Just want to give a shoutout to everyone to say thanks. This has been one of the most informative threads I've read here since joining.
Ken
Ken
Am I a Bad Hobbyist?
- Thread starter HarleyKen
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2017
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 83
- Age
- 42
I work for a huge mining company (largest publicly traded copper miner in the world). They don't want me flying from there land as they do not even want the chance of it being seen as a commercial flight. I'm sure insurance would be part of it too. The company is currently creating its own drone group as well.
Maybe I am being a "Debbie Downer", but it is sad to see the extent of Government OVERREACH we all have to endure..... While common sense regulations are tolerable.... Uncle Sam sticking his hands in your pants and squeezing your......WALLET sux.
Take away a right, then sell it back to you while holding a gun to your head.........sorry, rant over.
Happy flying guys!
Take away a right, then sell it back to you while holding a gun to your head.........sorry, rant over.
Happy flying guys!
Well, if you look at it closely, and please, I didn't mean to open a political can of worms, so I will be brief, our right to almost everything has been taken away and sold back to us in the form or regulations and mandatory licensing.... we are free to fly as long as we don't make MONEY at it, THEN government DEMANDS a cut....you have to have a license to fish, you have to ask permission to remodel your bathroom, and then you have to pay...I can go on, but this wasn't my intention, I didn't mean to be rude and hijack this thread....but you asked.
Sorry guys!
Sorry guys!
I think that you are overreacting. We never had a right to do anything that we pleased, and some level of regulation of many activities is an accepted, and arguably necessary, means for society to balance individual freedom with the safety of others.
In the case of UAS operations, there is a potential hazard both to people and property on the ground, and to other traffic in the air. The Model Aircraft Special Rule actually allows a remarkable amount of freedom with very few demands on the operator (no training, almost no fees etc.). Part 107 is a considerable improvement over the previous situation for anything outside the Special Rule. For those kinds of operations it does not seem particularly onerous or expensive.
That's not to say that there are not cases over-regulation, but even those are often the result of too much regulation, rather than regulation where there should not be any. Your example of building regulations falls into that category, in my opinion. There are very sound motivations to have building codes, but if they are not enforced then they are pointless. On the other hand, in many places they have become excessive, to the point that even changing an interior door, for example, requires a permit. But remodeling a bathroom, potentially involving plumbing, electrical, maybe gas system work - there are good reasons to regulate that kind of work.
I agree with you t an extent, but we need to re-learn personal responsibility in the US. again...... you can't legislate common sense, nor should you try....... It's where there is EXCESS, that my comments are directed......we need to get GOVERNMENT out of our lives and return to the common sense society we once were....
I tend to agree with Vmc's sentiment. In general, we give up our individual rights & freedoms incrementally every day that we capitulate to bad, overly broad, and/or vague regulations and legislation; without a fight. Especially those that create monetary and bureaucratic oppression.
But I also recognize that personal responsibility means operating safely and in a manner that does not endanger others. The FAA did not impose Parts 101 & 107 on us arbitrarily.
There is a very long history behind the FAA's actions. Public safety has always been a core driving principle. Were there no extraordinarily tragic aviation mishaps, and perpetrated by careless or ruthless actors, we wouldn't need the FAA. But history speaks otherwise.
That said, I do not question the need for regulations for unmanned aerial operations, but I am curious about the history and need to bifurcate regulations between "hobby" and "commercial" operations. Safety is safety regardless of the operational use.
If Part 107 is designed to impose future and heavy financial burdens on commercial operators that turns into a barrier to entry, mobility, or operations in the commercial markets, then I suggest there are fundamental issues that might have to be revisited.
I'll defer to greater wisdom should anyone care to weigh in.
But I also recognize that personal responsibility means operating safely and in a manner that does not endanger others. The FAA did not impose Parts 101 & 107 on us arbitrarily.
There is a very long history behind the FAA's actions. Public safety has always been a core driving principle. Were there no extraordinarily tragic aviation mishaps, and perpetrated by careless or ruthless actors, we wouldn't need the FAA. But history speaks otherwise.
That said, I do not question the need for regulations for unmanned aerial operations, but I am curious about the history and need to bifurcate regulations between "hobby" and "commercial" operations. Safety is safety regardless of the operational use.
If Part 107 is designed to impose future and heavy financial burdens on commercial operators that turns into a barrier to entry, mobility, or operations in the commercial markets, then I suggest there are fundamental issues that might have to be revisited.
I'll defer to greater wisdom should anyone care to weigh in.
The bifurcation arose because Congress denied the FAA the authority to regulate model aircraft activities. That led the FAA to create a formal framework for sUAS operations that explicitly excluded recreational activities, provided that they are conducted entirely within the special rule guidelines.
In the absence of the special rule I am sure that the FAA would have applied consistent regulations.
Am I correct in understanding there are cases pending challenging the FAA's authority to create and impose that framework? (Yes, I need to spend some time on Pacer and do the actual research.)
I was not aware of that. It seems rather unlikely, given that the FAA does have the formal authority to regulate national airspace use.
That's exactly right. By Congress mandating "no new rules for hobbyist" forced the FAA to "Carve Out" a special section for them/us called Part 101.
That's only challenging the registration requirement for hobby use, on the basis that it breached the prohibition on promulgating any new rules or regulations regarding the recreational use of model aircraft. It has no impact on Part 107.
I would argue for one more level of registration similar to what they did to boaters. They don't require every 15hp outboard motor fisherman to get a full pilots license, but in many states they have to take 2-4 hour course & pass a test. I believe the hobby group will never have credibility until we try to weed out those that make no attempt to comply with FAA regs. Then come down hard on those that fly at 15,000' or fly into a crowd or harm wildlife or interfere with airspace. Just my two cents.
Similar threads
