Aviation Groups Seek Full Regulation of Drones

[N017RW]

It's because drones have cameras, range, and they may fly beyond VLOS into the areas of privacy or trespassing which is a gray area of the law and up for debate, fights, shoot-downs, can't fly here, etc. The RC crowd with planes, helis, boats, cars, etc. tended to stay close by and not wander into "Someone elses space."

An AMA field in northern Los Angeles use to welcome drones, but they got out of control. Drone fliers began to fly out of the field's area across a road to a lake and began chasing boaters and water skiers. That got the lifeguards attention who went to the LA Park's Dept. Super. and the "No drones allowed in our parks" started. The AMA field was also on Park's Dept. land and drones became a bad word with the president of the club who was threatened by the Park's Dept. that "They would shut the field down if they continued with the drone crowd." Some of the oldster's had their drone's grandfathered in, but new ones are not as the new drone owners often were irresponsible in their flight ops and continued to fly out of the field's assigned area and got back to chasing people around the lake.

No matter what you do, some people will hate drones so they may legislate them to their death.

You pointed out the carelessness of the drone operators. Why would you blame that ‘hate’ on the aircraft?

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I am all for step-wise flying constraints. If not registered ... no flying; if registered drone but pilot has not passed an FAA test ... limit flight within an envelop (let’s say 500’ distance; 100’ high); if passed FAA test and FAA licensed ... remove limiting envelop; if professional with over X-hours flight time ... allow fast track in gaining special authorizations.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

But if one extends that argument, why is testing even needed for commercial work? What makes that inherently more dangerous than recreational flying?

Not that its anymore dangerous but it would help to show competence to customers and or a business wishing to hire a drone operator. May help in a positive way in case of a lawsuit.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

I attended a JR radio sponsored RC helicopter fly in. They were three and four feet long with gas engines. They are still flying everywhere with no concern or requirements for regulations. How is this happening when Drone “toys” are subject to these regulations. I am a private pilot and would never flying my piper Cherokee below 400 ft. I don’t understand all these drone requirements. Help me.

Finally a private pilot with common sense. I wouldnt fly that low either unless I HAD to, not because I can.

 

[N017RW]

Finally???

How many have said otherwise (here)?

I’m an inactive PPL holder and I’ve never said anything to suggest a dissimilar attitude.

It’s a different deal when your @$$ is on-board.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Those gas RC helicopter operators may be ignoring or showing no concern for the regulations, but they are subject to exactly the same regulations as recreational UAVs. And does the fact that you don't fly your Cherokee below 400 ft (doesn't that make takeoff and landing difficult?) mean that no one else flies aircraft or helicopters below 400 ft?

Does that help?

Lol, Im pretty sure we are all smart enought to know aircraft has to be below 400ft to take off and land. We also all know that there are plenty of aircraft operating below 500ft and its been that way for along time with really no problems. However, its not hard to understand that times have changed and there are tons of drones now in the airspace that wasnt 10 yrs ago. So maybe one very simple common sense thought might be that unless you dont have to fly your manned aircraft low enought to hit a drone and kill yourself, maybe you shouldnt.

 

[sar104]

Not that its anymore dangerous but it would help to show competence to customers and or a business wishing to hire a drone operator. May help in a positive way in case of a lawsuit.

That may be true, but laws are not created to improve business credibility.

 

[sar104]

Lol, Im pretty sure we are all smart enought to know aircraft has to be below 400ft to take off and land. We also all know that there are plenty of aircraft operating below 500ft and its been that way for along time with really no problems. However, its not hard to understand that times have changed and there are tons of drones now in the airspace that wasnt 10 yrs ago. So maybe one very simple common sense thought might be that unless you dont have to fly your manned aircraft low enought to hit a drone and kill yourself, maybe you shouldnt.

That's good advice, but doesn't cover those times when, for operational reasons, you do have to fly below 400 ft. Presumably we are not just going to cross our fingers and hope for the best in those situations.

 

[gingerbloke]

Did you just try to make an argument that all laws are pointless?

I read it as 'pointless laws should not exist in the first place'

 

[Indiana_pyro]

That's good advice, but doesn't cover those times when, for operational reasons, you do have to fly below 400 ft. Presumably we are not just going to cross our fingers and hope for the best in those situations.

Thats exactly what you should be doing right now.

 

[sar104]

I read it as 'pointless laws should not exist in the first place'

With no explanation of why this particular law might be considered pointless? His argument appeared to be predicated on the assertion that gun control laws only make the problem of gun violence worse. I've seen some pretty silly statements on this forum, but that's right up there with the best of them.

 

[sar104]

Thats exactly what you should be doing right now.

Ah - so you are arguing that we should have more regulation of hobby flight to make it less of a matter of chance. In that case I completely agree.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Ah - so you are arguing that we should have more regulation of hobby flight to make it less of a matter of chance. In that case I completely agree.

Lol, DRONES in general, doesnt matter if your a hobbist or not. Professional or hobbyist drone pilot doesnt matter, we are all operating in the same range of airspace.

 

[sar104]

Lol, DRONES in general, doesnt matter if your a hobbist or not. Professional or hobbyist drone pilot doesnt matter, we are all operating in the same range of airspace.

True. But I'd argue that Part 107 has done a reasonable regulatory job with non-recreational UAV use.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Doesn't seem ridiculous at all. People have been doing stupid things for way too long with drones, and there really need to be actual consequences for actions, as well as licenses, to discourage these idiots from breaking the law and endangering others for the sheer sake of their own amusement. What you are insinuating is that the creation of licenses for driving created more negative behavior and sneaking around, which really doesn't seem to be the case.

Not trying to argue with you. You have valid points, but YouTube is full of licensed pilots doing stupid things.

I am all for step-wise flying constraints. If not registered ... no flying; if registered drone but pilot has not passed an FAA test ... limit flight within an envelop (let’s say 500’ distance; 100’ high); if passed FAA test and FAA licensed ... remove limiting envelop; if professional with over X-hours flight time ... allow fast track in gaining special authorizations.

This is what I'd like to see happen.

I'm also old enough to know that no amount of legislation will prevent people from doing stupid things.

 

[Ajax]

There is a schism between drones and conventional rc aircraft at many flying events. Even rc helicopters give drones an evil eye.