Allowed to fly over or near persons

[Drestin Black]

Baaa

 

[JetLife]

I fly over people all of the time at work. The *Difference is; They are aware that I am going to do it BEFORE I do it. I do it for a specific purpose as part of my job but; I never intentionally fly over anyone without their permission. Like so many have mentioned; it is just dangerous to do and usually not necessary.

 

[sar104]

Requiring FAA-approved design and construction, annual certified maintenance, trained and certified pilots and strict adherence to aviation regulations.

Your 5 lb plastic toy isn't.

Give it a rest - your posts are repetitive and your reasoning is flawed.

 

[JetLife]

Requiring FAA-approved design and construction, annual certified maintenance, trained and certified pilots and strict adherence to aviation regulations.

Your 5 lb plastic toy isn't.

Give it a rest - your posts are repetitive and your reasoning is flawed.

Thanks

 

[Goof]

Ahhh yes, the expected reply from the self-elected drone police and I-know-what's-better-for-you-than-yourself types.

Your replies are predictable and I find your lack of reasoning tiresome.

The FAA is revisiting its rules over UAS, should they revise that portion how will you then feel?

There are multiple considerations for rules, among them, primary is, the potential for, and what degree of, harm. Our little toys dropping to the ground randomly is infrequent and, more importantly, it has little potential for serious harm. The rule is too restrictive and too broad while returning little real safety benefits.

Terminal velocity for a P4 is around 70-80 kilometres per hour, would you be happy about that colliding with the top of your skull? Or the skull belonging to someone in your family? FAA doesn't think so, so the rule is don't fly above people, or fly in such a manner where a motor failure could lead to the aircraft drifting over people.

These things are quality tested before they leave the factory, but then never again. Without this rule, Joe Bloggs can crash his drone into the side of a building, then try to fly it over a crowd with one motor hanging off, one good wind gust away from a hard date with the ground / someone's head.

What happens if a manned aircraft suffers crash damage, or even 'just' a hard landing? Hours of inspections by qualified personnel and reams of paperwork until people who know what they're doing can point at the aircraft and say "Yep, I can be as confident as possible in saying this plane will not fall out of the sky anytime soon"

 

[sar104]

Ahhh yes, the expected reply from the self-elected drone police and I-know-what's-better-for-you-than-yourself types.

Your replies are predictable and I find your lack of reasoning tiresome.

The FAA is revisiting its rules over UAS, should they revise that portion how will you then feel?

There are multiple considerations for rules, among them, primary is, the potential for, and what degree of, harm. Our little toys dropping to the ground randomly is infrequent and, more importantly, it has little potential for serious harm. The rule is too restrictive and too broad while returning little real safety benefits.

No seriously - your self-entitled whining is the problem, not the responses to it. And I have no interest in policing anything to do with this subject. The additional restrictions that may arise from the behavior of irresponsible pilots such as yourself will most likely disproportionately impact recreational flying, not Part 107 operations, and so it won't affect me.

 

[Goof]

There are approx 26,500 commercial helicopters in the US. There were 106 crashes in 2016, 17 of which produced fatalities.

The approx 800,000 commercial/hobby drones in the US with no known fatalities. While the number of crashes I can't find documentation for, the percentage is likely not very high. None I can find that include significant injuries or damage.

Sounds to me like the rule has kept people safe.

 

[SoundByte]

I look at it this way. Commercial aircraft are an integral part of our society, because they are essential to our way of life. As long as we can mitigate the risks, they will continue to be allowed in proximity to people. Drones are not essential. Society's not going to come crumbling down if suddenly there were no drones. So I don't buy the whole premise, your argument's flawed. I absolutely love flying my drone, and also find some of the rules cumbersome. That being said, I'm also a pragmatist. I know that society on whole, could care less about what we want. There are a lot more of them than us, so here we are, playing the cards dealt.

 

[SoundByte]

I'm sorry but I can't agree to your points. It has nothing to do with essential or not; what is important to you may not be to me and visa versa - perhaps my entire business depends on reliable accurate flight of my UAS, without it I have no biz. Kinda makes it essential. And, there are more drones out there than commercial aircraft or helicopters.

Here's the thing; for many folks (and it seems like, the majority in this forum) it's purely a flight here and there in your back 40. Never encountering people below, never dealing with NFZs or TFRs, so none of this hassle has impacted you in any way so you just don't wanna hear someone "whine" about it. You aren't effected, so they shouldn't act effected (even if they are)... try to have perspective from others point of view.

Here's the thing! Your whole philosophy's running on the assumption that this little niche you've carved out for yourself, somehow matters to society as a whole. You make your bread and butter with drones, so I can sympathize, because it's essential for you.

 

[BigAl07]

Drestin, you don't fully understand the existing rule system and how it came about. The ONLY reason why hobbyist can do so much more than Civil/Commercial operators is because Congress screwed the pooch in 2012 trying to protect the industry. I can assure you 100% that if the FAA could impose new rules on the hobby sector they would and in a way that would make probably at least 1/2 hobby operators get out completely. With that being said I can fully envision a time in our not too distant future when Congress corrects their error and gives the FAA full reign on the hobby side of things. I fully welcome this move and hope it comes sooner than later.

Flying over people with a hobby/toy grade UAS is a horrible idea. There are no redundancy systems in place (several SINGLE failure points) and when something goes wrong the A/C falls completely out of control. To think that it will do no harm is being completely silly. To makes matters worse in this day and time of "I'll sue you for ANYTHING" it doesn't take any real "harm" but the potential for harm and let's not forget mental anguish law suits. Risk Mitigation is the name of the game and if you want to see tighter rules & regulations then lets allow some UAS to fall on the heads of some innocent people and watch how the media quickly drowns our industry out of existence.

I find your comparing flying manned helicopters to toy UAS completely hilarious and shows exactly where you think we stand in the real world. Manned Aviation is an integral part of our society and if you think UAS are remotely that important to society you really need to get out and about more. Just because we operate these as a business does not make the rest of society like, appreciate, or NEED this industry. I can assure you that UAS are VERY important to me and my family but in the real world these aren't of much importance to society no matter how great we think our #'s really are. We are adults playing with toy/hobby grade equipment and trying to act like we are the Big Boys in aviation.

Lastly lets not forget that even though our DJI phantoms & mavics etc do hold a very substantial market share of the UAS industry there are others in this industry. Some of these are are larger, faster, heavier and more dangerous than our quads and ALL of us have to abide by current regulations if under 55lbs. Remember not all UAS are white plastic toys.

 

[BigAl07]

Here's the thing! Your whole philosophy's running on the assumption that this little niche you've carved out for yourself, somehow matters to society as a whole. You make your bread and butter with drones, so I can sympathize, because it's essential for you.

Best reply yet


It's called a Reality Check and even though many of us put great value and priority in our UAS business we do need to stay in touch with Reality and realize we aren't the big dogs we think we are (or wish to be).

 

[SoundByte]

Consider this: Not one single rule the FAA passes re: drones will have any impact on safety, it will only limit the legit pilot.

"Dude, you have lost your mind."

No, not at all. In the world of guns we encounter this constantly. There are laws against shooting guns into the air, laws restricting machine guns, laws about magazine capacity, laws about where you can carry, where you cannot carry, there are laws that say you are not allowed to shoot anyone, at any time for any reason. There are laws that say you cannot shoot at cars or plane. There are laws that say you cannot bring your gun into a school or movie theater and you most defiantly cannot shoot it at patrons or students. There are laws based upon solely the appearance of the gun and restricting it on just that basis (retarded eh?). There are laws against not just owning, but you can't even handle a gun if you take drugs (even legal pot), you can't use a gun if you are mental or insane. There are laws against sex offenders and hate group members having guns.

Do I need to mention that despite all those laws (and many many many many more) that people commit horrific crimes that break those laws.

Laws won't stop a criminal from doing a criminal thing. A law that says, "you cannot fly over people" will be ignored by those who simply choose to. "Can't fly at night" - they'll do it anyway. Etc etc. But here come Johnny Drone Operator who is responsible, educated, trained, experienced and has a specific use in mine that is legit and thought out and planned and has safety in mind - he's gotta get some footage of a concert at night -- Flying at night and over people. ERRRRR! Special waivers that may or may not get granted. Mind you, Sally Dobad will just fire up her Mavic out her purse and up into the sky it goes for some awesome 4k bootleg video, back into the purse and home.

So, remember: Laws ONLY make life difficult for law abiding types, types like you and me. We are the only ones who'll be restricted in any fashion by rules and more rules. The "bad guys who'll ruin it for everyone" are still 100% going to do it anyway, rules or not. By definition, they don't care about our rules. Modded software and bootleg firmware and off they go.

So, as you beg for more rules to tighten up your hobby -all you are doing is hurting your fellow hobbyist who may have loftier ideals and ideas in mind than your own.

Yet another gun law analogy!! I realize you love your guns, and that trying to interfere with your right to bear arms is tantamount to me trying to keep my dog from licking his balls, but really. As much as I'd love to read another diatribe about guns, ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Gonna pass!

 

[Drestin Black]

Yet another gun law analogy!! I realize you love your guns, and that trying to interfere with your right to bear arms is tantamount to me trying to keep my dog from licking his balls, but really. As much as I'd love to read another diatribe about guns, ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Gonna pass!

It's ok, I'm getting the picture. This isn't an open forum, it's our way or the highway. Baaaaa I'll keep my questions/visits to purely technical from here out)

 

[Drestin Black]

I would ask that this thread be deleted - I'd do it myself but that feature isn't available to regular users.

 

[SoundByte]

whoa whoa whoa - so, basically you are saying; Drestin, you don't matter. Your voice doesn't count because it isn't in tune with the majority. Drestin, Shut Up unless you sing the party line. Dissension is not permitted because we, those that know better because we do as the government tells us, say so!

I'm not talking about things in this forum JUST for me. I care about this for all pilots who might suffer through any bugs or issues that I feel are unsafe (or profoundly illogical) and forced upon us by the manufacturers.

There are folks like yourself in the gun forums, the ones that At Every Turn are ready to give up ANY right, surrender to ANY law because they are afraid that if we don't legislate it someone will do it and "make our hobby look bad" And those same people happily give up theirs and others rights - meanwhile, "bad guys" continue to ignore laws, new and old, and continue to "make our hobby look bad" and no lesson is learned! The bad guy is bad, yes. But the guy who is just sitting there telling anyone who speaks up to "Shut Up and Do As We Tell You!" isn't helping anyone!

Not all of us could/would or might be content to fly as you do - perhaps you'd never fly as I do (or visa versa) but that's neither here nor there. Your view on the rules is every bit as valid as mine, whether I have the motive of a business behind it or purely for hobbyist reasons. Unless I woke up in Nazi Germany today I think I have the right to speak and not be minimized because I am not saluting the fuhrer and speaking only rightspeak.

In a word, yes. There are people out there, doing work that rally does matter and make a difference in the world. I don't thing you, or I, fit that category. The best we can hope for is that our children will go on to do things that matter. So, yes to you first question, and no to everything else. You don't have to shut up, or be an automaton. I’m perfectly capable of putting words in my own mouth, thank you.

 

[N017RW]

Locked maybe. Deleted.. hope not.

It's important to show the different perspectives and opinions on the subject.

 

[Drestin Black]

Locked maybe. Deleted.. hope not.

It's important to show the different perspectives and opinions on the subject.

You'd think so... alas. Being dismissed out of hand is disrespectful and akin to censorship. Don't need that negativity, I prefer positive and forward looking convos.

 

[BigAl07]

You'd think so... alas. Being dismissed out of hand is disrespectful and akin to censorship. Don't need that negativity, I prefer positive and forward looking convos.

Censorship? WHAT???

Because I happen to work here I can't disagree with you? Come on man you can do better than that. We're just debating (and cordially) different points.

 

[N017RW]

You'd think so... alas. Being dismissed out of hand is disrespectful and akin to censorship. Don't need that negativity, I prefer positive and forward looking convos.

Actually I refrain from commenting on your posts. Let's just say I sometimes disagree with your self-assessment.

 

[Drestin Black]

Akin to. A piling on of negative comments without even consideration for the opposing point of view doesn't feel like a debate or cordial. Review my prior posts and you'll see I backup with dialog and facts and relevant comments, not dismissal. The topic became too diluted and one sided to be useful to anyone. Your "working here" or not didn't factor into anything.