He's gonna ruin it for everyone!

ProfessorStein said:
I guess it all depends on what you use your drone for. I bought mine as an aerial photography/videography platform. Flying in a designated area/field would be next to useless in that regard. It would essentially shut my hobby/parttime business down. So, yes, for me that's a HORRIBLE worst case scenario.

There are legit businesses in some states/cities (Here in LA at least) that have been flying and recording with drones legally for years.........lol this whole thing is not new lol
 
eckoner said:
I can tell you this (IMO)
The Feds will never never never outright put a blanket ban on what we are doing.........
It will be left up to counties and individual organizations to rightfully so say yes you can or no you cannot fly that here.
I have to follow that idea also. The feds will set some rules and leave the rest up to local government.
 
eckoner said:
So lets say i fly my Phantom into City Hall and hurt the mayor, he gets pissed and says no one can fly in the city of Los Angeles.
Ok so i live 3 mins away from LA borders. I go over to Culver City (Oh joy) But that will never happen.

No... no one cares about the mayor. ;-)
But you fly your Phantom over a park, and it loses power and crashes into a 6 year old kid... you better BELIEVE there will be a groundswell to shut all pilots down in that city, if not the county. Mothers are a force to be reckoned with... especially in local government. THAT'S a fact.

But let's pretend, like you did, that this happened in LA. And they inacted restrictions. You'd just take your copter to Culver City?? What if the subject you were really interested in shooting wasn't IN Culver City... but was in LA?? The restriction would start to affect you, right?

Like I said earlier... it depends on what you want to use your Phantom for.

eckoner said:
I can tell you this (IMO)
The Feds will never never never outright put a blanket ban on what we are doing and if you think so i got an iceberg for ya!
It will be left up to counties and individual organizations to rightfully so say yes you can or no you cannot fly that here.
To be honest with you i dont have a problem with that and i dont understand why anyone would.

I agree with you. I don't believe it will ever be a Federal issue (though it COULD be if some nut in Congress were to position a bill as if it's somehow a matter of "National security"... but that's pretty far-fetched). I never said the Feds would do anything. But enough local communities, cities and states start restricting drone pilots, you have nearly the same effect. While not officially a blanket ban, you won't be able to fly anywhere.

Why would anyone have a problem with that? You seriously can't see why? Like I said... what if I wanted/needed to shoot video in an area that has a ban? I'm SOL... unless I want to risk a fine... which I would not.

I guess the biggest problem I would have is knowing that the restrictions were likely the result of somebody else being stupid. It's like the idiots who dove off rocks near my house, not knowing what they were doing, until enough people got hurt that they now prohibit ANYONE from diving in that area. So even though I'd been diving there for decades, and know what I'm doing, I can't... as a direct result of the stupidity of others.

THAT'S how laws and regulations work. I don't know what world you're living in where you think it's any different. So... I guess I'll have to buy that iceberg.
 
ProfessorStein said:
eckoner said:
So lets say i fly my Phantom into City Hall and hurt the mayor, he gets pissed and says no one can fly in the city of Los Angeles.
Ok so i live 3 mins away from LA borders. I go over to Culver City (Oh joy) But that will never happen.

No... no one cares about the mayor. ;-)
But you fly your Phantom over a park, and it loses power and crashes into a 6 year old kid... you better BELIEVE there will be a groundswell to shut all pilots down in that city, if not the county. Mothers are a force to be reckoned with... especially in local government. THAT'S a fact.

But let's pretend, like you did, that this happened in LA. And they inacted restrictions. You'd just take your copter to Culver City?? What if the subject you were really interested in shooting wasn't IN Culver City... but was in LA?? The restriction would start to affect you, right?

Like I said earlier... it depends on what you want to use your Phantom for.

eckoner said:
I can tell you this (IMO)
The Feds will never never never outright put a blanket ban on what we are doing and if you think so i got an iceberg for ya!
It will be left up to counties and individual organizations to rightfully so say yes you can or no you cannot fly that here.
To be honest with you i dont have a problem with that and i dont understand why anyone would.

I agree with you. I don't believe it will ever be a Federal issue (though it COULD be if some nut in Congress were to position a bill as if it's somehow a matter of "National security"... but that's pretty far-fetched). I never said the Feds would do anything. But enough local communities, cities and states start restricting drone pilots, you have nearly the same effect. While not officially a blanket ban, you won't be able to fly anywhere.

Why would anyone have a problem with that? You seriously can't see why? Like I said... what if I wanted/needed to shoot video in an area that has a ban? I'm SOL... unless I want to risk a fine... which I would not.

I guess the biggest problem I would have is knowing that the restrictions were likely the result of somebody else being stupid. It's like the idiots who dove off rocks near my house, not knowing what they were doing, until enough people got hurt that they now prohibit ANYONE from diving in that area. So even though I'd been diving there for decades, and know what I'm doing, I can't... as a direct result of the stupidity of others.

THAT'S how laws and regulations work. I don't know what world you're living in where you think it's any different. So... I guess I'll have to buy that iceberg.


If i own property and i dont want you to fly over why cant you see why i "could" have a problem with that?
People in Texas pass a bill making it ok to shoot them down if they are over your property (Not clear on details)
I dont see anything wrong with it as long as the pilot is being "responsible"

To get people to be "responsible" on this scale .....belittling one another and constantly preaching a Phantom doomsday will not do anything but make some of you seem pretty "crazy"

At the end of the day we will have regulation and you shady people out there will have to register and pay a fee. If you have a problem i will start a kickstarter myself just to help fund paying fee's for those who can afford a $1K UAV but cant afford a $50 reg fee.

Also you mention a "kid getting hit with a Phantom then a groundswell to shut all pilots down in the city"
;) :( Ohhh where do you live?

lol i mean seriously lol IDK i live in LA and i have actually seen a kid get hit with a Phantom ...ohhhhhhh i dont think you heard about that one right?

lol my point lol

dude there is just such a bigger world out there and i guess we come from different places and perhaps where we come from says a bit about our experiences flying and being out in the public.

I have never had a negative encounter with a person watching me fly!!!!! big city perhaps...this is old news in a way and for the most part they could care less. But i did travel to Denver weeks ago and experienced something very different and this conversation kinda clarifies things.

I think going forward we all look at this issue as "REGIONAL" so what might be ok for those in the UK or Dubai might just be a bit different than your town! ;)
 
eckoner said:
ProfessorStein said:
eckoner said:
So lets say i fly my Phantom into City Hall and hurt the mayor, he gets pissed and says no one can fly in the city of Los Angeles.
Ok so i live 3 mins away from LA borders. I go over to Culver City (Oh joy) But that will never happen.

No... no one cares about the mayor. ;-)
But you fly your Phantom over a park, and it loses power and crashes into a 6 year old kid... you better BELIEVE there will be a groundswell to shut all pilots down in that city, if not the county. Mothers are a force to be reckoned with... especially in local government. THAT'S a fact.

But let's pretend, like you did, that this happened in LA. And they inacted restrictions. You'd just take your copter to Culver City?? What if the subject you were really interested in shooting wasn't IN Culver City... but was in LA?? The restriction would start to affect you, right?

Like I said earlier... it depends on what you want to use your Phantom for.

eckoner said:
I can tell you this (IMO)
The Feds will never never never outright put a blanket ban on what we are doing and if you think so i got an iceberg for ya!
It will be left up to counties and individual organizations to rightfully so say yes you can or no you cannot fly that here.
To be honest with you i dont have a problem with that and i dont understand why anyone would.

I agree with you. I don't believe it will ever be a Federal issue (though it COULD be if some nut in Congress were to position a bill as if it's somehow a matter of "National security"... but that's pretty far-fetched). I never said the Feds would do anything. But enough local communities, cities and states start restricting drone pilots, you have nearly the same effect. While not officially a blanket ban, you won't be able to fly anywhere.

Why would anyone have a problem with that? You seriously can't see why? Like I said... what if I wanted/needed to shoot video in an area that has a ban? I'm SOL... unless I want to risk a fine... which I would not.

I guess the biggest problem I would have is knowing that the restrictions were likely the result of somebody else being stupid. It's like the idiots who dove off rocks near my house, not knowing what they were doing, until enough people got hurt that they now prohibit ANYONE from diving in that area. So even though I'd been diving there for decades, and know what I'm doing, I can't... as a direct result of the stupidity of others.

THAT'S how laws and regulations work. I don't know what world you're living in where you think it's any different. So... I guess I'll have to buy that iceberg.


If i own property and i dont want you to fly over why cant you see why i "could" have a problem with that?
I dont see anything wrong with it as long as the pilot is being "responsible"
lol shoot..People in Texas passed a bill making it ok to shoot them down if they are over your property (Not clear on details)

To get people to be "responsible" on this scale .....belittling one another and constantly preaching a Phantom doomsday will not do anything but make some of you seem pretty "crazy"

At the end of the day we will have regulation and you shady people out there will have to register and pay a fee. If you have a problem i will start a kickstarter myself just to help fund paying fee's for those who can afford a $1K UAV but cant afford a $50 reg fee.

Also you mention a "kid getting hit with a Phantom then a groundswell to shut all pilots down in the city"
;) :( Ohhh where do you live?

lol i mean seriously lol IDK i live in LA and i have actually seen a kid get hit with a Phantom ...ohhhhhhh i dont think you heard about that one right?

lol my point lol

dude there is just such a bigger world out there and i guess we come from different places and perhaps where we come from says a bit about our experiences flying and being out in the public.

I have never had a negative encounter with a person watching me fly!!!!! big city perhaps...this is old news in a way and for the most part they could care less. But i did travel to Denver weeks ago and experienced something very different and this conversation kinda clarifies things.

I think going forward we all look at this issue as "REGIONAL" so what might be ok for those in the UK or Dubai might just be a bit different than your town! ;)
 
Okay... we're just going around and around here. You seem to be stuck thinking that registration fees will somehow let us fly wherever. I'm saying it's bigger than that. Regulations can shut us down completely. If you don't care about that, I suppose that's your prerogative.

Apparently you also think I'm some naive, small-town hick inexperienced in the ways of this "big big world". Again, I suppose that's your prerogative.

But it's pretty obvious that you were never interested in people's opinions on this subject, as you said in your original post. You only wanted to argue with whoever disagreed with you. Again, absolutely your prerogative.

Just not something I'm interested in.
 
eckoner said:
Not really too much back story other than i see on other post;s and got a few myself of people saying i'm gonna ruin it for everyone.

My best friend who is a seargent for the LAPD who was out with me over the July 4th weekend flying called these guys a bunch of uneducated idiots because it seems the phrase is just echo'd without anyone actually reading the details of the offense they are refering to.

Thats just funny to me is all!
We understand but most citizens do not. You could almost replace 'drone' with 'gun' in most of these conversations and it would still make sense. It is a very volatile subject. So take guns for example, as soon as the news stories flow there is an uptick in protesting guns. Same with UAV's, the news is abuzz lately and it is getting more frequent. Why give the vultures anything to chew on? Play it cool, save that risky stuff for the 'back 40' and use common sense when flying. We need to be the good stewards of the hobby, not perpetuate the negative stereo types.
 
BigTulsa said:
Wedeliver said:
I take issue with the 400' elevation rule. Right next to where I live is a mountain, Timber Mountain. It is 1000' high and I am at the base. In order for an airplane to fly over Timber Mountain they must be over 1000' up in the air. I think this is an important issue. For instance. you go down into the Grand Canyon at some place where planes cannot fly. Should the 400' rule apply there? I have no idea if my thinking is correct, but it feels good and I am interested in the debate.

typically it's 400' AGL, not MSL, obviously.

Let me ask you this. If you need to fly your copter over a peak 1000' high, do you still have the vehicle within your line of sight? Or are you relying on FPV? I think that's part of the debate going on right now. Flying, regardless of whether it's private pilots or RC pilots, is about situational awareness. With FPV only, you simple cannot have the same situational awareness, and I think that is what us as hobbyists AND the FAA are hashing out. 20 years ago, we don't have this debate because the technology wasn't there to let just anyone fly these things like they are now.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm saying that's how it is right now. We have the power to affect the discussion, and some people are unknowingly skewing the discussion towards more stringent regulation.

I hear ya and I appreciate the debate since I learn all the time. Where I live as you can see from the videos I have posted the only thing I could crash if I flew fpv is the forest. I am not sure of the thinking behind there being a problem with fpv since it seems our military flies around the world unmanned aircraft, yet we have just blanket restrictions that sometimes don't seem to have a reason for being. I really don't have enough experience to speak at all on this subject, so perhaps I can explain my thinking and then someone will explain the why...thanks Also what about that person that put a camera on a balloon that went up a couple miles. What it wasn't that long ago, maybe the end of last year..
 
Wedeliver said:
BigTulsa said:
Wedeliver said:
I take issue with the 400' elevation rule. Right next to where I live is a mountain, Timber Mountain. It is 1000' high and I am at the base. In order for an airplane to fly over Timber Mountain they must be over 1000' up in the air. I think this is an important issue. For instance. you go down into the Grand Canyon at some place where planes cannot fly. Should the 400' rule apply there? I have no idea if my thinking is correct, but it feels good and I am interested in the debate.

typically it's 400' AGL, not MSL, obviously.

Let me ask you this. If you need to fly your copter over a peak 1000' high, do you still have the vehicle within your line of sight? Or are you relying on FPV? I think that's part of the debate going on right now. Flying, regardless of whether it's private pilots or RC pilots, is about situational awareness. With FPV only, you simple cannot have the same situational awareness, and I think that is what us as hobbyists AND the FAA are hashing out. 20 years ago, we don't have this debate because the technology wasn't there to let just anyone fly these things like they are now.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm saying that's how it is right now. We have the power to affect the discussion, and some people are unknowingly skewing the discussion towards more stringent regulation.

I hear ya and I appreciate the debate since I learn all the time. Where I live as you can see from the videos I have posted the only thing I could crash if I flew fpv is the forest. I am not sure of the thinking behind there being a problem with fpv since it seems our military flies around the world unmanned aircraft, yet we have just blanket restrictions that sometimes don't seem to have a reason for being. I really don't have enough experience to speak at all on this subject, so perhaps I can explain my thinking and then someone will explain the why...thanks Also what about that person that put a camera on a balloon that went up a couple miles. What it wasn't that long ago, maybe the end of last year..

There have been several people that I have heard of doing that but the most famous was this one:

[vimeo]15091562[/vimeo]

I'm sure he had prior permission since it was part of a school project. Although I cannot be for sure about that.
 
I remember that. Wether he went through the proper channels is unknown but you don't need FAA permission unless you go over 4 pounds, you only need to notify them and fill out a NOTAM. A 'notice to airmen' is filed for pilot safety.
 
LuvMyTJ said:
I remember that. Wether he went through the proper channels is unknown but you don't need FAA permission unless you go over 4 pounds, you only need to notify them and fill out a NOTAM. A 'notice to airmen' is filed for pilot safety.

So, if that school followed the "rules" a public notice would have been made. Can that "NOTAM" report be found on the internet?
Here is the website, but it is late and I can't finger it out to see if a report was filed.

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/
 
LuvMyTJ said:
Not to worry my friend, they followed the rules. I see by visiting their web site they even link to the FAA guidelines ---> http://brooklynspaceprogram.org/BSP/Book.html

Is there anyway we can use the rules to our advantage? Can we submit a flight plan like they did? I mean whats fair is fair, and I guess if getting permits would allow some really valuable, data gathering flights. But then I thought I read that the FAA is considering rules that make it illegal for a farmer to pay someone to use a quad to show him where the watering is working and where a little water adjustment might be needed. I cannot understand this, or is there some airplane or helicopter lobby that is going to loose income if quads are used. I can tell ya that down in the fields, those pilots that spray fly real low and fast. Is that part of the reasoning?
 
The rules for a powered UAV and an unmanned, uncontrolled balloon are vastly different so no permit exist for a UAV.
As far as the farmer question it has nothing to do with 1/1 scale dusters and everything to do with politics. They’ve also said using a UAV to determine whether crops need to be watered is not allowed if done as part of a commercial farming operation, but is allowable if the crops are grown for personal enjoyment. Sounds like politics to me. Click that link below for some interesting reading.

They have said this here --> http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

2r5c5t3.jpg
 
Thanks Big Tulsa for the space video. Never saw that one. Great project.
 
LuvMyTJ said:
The rules for a powered UAV and an unmanned, uncontrolled balloon are vastly different so no permit exist for a UAV.
As far as the farmer question it has nothing to do with 1/1 scale dusters and everything to do with politics. They’ve also said using a UAV to determine whether crops need to be watered is not allowed if done as part of a commercial farming operation, but is allowable if the crops are grown for personal enjoyment. Sounds like politics to me. Click that link below for some interesting reading.

They have said this here --> http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

2r5c5t3.jpg

Just to look specifically the rule about farmers and checking their crops. Doesn't that defy logic? Why is this rule there? It makes no sense. Even to debate this is difficult since I cannot for the life of me, think of the reason for the rule? Does anyone understand what the thinking is, why does it make any kind of difference why Farmer John is flying. Getting into our intent seems very strange and I would really be interested in an explanation as to why, if anyone knows?
 
Cause if you are going to make money off of it (crop increase due to water monitoring), so are they in the form of a registration or licensing. Everybody has to have their hand in your pocket don't cha know.
 
Wedeliver said:
Just to look specifically the rule about farmers and checking their crops. Doesn't that defy logic? Why is this rule there? It makes no sense. Even to debate this is difficult since I cannot for the life of me, think of the reason for the rule? Does anyone understand what the thinking is, why does it make any kind of difference why Farmer John is flying. Getting into our intent seems very strange and I would really be interested in an explanation as to why, if anyone knows?

Here's the FAA's current "logic":

  • If you use a Phantom to inspect your corn crop which you later eat, you're flying an RC model aircraft. Have fun!
  • If you use a Phantom to inspect your corn crop which you later sell, you're flying an actual aircraft. Get lost!
By actual aircraft, the FAA means part 91 which most often includes an airworthiness certificate, registration, safety equipment, transponder, VHF radio, pilot's license (medical, written exam, about 40 hours training as PIC, check ride).

The reason for the FAA's "logic" is that they have no rules that apply to commercial use of drones. So in a desperate attempt to fill the void, or more specifically to halt any activity until they actually define real regulations, they want you to think a Phantom is an actual airplane if someone gives you a dollar for using it.
 
eckoner said:
ProfessorStein said:
I guess it all depends on what you use your drone for. I bought mine as an aerial photography/videography platform. Flying in a designated area/field would be next to useless in that regard. It would essentially shut my hobby/parttime business down. So, yes, for me that's a HORRIBLE worst case scenario.

There are legit businesses in some states/cities (Here in LA at least) that have been flying and recording with drones legally for years.........lol this whole thing is not new lol

There is no such thing as legal commercial drone flying in the US. Even the ones that have legit insurance are flying illegally. I have been checking and even the companies that will cover you for liability will tell you that it is a gray area that the FAA can charge you with.

You may win in court, but it will cost you.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/01/faa-takes- ... ng-drones/
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic