mission. The down side to the aborting of the mission is that it very well may be a matter of life or death for a stranded person in dire need of medical attention. Generally, any fire/disaster area in the US is designated as a TFR area by the FAA. By following the rules, we are assured of a great future for UAV pilots. If you know of someone who does not adhere to the rules, please help to guide them in the proper direction. Let's keep the UAV arena safe and intact.

It appears there are a lot of them( rule offenders) on this site...be safe fly safe

 

[sar104]

I agree. BUT. Most laws are created after an activity proves to be a danger to health or property. Not created in anticipation of such events.

That's certainly reasonable when the evolution or growth in an activity is not foreseen. That's not really the case here though - the general dangers and annoyances drone use are rather obvious. The FAA, for example, certainly doesn't want to wait until drone/aircraft conflicts rise to the level of significant damage or worse. They would be crucified in public opinion, and rightly so, if they made no attempt to be proactive.

 

[Eddington]

Okay I am gonna say it and get slammed for it. But hobbyists, kids, teenagers and foolish adults need to be licensed and tested (Road tests included ) to operate drones. If they get caught breaking the law/rules they get ticketed and have their day in court.

I can be a hobbyist car racer, hunter, scuba diver, boater, etc... all of these require a license or certification in the US and they have laws and rules that help protect from unsafe use.

Okay start the firing line. I will stand still so you don't miss

While I posted in the other MarkNix thread that more regulations just doesn't always make sense, I think this is a good idea. However I still think the same problem exists. While law abiding citizens will comply, how will you get people who don't give a flying turd to comply? Yea, you could make it so they can't buy one without it, but what about people who build their own?

 

[sar104]

While I posted in the other MarkNix thread that more regulations just doesn't always make sense, I think this is a good idea. However I still think the same problem exists. While law abiding citizens will comply, how will you get people who don't give a flying turd to comply? Yea, you could make it so they can't buy one without it, but what about people who build their own?

You can't stop everyone from breaking laws and regulations, but most people don't break them and so their existence reduces (to varying degrees) the frequency of whatever action or behavior they are attempting to prevent. Your argument would only be valid if it were the case that all those who follow a law would follow it even if it did not exist. That's clearly not the case.

 

[Former Member]

You can't stop everyone from breaking laws and regulations, but most people don't break them and so their existence reduces (to varying degrees) the frequency of whatever action or behavior they are attempting to prevent. Your argument would only be valid if it were the case that all those who follow a law would follow it even if it did not exist. That's clearly not the case.

The voice of logic and reason.

 

[Nimbus]

I’m presently flying my MA in France and just last month there were proposals for having beacons and transponders fitted. That will be expensive; all brought on by some mindless owner’s no doubt.

 

[erkme73]

I am not a pilot, but I remember hearing that 2 aircraft passing within one mile of one another is called a "near miss"

Actually, if you could as George Carlin, he'd say that was a near hit. A near miss is a crash that nearly missed.

 

[Nimbus]

It's called airmiss BTW