CNN announced it has come to an agreement with FAA
- Thread starter mendezl
- Start date
Think they've just used a loophole that allows for 'experimental craft' to be tested/trialled :lol:
They will now use these things every day for ENG use and say "Oh we were trying out a new propeller pitch" and the next day will be "ohhhhh.... different batteries"....... the day after "Ahhhh... that was a more powerful VTX system"
Can't blame them at all though !!!
They will now use these things every day for ENG use and say "Oh we were trying out a new propeller pitch" and the next day will be "ohhhhh.... different batteries"....... the day after "Ahhhh... that was a more powerful VTX system"
Can't blame them at all though !!!
I applaud the decision, and it bodes well for commercial drone industry going foward (I hope).
However, I have to chuckle that CNN and other media companies filed a complaint against the FAA "for impermissible chilling effect on First Amendment rights of journalists". How is lack of a drone on a news team shutting down the First Amendment?
So I suppose the NRA freaks will demand that we start arming consumer drones with guns because otherwise it's "a chilling effect on Second Amendment rights" ??
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
However, I have to chuckle that CNN and other media companies filed a complaint against the FAA "for impermissible chilling effect on First Amendment rights of journalists". How is lack of a drone on a news team shutting down the First Amendment?
So I suppose the NRA freaks will demand that we start arming consumer drones with guns because otherwise it's "a chilling effect on Second Amendment rights" ??
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
While this is a good step forward on one hand, it's just more Government BS at the same time.
The entire "drone" topic for commercial use and the FAA is ridiculous. It is perfectly legal for anyone to fly RC aircraft and the only guidelines that the FAA currently states is that pilots keep their aircraft below 400' and within 5 miles of airports (or is it controlled airports?). Their hangup with commercial use, IMO is little more than the federal government trying to decide on the best way to collect (confiscate) money from the interested businesses in the forms of fees, fines, and/or taxes. They are still scrambling around trying to decide the best way (how to maximize) to go about this. I imagine that there will eventually be some type of "permit" (code for confiscation of money) and some other form of restrictions in operation, creating a structure to impose fines by.
Again (IMO), this has much more to do with the confiscation of money and a lot less to do with safety, HOWEVER it will be imposed on us in the guise of safety. Mark my words.
This is why we are hearing mostly about how they might handle commercial usage of “drones” way more than we are hearing about overall use, including recreational use.
The fact that they are almost exclusively focusing on commercial use right now isn’t a reason for all of the recreational pilots to celebrate. I’m holding my breath, because I fear (and predict) that once they get the commercial side sorted out, they’ll hit the rec users next. We are already seeing some states begin to propose restricted use of ALL “drones”.
This is why it is critical for everyone to be very sensible while flying their quads, because stupid behavior is being spotlighted by the media to paint quads in a very negative light. Mark my words, if/when a quad falls out of the sky or crashes and hits a person causing death or very serious injury due to negligence, the media (and lawmakers) will come down on all “drone” use like white on rice!
Let’s not make it easier for them to pass hasty, knee-jerk overblown legislation for ALL “drone” users, like only flying under 50’ and no closer than 30 miles from any city limit, or something to that effect.
The entire "drone" topic for commercial use and the FAA is ridiculous. It is perfectly legal for anyone to fly RC aircraft and the only guidelines that the FAA currently states is that pilots keep their aircraft below 400' and within 5 miles of airports (or is it controlled airports?). Their hangup with commercial use, IMO is little more than the federal government trying to decide on the best way to collect (confiscate) money from the interested businesses in the forms of fees, fines, and/or taxes. They are still scrambling around trying to decide the best way (how to maximize) to go about this. I imagine that there will eventually be some type of "permit" (code for confiscation of money) and some other form of restrictions in operation, creating a structure to impose fines by.
Again (IMO), this has much more to do with the confiscation of money and a lot less to do with safety, HOWEVER it will be imposed on us in the guise of safety. Mark my words.
This is why we are hearing mostly about how they might handle commercial usage of “drones” way more than we are hearing about overall use, including recreational use.
The fact that they are almost exclusively focusing on commercial use right now isn’t a reason for all of the recreational pilots to celebrate. I’m holding my breath, because I fear (and predict) that once they get the commercial side sorted out, they’ll hit the rec users next. We are already seeing some states begin to propose restricted use of ALL “drones”.
This is why it is critical for everyone to be very sensible while flying their quads, because stupid behavior is being spotlighted by the media to paint quads in a very negative light. Mark my words, if/when a quad falls out of the sky or crashes and hits a person causing death or very serious injury due to negligence, the media (and lawmakers) will come down on all “drone” use like white on rice!
Let’s not make it easier for them to pass hasty, knee-jerk overblown legislation for ALL “drone” users, like only flying under 50’ and no closer than 30 miles from any city limit, or something to that effect.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
I'm not defending the Gov't or any [other] agency but their are statutory constraints regarding licensing or certificates at play when the word 'commercial' is used in the context of aircraft and flight operations. These statute(s) are the major issue(s) right now.
I think it is very understandable why there must be regulation of aircraft that carry passengers in a commercial capacity, but since small UAVs used in a commercial venture pose no such risk, I see no reason to seperate safety requirements on the basis of recreation and commercial use. IMO the FAA is stretching its safety mandate to restrict commercial use of drones.
msinger
Approved Vendor
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 31,961
- Reaction score
- 10,787
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Website
- phantomhelp.com
Thats easy its because they use them to film stuff that cnn calls news or might be used to report what they call news. even tho its cnn its stlll considered a news our let or reporting. and the goverment has not dam business telling any one what they can and cant report or film or who is or is not a news reporter or how to gather and report what ever they are trying to report on. . Its no different then when they try to illegally stop people from filming the cops. If you are filming some thing that is in public they can go pound salt cause its any ones first amendment right to do so. This is still 'merica and we have rights even tho the goverment trys all they can to take them away daily. it dont change the fact that the constitution grants them and they are in the bill of rights so they can never be taken away or even amended away cause thats not allowed in the first 10 amendments because they are Inalienable rights which means they can never be voted away, can never be sold, transferred or taken away ever.
I posted this in the news section yesterday
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33123
I'm definitely frustrated as most everyone is with the FAA. The last streamed session I saw was almost a complete display of incompetence I've ever seen meanwhile the lady FAA rep kept saying what great progress is being made. The evidence of any truth to that statement was hard to come by even in that session.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=33123
I'm definitely frustrated as most everyone is with the FAA. The last streamed session I saw was almost a complete display of incompetence I've ever seen meanwhile the lady FAA rep kept saying what great progress is being made. The evidence of any truth to that statement was hard to come by even in that session.
Oh, goody! I can put a 50 cal machine gun on my quad! And one of those 1000 round, short clips, like the silly TV shows.TimmyG94 said:
.
On the serious side, It is a good start.
Oh, goody! I can put a 50 cal machine gun on my quad! And one of those 1000 round, short clips, like the silly TV shows.
.
On the serious side, It is a good start.
Even a 30cal with just a 30 round mag would even be a good start.
Tho It sucks I'm in ny and we can only have 10 rounds in a mag due to the lord cumos safe criminal work place environment act.
Pmcdn said:
No. It has nothing to do with money. Regulatory agencies are permitted to collect reasonable fees to partially compensate the cost of administering their responsibilities. But the fees charged by the agencies I have dealt with in no way comes close to full reimbursement for the services received.
Pmcdn said:
Wow, so many things wrong here... The FAA has only one purpose - safety of flight. Primarily passenger flight. The emphasis on commercial use is, as msinger said, 49 USC§ 44711 requires an airman certificate for commercial flights. [Hey, there's a solution, get Congress to change 49 USC§ 44711 giving the FAA permission to allow exceptions if aviation safety is not compromised. But that would require Congress to do something.] Also, Congress has specifically told the FAA that they may not regulate hobby flight.
Next, on safety - the odds of a falling quad like the Phantom causing serious injury to someone on the ground are so low, that to entertain that idea is laughable. At the most, it would cause some bruises and maybe a Band Aid. With the tens of thousands of Phantoms flying, where is the carnage? Can anyone find a verifiable report of a small quadcopter causing serious injury to any person not involved in the flight? No! The public paranoia, supported by hysteric statements like yours, is so keen to Drone news that if there had been a serious injury, there would be news reports.
Unfortunately, there are some on this forum who would be perfectly OK with ALL drone users flying under 50’ and no closer than 30 miles from any city limit.
"Next, on safety - the odds of a falling quad like the Phantom causing serious injury to someone on the ground are so low, that to entertain that idea is laughable. At the most, it would cause some bruises and maybe a Band Aid. With the tens of thousands of Phantoms flying, where is the carnage? Can anyone find a verifiable report of a small quadcopter causing serious injury to any person not involved in the flight? No! The public paranoia, supported by hysteric statements like yours, is so keen to Drone news that if there had been a serious injury, there would be news reports."
That was the entire point of that statement, Steve! Good grief, that’s what you took from it, that I am suggesting that quad flying is an imminent threat to society and bystanders? Really?
Allow me to clarify for you so you can better understand what I said. The point I was making was that with the growing number of quads being flown, the odds of someone flying one high above a crowd to take videos or stills increases and so does the risk of one eventually flying directly into someone from inexperience, showing off, and/or equipment malfunction. I live in Houston, TX and have personally been in popular public areas of town with large tight crowds gathered near live outdoor bands in the evenings. On two separate occasions I have stood and watched some stranger (whom I couldn’t see) flying a Phantom directly over the crowd at approximately 75 feet mostly, and occasionally dipping down and passing quickly back and forth over their heads in a showing-off manner. Many were holding up their phones taking pictures or videos of the quad as it did this while others were focused on the band oblivious.
It will only take one time like the above scenario for something to go wrong and dead drop or crash directly into the crowd, and when it does the media will pounce. It will make national news and we’ll be hearing something to the effect of how an unmanned “drone” loses control and flies directly into a bystander at public event causing injury or worse.
That was my point, not that we are all in grave danger now because of quad pilots.
Oh, and if you believe (as you stated) “At the most, it would cause some bruises and maybe a Band Aid”, think again. A quad being flown over a crowd low and fast crashing directly into someone’s face or head with rotors spinning at high RPM will likely result in more than a bruise or a Band Aid.
If you still think that is implausible Steve, how about you allow me to drop my Vision Plus from about say 50 to 100 feet out of a window with the motors turned off landing squarely on your unprotected head or face and see if you still feel the same about the lack of injury it can inflict? Sound good?
That was the entire point of that statement, Steve! Good grief, that’s what you took from it, that I am suggesting that quad flying is an imminent threat to society and bystanders? Really?
Allow me to clarify for you so you can better understand what I said. The point I was making was that with the growing number of quads being flown, the odds of someone flying one high above a crowd to take videos or stills increases and so does the risk of one eventually flying directly into someone from inexperience, showing off, and/or equipment malfunction. I live in Houston, TX and have personally been in popular public areas of town with large tight crowds gathered near live outdoor bands in the evenings. On two separate occasions I have stood and watched some stranger (whom I couldn’t see) flying a Phantom directly over the crowd at approximately 75 feet mostly, and occasionally dipping down and passing quickly back and forth over their heads in a showing-off manner. Many were holding up their phones taking pictures or videos of the quad as it did this while others were focused on the band oblivious.
It will only take one time like the above scenario for something to go wrong and dead drop or crash directly into the crowd, and when it does the media will pounce. It will make national news and we’ll be hearing something to the effect of how an unmanned “drone” loses control and flies directly into a bystander at public event causing injury or worse.
That was my point, not that we are all in grave danger now because of quad pilots.
Oh, and if you believe (as you stated) “At the most, it would cause some bruises and maybe a Band Aid”, think again. A quad being flown over a crowd low and fast crashing directly into someone’s face or head with rotors spinning at high RPM will likely result in more than a bruise or a Band Aid.
If you still think that is implausible Steve, how about you allow me to drop my Vision Plus from about say 50 to 100 feet out of a window with the motors turned off landing squarely on your unprotected head or face and see if you still feel the same about the lack of injury it can inflict? Sound good?
Similar threads
- Sticky
