We're going down the path of becoming illegal
- Thread starter Marko9219
- Start date
Anyone remember the story about the two guys flying their Phantom around the Brooklyn Bridge? When they saw an NYPD helicopter, they immediately tried to bring it back safely, but instead, the pilot of the helicopter pursued the drone to see where it landed - later claiming the same "we had to take evasive action and nearly collided" statement by the police crew. The guys were charged, but ultimately dismissed after it became clear the statements by the NYPD were either fabricated or unsubstantiated.
I'm not saying that the account of the firefighters is not accurate. Rather, I think there are multiple interests at stake, and that inherent bias can influence perception (i.e. every unidentified object is a drone, and 500' is suddenly "inches") and reporting. Whether a drone can bring down an aircraft is another debatable topic - but if there's one thing my older age has taught me, it's 1) the media is not unbiased, and 2) I don't trust government spokespeople to be be neutral, and 3) there is always more than one side to a story.
That said, flying near any other manned aircraft is beyond dumb.
I'm not saying that the account of the firefighters is not accurate. Rather, I think there are multiple interests at stake, and that inherent bias can influence perception (i.e. every unidentified object is a drone, and 500' is suddenly "inches") and reporting. Whether a drone can bring down an aircraft is another debatable topic - but if there's one thing my older age has taught me, it's 1) the media is not unbiased, and 2) I don't trust government spokespeople to be be neutral, and 3) there is always more than one side to a story.
That said, flying near any other manned aircraft is beyond dumb.
Sure. Pilots, such as the NYPD helicopter pilot, don't like other uncontrolled aircraft in "their" space. Anything they can do to help reduce such encounters is in their own best interest - even if it means embellishing their account of what happend.
The drone operator, on the other hand, doesn't want to get into trouble, so he'll tell a countering story that favors his outcome - much like a stopped vehicular speeder will tend to imply they weren't really going THAT fast.
The media, knowing that drama sells, will include statements like "could have killed all three crew members" when no such event has ever happened (nor proven it could).
The government, which clearly would prefer to be the only entity with eyes in the sky (it is quite inconvenient when civilians can observe and report government malfeasance from vantage points from which they cannot hide), will promptly report grounding aircraft due to the perceived increased risk - fomenting public anger at drone operators - even if the drone sighting may have been incorrect or overstated by a pilot who is embellishing his account (see first point).
The public, being fed a constant diet of negative stories on the dangers and privacy issues from 'idiot operators' only fan the flames by exaggerating the accounts they observed.
In other words, it's very difficult to get the truth from any one source.
Every organized community, has everything regulated.
So, everyone knows what is ok to do, and what's not ok. And everyone must know the penalty, for every violation. And all feel safe this way, and none complaints about the money, governments and authorities are receiving.
It's very interesting, that there are nany, who want more regulations and stricter laws, and the same time they are afraid of the "others" who will bring more regulations in our lives.
It is really a psychologist case.
Ok. We have here a case, of a drone, "nearly"hitting a helicopter, during firefighting.
There are rules about drones flying in such conditions, but some of you would like something more. You're talking around, but you avoid to admit that you like to be regulated, and want more and more.
Well, what are you guys proposing, to avoid this "near miss", or "near hit", beyond existing regulations?
So, everyone knows what is ok to do, and what's not ok. And everyone must know the penalty, for every violation. And all feel safe this way, and none complaints about the money, governments and authorities are receiving.
It's very interesting, that there are nany, who want more regulations and stricter laws, and the same time they are afraid of the "others" who will bring more regulations in our lives.
It is really a psychologist case.
Ok. We have here a case, of a drone, "nearly"hitting a helicopter, during firefighting.
There are rules about drones flying in such conditions, but some of you would like something more. You're talking around, but you avoid to admit that you like to be regulated, and want more and more.
Well, what are you guys proposing, to avoid this "near miss", or "near hit", beyond existing regulations?
Actually regulation of hobby flights is almost non-existent in the US, and the problem with these kinds of cases is a complete lack of knowledge on the part of many pilots. Hobby flyers are not required to take any kind of training or demonstrate any knowledge regarding the safety of the airspace that they operate in.
That sir is a very true statement...as I currently understand things, the FAA will in the near future require a flight demonstration upon passing part 107 cert written test / renewal before a 107 cert is issued...one can only hope that the FAA actually does this...be safe fly safe
I've heard that discussed but no actual news of implementation. That would certainly help the Part 107 process, but I think the bulk of the egregious flying is not by Part 107 pilots. Part 101 pilots are main problem - no training or knowledge requirements of any kind at all.
While this is certainly "on the list" of future things to come it's most likely not "near". The logistics of creating the criteria, designing the program, training the instructors/inspectors, and getting the testing up to speed is a gargantuan task to say the least. Look how long it took to get just the Part 107 test up to speed and it was just a simple book test. Flight standards and practices have not been created yet which is the first step to flight demonstration.
While I whole heartedly support and look forward to this I don't see it happening very soon "unfortunately".
If hobby flights are not regulated, then someone can fly a drone in a firefighting airspace, and none can get his drone down, or charge him with a pretty big amount of money as a penalty?
Ok, in my country, he would be arrested, and in many countries also, so I consider that THIS case is enough regulated.
But I think that even in 'non regulated' us, there are many laws preventing someone from stopping a firefighter during a wildfire.
A drone license, would be welcomed, but I don't know, how you know that the drone pilot of this incident, was not aware of the safety rules, and if he actually was uninformed, what would be the difference, if there are no rules.
If the drone pilot was a 107 cert holder then he/she was more than aware of the rules and regulations
I agree.
In that case, he was trained, educated, and well informed.
So, education, is useless, and the drone license is not a solution, especially if drone user was certified.
While a license maybe useless, the education and training is not, even though it may be cast aside. The licensing process is the only way to asure that the operators are in fact being educated and trained, after that it's all on the operator to do the right things and if not he/she has no recourse but to except responsibility for any mishaps and what ever legal action that may occur...be safe fly safe
A hobby pilot can be prosecuted for interfering with firefighting operations and also, potentially, with endangering the NAS by flying in a TFR. Unfortunately, the absence of clear regulations or any required knowledge test under Part 101 plus the lack of any guarantee that the average hobby pilot has even heard of Part 101 means that many of these kinds of actions are quite likely the result of ignorance.
I cannot disagree with that.
Education, training and knowledge, are keys for better society, and they can solve many problems.
They can also reduce people's fear of unknown technology, as drones.
But this case in discussion, is more a law enforcement case, and of course doesn't make "all us" illegal.
But it allows you to enforce and punish the other half and act as a deterrent effect.
Or are you seriously claiming there'd be no more robberies, burglaries, assaults and offences if we didnt have laws to prevent them?
Until the "Dog" gets teeth they can make all the rules they want without much effect...start prosecuting the scoff laws to the full extent of the law and we very well may see a turn around in flying violations...be safe fly smart
Enforcement is the key. Laws are only effective if they're enforced and the sanctions are realistically tough.
They need to start going after the drone lunatics now before tighter and tighter regulations are forced on everyone.
I'd have no problem reporting someone operating illegally/dangerously.
They need to start going after the drone lunatics now before tighter and tighter regulations are forced on everyone.
I'd have no problem reporting someone operating illegally/dangerously.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
Air 3 Upper Thames Rowing Club, Henley on Thames
- Started by Pacefast
- Replies: 1
-
-
Mavic 2 Pro Brushless Motor Disassembly Bearing and Arbor shaft
- Started by jftman
- Replies: 8
Forum statistics
