Here we go, one more nail in our coffin

N017RW said:
I don't subscribe to the notion that these and other videos will have any effect on legislation or regulation nor do I believe there is a proverbial coffin.

The 'dangers' and benefits of these systems are already well known and understood. More [video] examples, in and of themselves, will not change the intent or severity of regulation.

Sort of agree. I feel that the FAA has already pretty much gotten the upcoming sUAS Rule "in the can." I doubt too much that pops up right now will change what they have written so far.

However, where I see the non-stop parade of "dumb-assery" as being harmful to us is in the fact that it provides the FAA with ample evidence to support whatever they put in the Rule. So when we raise a stink with Congress, etc. the FAA will simply produce an extensive list of videos to prove to anyone with the power to change what is being done that everything the FAA has written into the Rule is needed.
 
gunslinger said:
Yup... Good thing he had his second chopter with him... ayuh...

-slinger

YUP - carried his spare Chopter in his other holster!
 
CarlJ said:
There is just no way around this, as the Phantom is advertized as a "ready to fly" product, and this implies you need no knowledge to use the product.
Sure. No knowledge needed to use the product. Only to use it for any prolonged time without it being destroyed in a crash or doing a 'flyaway' or being charged with an offence or being sued for damages.

I'm afraid people saying "I do not know of any mayor incident to have happened (yet) and therefore people should just fly anywhere they like" are missing the point that we are at the very beginning of a major boom in the use of these machines and ultimately the statistics of large numbers will catch up on us and several major incidents WILL happen... if we not very actively will try to prevent them. Mr. Murphy's law will take care of that. Make no mistake about that. These machines are NOT made to any technical quality standard REMOTELY resembling the rigorous standards 'real' aviation machinery has to comply with nor are the people flying them required to have any proficiency in flying them. ANY idiot with the money to buy one can fly them.

If we, as early adopters with often some prior knowledge of (RC) aviation, will not set an example as how to behave responsibly to prevent draconic legislation there's no hope that the future 'uneducated mass' lured to buy these things which they are made to believe by marketing people are 'toys' (but aren't) and who will have no prior knowledge of anything related to aviation and the very real risks involved with it will follow our example and act in any way even remotely resembling the manner needed to prevent such draconic legislation to be passed.

In my country there is very real legislation regarding the use of RC model aircraft. You are not allowed to fly over 'continuous built-up (so basically urban) areas' for instance and not over crowds of people and not higher than 300m. And I can understand the rationale behind these rules. To prevent 'harm' in a pretty wide sense. So I stick to those rules.

We as responsible RC pilots find it somewhat annoying and frustrating that people who act irresponsibly are shooting the 'cool' videos. Sure we all like the shots you COULD get when disregarding the safety of other people and the interests of our flying community as a whole and just do as you like and just fly anyplace where you can shoot the nice pics. I'd love to. I just restrain myself 'for the greater good' and don't.

And the Coca Cola Cowboys who do....? Well.... just don't expect any respect from me.
 
As was well put on rcgroups, what anyone does with their "drone" between now and when the FAA finally regulates their use will matter very little. There will be no light handed approach. Our whole contingent of amateur and even small scale professional users are barely a blip on the radar of the FAA's plans.

As an example, the first FAA sanctioned commercial drone activity took place the other day. Was it a Phantom? No. It was a nearly military grade drone worth millions of dollars owned and operated by BP to inspect all the mess they're making in Alaska with their oil drilling.

Take that as a clear indication of things to come. Unless you are XYZ large corporation with deep pockets, the rules are not going to be in your favor. All the major aerospace players and military industrial drone players are lobbying the FAA very hard to make sure that the riffraff cannot upset the applecart. The riffraff being tiny little companies like DJI. There's a lot of money on the table and the big players are going to make sure the FAA protects it from the barbarian horde of mom and pop operators.

Bottom line is no matter what happens now, this space is going to be regulated hard. Commercial operators will need licenses and certifications, etc. Manufacturers will have to wade through miles of red tape. Amateurs will be relegated to no man's land. So enjoy it while you can for tomorrow it will likely be all gone.

The good news is that because the FAA moves at a glacial pace, we've got a couple good years before the FAA does its damage. I am hoping that during that time, we the people take the effort into our own hands, run enough profit making commercial operations big enough not be ignored when the FAA proposes to regulate everyone to death.
 
N017RW said:
I don't subscribe to the notion that these and other videos will have any effect on legislation or regulation nor do I believe there is a proverbial coffin.

The 'dangers' and benefits of these systems are already well known and understood. More [video] examples, in and of themselves, will not change the intent or severity of regulation.


Let me be clear... I DO NOT condone nor participate in reckless behavior in any form or method.

Speculation about what the severity and scope of forthcoming regulations will be is just that and with all do respect to my fellow enthusiasts, it is beginning to take the form of fear mongering.
 
These machines are NOT made to any technical quality standard REMOTELY resembling the rigorous standards 'real' aviation machinery has to comply with nor are the people flying them required to have any proficiency in flying them. ANY idiot with the money to buy one can fly them.


The good news is that because the FAA moves at a glacial pace, we've got a couple good years before the FAA does its damage. I am hoping that during that time, we the people take the effort into our own hands, run enough profit making commercial operations big enough not be ignored when the FAA proposes to regulate everyone to death.

I'm very hopeful that Moore's law holds true with regards to the UAV technology. In the next two-five years we will have affordable UAVs being built at a "real" aviation standard, and cheap enough for us everyday folk to afford.
 
Big Ben said:
CarlJ said:
There is just no way around this, as the Phantom is advertized as a "ready to fly" product, and this implies you need no knowledge to use the product.
Sure. No knowledge needed to use the product. Only to use it for any prolonged time without it being destroyed in a crash or doing a 'flyaway' or being charged with an offence or being sued for damages.

I'm afraid people saying "I do not know of any mayor incident to have happened (yet) and therefore people should just fly anywhere they like" are missing the point that we are at the very beginning of a major boom in the use of these machines and ultimately the statistics of large numbers will catch up on us and several major incidents WILL happen... if we not very actively will try to prevent them. Mr. Murphy's law will take care of that. Make no mistake about that. These machines are NOT made to any technical quality standard REMOTELY resembling the rigorous standards 'real' aviation machinery has to comply with nor are the people flying them required to have any proficiency in flying them. ANY idiot with the money to buy one can fly them.

If we, as early adopters with often some prior knowledge of (RC) aviation, will not set an example as how to behave responsibly to prevent draconic legislation there's no hope that the future 'uneducated mass' lured to buy these things which they are made to believe by marketing people are 'toys' (but aren't) and who will have no prior knowledge of anything related to aviation and the very real risks involved with it will follow our example and act in any way even remotely resembling the manner needed to prevent such draconic legislation to be passed.

In my country there is very real legislation regarding the use of RC model aircraft. You are not allowed to fly over 'continuous built-up (so basically urban) areas' for instance and not over crowds of people and not higher than 300m. And I can understand the rationale behind these rules. To prevent 'harm' in a pretty wide sense. So I stick to those rules.

We as responsible RC pilots find it somewhat annoying and frustrating that people who act irresponsibly are shooting the 'cool' videos. Sure we all like the shots you COULD get when disregarding the safety of other people and the interests of our flying community as a whole and just do as you like and just fly anyplace where you can shoot the nice pics. I'd love to. I just restrain myself 'for the greater good' and don't.

And the Coca Cola Cowboys who do....? Well.... just don't expect any respect from me.

Ben, I totally agree with you. I want to add another law here on the books which is: A fool and their Phantom are soon parted. I have amassed a huge pool of data to support this theory, and I keep it right here on this forum. I offer as exhibit A the fly-away post which begins thusly "I just got my new Vision+, so I took it 700 feet into the air". To some degree these people take care of themselves.

I know exactly what you mean about following the rules, and the resulting video, BUT I think you can offset that advantage. The cityscape is impressive, but if that's all you've got it makes for a pretty boring video. Some of the best Phantom videos I've seen where flying over brooks and creeks, and the author used sound to really amplify the experience.
 
Moore's law doesn't work in aviation technology and will only work with UAVs if the FAA doesn't regulate them. There are too many hurdles otherwise. A good aviation example is the C172 which still had carburetors into the 2000s despite their shortcomings with efficiency, icing and other mechanical issues. Meanwhile, the automotive industry had switched almost entirely to port injection and direct injection technologies starting 20+ years earlier. Why? Regulations and liabilities.
 
ianwood said:
Moore's law doesn't work in aviation technology and will only work with UAVs if the FAA doesn't regulate them. There are too many hurdles otherwise. A good aviation example is the C172 which still had carburetors into the 2000s despite their shortcomings with efficiency, icing and other mechanical issues. Meanwhile, the automotive industry had switched almost entirely to port injection and direct injection technologies starting 20+ years earlier. Why? Regulations and liabilities.

I think it's safe to say we've cracked the code on the physics of flight. So of course there is no Moore's law being applied there. Where it does come into effect is the price and size of electronics and therefore the ability to get more powerful sensors and algorithms on board to maintain safe flight. If you don't think Moore's law has some application when it comes to the technology of UAVs try to build a 3-5 lb machine capable of autonomous flight and GPS return to home function using 1950s technology.

My point being is if there is a set of requirements for a 777 to be deemed safe to fly, the same set of requirements might just be met by cheaper, smaller, lighter electronics for a UAV.
 
If I recall correctly, the flight systems on the 777 use a 32-bit AMD microprocessor running at 40MHz that was first released in 1988 and was end-of-life in 1995. That same processor is used on brand new 777s and 737-800s today. Why not upgrade to cheaper more powerful processors? The cost of testing and certification. Moore's law doesn't apply to aviation because of the stringent certifications processes (rightly so). If the FAA requires any sort of certification for UAVs, it won't enjoy the same rapid pace of innovation it has now for similar reasons.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31