WestJet plane reports drone next to wing at 4000 ft.

[Thwyllo]

You are still missing the point. Try reading post #57 - maybe that will help.

I read Post #57. It just continues your obtuse line of argument. That is NOT what the poster was talking about - anyone who can read English can see that. I'd quote from it but I'd be wasting my time with you.

 

[sar104]

I read Post #57. It just continues your obtuse line of argument. That is NOT what the poster was talking about - anyone who can read English can see that. I'd quote from it but I'd be wasting my time with you.

So how about explaining why you think my reasoning on the logical extension of the original point is wrong, rather than just calling it "obtuse" and refusing to engage? I made a clear argument, and so far all I've seen in response is a stupid image and your unsupported and unreasoned rejection with the classic "there's no point trying to explain it to you" avoidance technique.

 

[Lake_Flyer]

In the Netherlands, hobbyists are allowed to fly a 'crate' up to 25Kg MTOM, without any form of education or training. Stupid right? Commercial pilots are only allowed 3KG MTOM if they have a part 107 equivalent certification, or 25Kg when operating under a full ROC. Some hobbyists make their own big hex (pallet size?) using open source flight controllers without any limits to height, distance, no NFZ's at all. It is quite thinkable this was a self built big multirotor.

 

[beejAMG]

I figured I'd at least give you a chance to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.

You give me a chance to “avoid” making a complete fool of myself? Bwahahahahaha

Im outta here. Cant argue with a m@#@n who can only see black and white and no grey.

 

[sar104]

Im outta here. Cant argue with a m@#@n who can only see black and white and no grey.

Well played; throw insults and run away. I guess your options are pretty limited though. "Can't argue", without the qualifier, would have been more accurate.

 

[Thwyllo]

So how about explaining why you think my reasoning on the logical extension of the original point is wrong, rather than just calling it "obtuse" and refusing to engage? I made a clear argument, and so far all I've seen in response is a stupid image and your unsupported and unreasoned rejection with the classic "there's no point trying to explain it to you" avoidance technique.

It's not an "avoidance technique". I'm honestly not trying to be a clever **** here and I know you like to analyse everything to death but that post is crystal clear in its intent.

But if it keeps you happy, here are three comments that make it abundantly clear that he's talking about "more on top of"...

1) "I will never understand why people want to add more complications for people who do follow the rules.."

2) "What exactly will more regulation do.."

3) " New laws, guidelines, rules, regulations just get ignored by the same people who already ignore what's in place".

I mean seriously, can it be any clearer?

 

[gnirtS]

Also, many “terrorists” we prosecute in this country tend to be people with low iq who have not the means, ability, or plans to engage in such activities before a paid fbi informant becomes their friend and provides all the ingredients necessary to form a “plot.” The good news is that there are likely far fewer bad guys looking to commit atrocities than we are lead to believe.

That's the same in the UK. All the foiled plots have been people making monumentally stupid opsec and other errors or things like not actually being able to make explosive or the electrics properly. They have no skill, they're told by someone else who was told by his friend or was told by his friend etc.

The main thing keeping the country safe is most of the people mentally inclined to hurt us are so stupid they lack the physical and mental ability to actually carry it out.

If someone intelligent and knowledgeable enough wanted to hurt us they could and we'd have no way of knowing or stopping it.

Terrorist "drones" are an issue - ISIS have used them a lot in the middle east. However, a lot of these "drones" are actually RC aircraft. Bigger engines, far bigger payloads and a lot cheaper - they dont need high quality video feeds, GPS, RTH features. An engine, a cheap IMU and thats about it. The meet the definition of drone but are miles different from anything we use.

 

[sar104]

It's not an "avoidance technique". I'm honestly not trying to be a clever **** here and I know you like to analyse everything to death but that post is crystal clear in its intent.

But if it keeps you happy, here are three comments that make it abundantly clear that he's talking about "more on top of"...

1) "I will never understand why people want to add more complications for people who do follow the rules.."

2) "What exactly will more regulation do.."

3) " New laws, guidelines, rules, regulations just get ignored by the same people who already ignore what's in place".

I mean seriously, can it be any clearer?

Okay - if this were about new regulation on top of similar existing regulation then my argument would not hold, but that's not the case here. (3) is the key. In the US there is almost no regulation of hobby flight - Congress saw to that with Public Law 112-95, Section 336. So that's not the situation - we are talking about adding regulation where none currently exists, at least in any meaningful form.

That's why even this forum, a likely oasis of knowledgeable users, is filled with hobby pilots asserting their right to fly over 400 ft AGL and BVLOS. There are only three rules in place for hobby flights - (a) they must be purely for fun, (b) flown within the guidelines of a nationally recognized community organization and (c), if within 5 miles of an airport, the airport must be notified. Of those, (a) is given wide latitude, (b) is too vague - it doesn't even specify which organizations qualify, and only (c) is unambiguous. Sure, the FAA crafted 14 TFR Part 107 in such a way that they theoretically can come after someone under Part 107 if they can argue (b) was breached, but it's very circuitous. I think it's pretty certain that if clear regulation of hobby flight were put in place, with unambiguous restrictions, then many more people would understand and follow them.

 

[dvarapala]

Some peoples logic deserves a quadruple face palm if thats even possible.

 

[JDawg]

It's not an "avoidance technique". I'm honestly not trying to be a clever **** here and I know you like to analyse everything to death ...

I don't know about 'to death' but his analytical skills are second to none here and I haven't seen anyone come close to helping the amount of people on here as he has. Tip of the hat to his analytical skills

 

[sar104]

I don't know about 'to death' but his analytical skills are second to none here and I haven't seen anyone come close to helping the amount of people on here as he has. Tip of the hat to his analytical skills

Thanks for the endorsement. None of which makes my reasoning infallible of course, but it's hard to further any discussion if no one can actually be bothered to make the counter-arguments. We made some progress though, I think.

 

[mad monkey]

Spoke to my buddy who is an investigator for WestJet (crazy coincidence)

The pilots never reported size, they said near miss because that's what they always say. He said was about 2000ft away. He laughed that they must have eagle vision lol

 

[Eddington]

My compliments to you sar104. I didn't intent to start any flaming with my post.

What he appeared to be pushing was the often-used assertion that regulating drone use is ineffective because some people already ignore other laws. That meme both misunderstands the purpose and effectiveness of regulation, in that the simple existence of law-breakers says nothing about whether the regulation is working because no regulation is followed by everyone all the time.

That's not what I'm pushing at all. I get the purpose and sometimes effectiveness of regulations. As I believe you stated in another post in this thread, there's no real regulations, there are guidelines. I think most drone flyers that I know personally or read of here (not including YouTube here) use common sense judgement when it comes to the guidelines and would welcome common sense regulations that clarifies and codifies the current guidelines. At no point did I say we shouldn't have any guidelines or regulations. Just that we shouldn't add more of the same. If someone is ignoring a guideline, what makes people think they will follow a law/regulation. Look at privacy laws being ignored by some drone flyers for example.

So, unfortunately, the logical extension of the "we don't need more laws because people break existing laws " argument is identical to the "we don't need laws at all" argument. Hence my request to clarify if he really was taking that position.

I'm sorry but on this I disagree that the two are identical.

Again, I'm not saying we don't need laws/regulations/guidelines for hobbyist drone flights. However for someone to say we need more of the same because *some* people are ignoring what's in place just doesn't make sense to me. Once real laws/regulations are established for hobbyist drones then we need effective enforcement and punishment for those who do break them. I think we've seen other threads where the "enforcers" don't even understand what's in place now for guidelines/regulations/laws. Along with better enforcement there should be a better education of the laws/regulations/guidelines from companies that sell them in stores.

*EDIT to fix quotes

 

[sar104]

My compliments to you sar104. I didn't intent to start any flaming with my post.



That's not what I'm pushing at all. I get the purpose and sometimes effectiveness of regulations. As I believe you stated in another post in this thread, there's no real regulations, there are guidelines. I think most drone flyers that I know personally or read of here (not including YouTube here) use common sense judgement when it comes to the guidelines and would welcome common sense regulations that clarifies and codifies the current guidelines. At no point did I say we shouldn't have any guidelines or regulations. Just that we shouldn't add more of the same. If someone is ignoring a guideline, what makes people think they will follow a law/regulation. Look at privacy laws being ignored by some drone flyers for example.



I'm sorry but on this I disagree that the two are identical.

Again, I'm not saying we don't need laws/regulations/guidelines for hobbyist drone flights. However for someone to say we need more of the same because *some* people are ignoring what's in place just doesn't make sense to me. Once real laws/regulations are established for hobbyist drones then we need effective enforcement and punishment for those who do break them. I think we've seen other threads where the "enforcers" don't even understand what's in place now for guidelines/regulations/laws. Along with better enforcement there should be a better education of the laws/regulations/guidelines from companies that sell them in stores.

*EDIT to fix quotes

But that's still the point - it's not more of the same because hobby flight is almost entirely unregulated. Why would people follow regulations when they don't follow guidelines? – because regulations carry the force of law and therefore they risk at least fines for breaking them, whereas guidelines are routinely ignored with no consequence.

 

[Eddington]

But that's still the point - it's not more of the same because hobby flight is almost entirely unregulated. Why would people follow regulations when they don't follow guidelines? – because regulations carry the force of law and therefore they risk at least fines for breaking them, whereas guidelines are routinely ignored with no consequence.

That's just my point, while there are no hobbyist DRONE laws in place, there are OTHER laws (privacy for example) that people are choosing to ignore when they do something stupid like hover over someones yard at 20'. For example, still on privacy laws as an example, let's say a law is made that says "You can't hover your drone at less than 40' over someone else's property unless you have the permission of the homeowner". The privacy laws already in place are not being enforced consistently between jurisdictions even in the same country/state and irresponsible drone owners are making responsible drone owners and drones in general look bad. Why have to make a drone law that is already covered by another law? Other than just another way to make things stick when it comes time I guess.

I do get your point for other guidelines where there are no regulations and/or laws in place, then yes, some things do make sense to make one, but then still the enforcement has to be consistent with penalties that will make people really think about it before they do it. And even then, you just can't stop some people . That said, there's still a TON of other examples of any situation (guns, driving, taxes, whatever) you want to pick that have laws and regulations in place to prevent and stupid/ignorant/lazy/whatever people are STILL breaking them.

I wonder, does the FAA have teeth to enforce the guidelines in nuisance or criminal situations if necessary?

 

[sar104]

That's just my point, while there are no hobbyist DRONE laws in place, there are OTHER laws (privacy for example) that people are choosing to ignore when they do something stupid like hover over someones yard at 20'. For example, still on privacy laws as an example, let's say a law is made that says "You can't hover your drone at less than 40' over someone else's property unless you have the permission of the homeowner". The privacy laws already in place are not being enforced consistently between jurisdictions even in the same country/state and irresponsible drone owners are making responsible drone owners and drones in general look bad. Why have to make a drone law that is already covered by another law? Other than just another way to make things stick when it comes time I guess.

I do get your point for other guidelines where there are no regulations and/or laws in place, then yes, some things do make sense to make one, but then still the enforcement has to be consistent with penalties that will make people really think about it before they do it. And even then, you just can't stop some people . That said, there's still a TON of other examples of any situation (guns, driving, taxes, whatever) you want to pick that have laws and regulations in place to prevent and stupid/ignorant/lazy/whatever people are STILL breaking them.

I wonder, does the FAA have teeth to enforce the guidelines in nuisance or criminal situations if necessary?

Variable or weak enforcement is an issue, but it's not a reason not to regulate. And again, the fact that some people break laws doesn't make the laws pointless, because those laws still undoubtedly reduce the number of instances where those behaviors occur, relative to if there were no law at all.

 

[Eddington]

My issue isn't that some people break the laws anyway so we shouldn't have it. It's that some (maybe more than a few) laws are just overly redundant. I do see your point that the additional laws even if covered by others might reduce the number of instances.

 

[PandaCheese]

What kind of commercially available drone is visible at “pallet size” 2000ft or 607m away?

 

[dvarapala]

What kind of commercially available drone is visible at “pallet size” 2000ft or 607m away?

It's a brand new model called "The Boogeyman."