- Joined
- Aug 11, 2017
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 142
- Age
- 67
Helicopter meet Phantom. Phantom lost
- Thread starter Brojon
- Start date
That was certainly an unlucky collision, but low speed and minimal damage. Good outcome. I guess that makes at least two documented helicopter/UAV collisions.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2017
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 142
- Age
- 67
The thing I hope the authorities take home from this is both parties were operating in a completely legal fashion.
Folks forget that life isn't predictable and risk mitigation has to allow for that - nothing is served by requiring licensing, draconian restrictions or even outright bans.
Folks forget that life isn't predictable and risk mitigation has to allow for that - nothing is served by requiring licensing, draconian restrictions or even outright bans.
There I would disagree. Flying compliantly makes it less likely that conflicts with air traffic will arise, and regulation, testing and licensing is a proven method to encourage and ensure compliant flying.
great for pilots ,even UAS operators .testing which is needed to get 107 . to heap more rules and regulation and licensing on the all ready adequate part 107 would be beyond insane and would make no difference in potential conflicts . Of course if one wanted to do away with hobby flying of any kind or limit it to RC fields that would be one way to go. people make a bigger deal of drones then need be . like it or not they are either tools or toys depending on how you use them . drone operators [pilot just doens't fit] getting part 107 and sticking to the guidelines is more then enough , as shown by the above story
I mostly agree, with the caveat that perhaps Part 107 would be better if it included some element of flight testing. I was disagreeing with the statement that "nothing is served by requiring licensing...".
not sure how flight testing would be incorporated into 107 . go up, go down, fly in a circle ? anyone can take a test and pass . look at all the drivers that can't really drive , they all took a driving test . hands 10 and 2 etc . it's not adding more testing that will help but enforcing existing rule and regs . same with illegal immigration . plenty of laws and more laws won't help but enforcing them will
Flight testing is clearly beyond the current scope of the FAA's resources, but it would be nice to ensure that pilots have a basic understanding of the aircraft that they fly. Enforcement is probably also resource limited, but that's not a reason not to have regulations, since most (hopefully) Part 107 pilots will at least attempt to follow them.
But we do have regulations , plenty in place to assure a safe environment . The only thing that could change is eliminate hobby operators or require all to go through 107 testing before being able to buy a drone . wouldn't that be great show your license before you could buy a drone . the drone again is no plane /helicopter . it will basically fly it's self and crash easily with operator error . ask me how i know this ! lol even pilots with all the training crash . it happens no way to avoid this 100% . Or they could continue to put limits on drones abilities make it so they can't fly over 400' are set max distance at 1000' or less , are these regulations you would want ?. It's a slippery slope .
It's a slippery slope fallacy, not a slippery slope. Regulation of hobby flight is currently negligible. There is no altitude limit, no VLOS requirement, no controlled airspace, and no mechanism to ensure that hobbyists know anything at all about safe flying before they open the box and hit auto-takeoff. That's untenable, long term, with the explosion of use of aircraft that can easily fly miles away and 500 m high.
There are guidelines for Part 101, and note how much time hobbyists spend on these forums pointing out that they are not law and do not need to be followed. And that's the people who even know the guidelines exist – not the vast numbers of hobbyists who just buy a drone on Amazon and then go out and fly it, blissfully ignorant of laws and guidelines.
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 241
- Reaction score
- 94
- Age
- 58
Agreed, even hobby flight should know about airspace and keep within VLOS and under 400AGL. Because of cheap quadcopters that anybody can buy and fly everyone is suffering and I feel most sorry for fixed wing Model Aircraft operators who almost never leave the club field but are probably going to get regulated to death.
Problem is that unless you require some kind of permit at the point of purchase for hobby quads idiots will continue to screw things up for everyone.
Flight testing could be put in the hands of the AMA, sort of like how the FCC doles out ham radio testing to Volunteer Examiners or how some states use NRA instructors to conduct firearms range testing.
Just a thought.
Maybe. But if we are talking about flight testing for Part 107 then it might be a bit incongruous to use a hobby organization to conduct flight testing for non-hobby pilots.
I don't think it's nearly as incongruous as you think it is.
For ham radio testing, there are separate tests that a Volunteer Examiner must pass in order to administer exams and the VE can only administer exams up to the level of licensing of the VE (as both a ham operator and VE). The ARRL is the FCC's proxy for most of this.
Hams are to a great extent hobbyists but many are also professionals. Though I won't go into things like the radiotelephone licenses, etc.
So back to the proverbial brass tacks, part 107 pilots, ostensibly with additional examiner qualifications from the FAA and its assigned proxy (AMA), could and would administer a Part 107 test.
