There is no lawbook to bring out lol!! That's the point! No laws to prohibit what ya'll AND I hate as unsafe flying. We're hobby flyers.............. we're "recommended" to stay below 400ft and not fly near airports and fly line-of-site. That's it, finito.
I hit the Max Height limit! 1654.2 FT!!!
- Thread starter Detroit
- Start date
- Status
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Hey ian...I found him 
And this is Pavlov
Learn something new here every day !
And this is Pavlov
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
They got em at the nervous hospitalDo you have anything that shows the skeleton of a horse that was beaten repeatedly for many many months to no avail? It's why I loathe this thread so very much. Must stay away!
Hey ian...I found him
And this is Pavlov View attachment 25611 Learn something new here every day !
View attachment 25613
Gotta give Dirk a solid 10 for that one.
I guess you young guys can't grasp that we can be on the same side and still disagree on some things. BTW, I'm 60.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Yeah, I gathered. lols, exclamation marks, numerous emotis, copious painful internet memes - it's nice you guys are reliving your childhood. Live it up!!!!!!!!
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
YES, honestly i think you are an idiot.....people like you result in FAA and "other regulations"/limitations for our regular flyers who enjoy it as a hobby.
Great, keep it up - one of these days they are going to ban UAV's due to this irresponsible behavior and then I want to hear you complain. - you will probably have the biggest mouth complaining.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
I think what you meant to say is, "They are called guidelines. Not laws/regulations." The guideline does suggest limits. And you're correct. Those guidelines aren't laws or regulations.
Yet.
Two things I am pretty sure of.
1. The FAA is keeping a close eye on drones with their proliferation by so many people.
2. When the guidelines are ignored, the FAA will convert them to regulations and likely, make them more encompassing and limiting. It will take just ONE incident where an aircraft is brought down by a UAV with the resulting loss of life and there will be VERY strict laws put in place.
Realistically, one of these DJI Phantoms wouldn't likely cause a large fixed wing aircraft to crash. However, the same cannot be said about rotary wing aircraft. The faster a fixed wing aircraft is flying, the more damage will result. Also, the more incidents that are reported by the media which depicts close calls with airliners carrying hundreds of people will cause the general public to scream for limitations.
The outlawing of drones simply will not happen. That doesn't meet the common sense litmus test. However, laws and regulations can become so restrictive that drones aren't anywhere near as fun. I personally disagree with the FAA suggestion that all UAV's must remain in LOS. If you have the ability for FPV, like we do, then that should be a caveat. Once again, I'll stress that once the FAA is forced to make regulations, that FPV capability will very likely not be taken into consideration.
Finally, it's all fine and good that people say they have spotters. Aircraft moving at a high rate of speed makes that point moot because the spotters have no idea where the UAV is. The pilot has such limited visual cues with the UAV that he/she is just as likely to fly INTO the path of an oncoming aircraft as avoiding it. I can go on and on about why UAV pilots who think they're being safe flying at high altitudes is a very false sense of security, but as it is, I doubt many people will read this as it's already long.
Does that help you define what SHOULD be common sense, responsible flight?
We're in agreement on #1.
On #2, however, the FAA can't just "make rules". First, by law, rules have to be proposed, then a public comment period is opened, then the rules are finalized. This normally takes a few years. The Part 107 rules, on the other hand are moving at an unprecedented bureaucratic light-speed. Second, the FAA is constrained by Congress in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 from making any rules for model aircraft operation. the FAA can't do anything about hobby flight without permission from Congress.
We're in agreement on LOS. However, when Part 107 rules for commercial use of small UAS are finalized, it appears that hobby use of FPV will be illegal. Few people seem to have noticed this.
On high altitude flight - there are many parts of the USA that rarely have any aircraft overflights. (One of the selection criteria for the FAA UAS test areas was that there were no VFR or IFR routes over them). Where I live in Central Massachusetts, I can go weeks without seeing a single aircraft in the air. (Unfortunately for pilots, Massachusetts has the lowest number of airports per-capita than any other US state.) The odds of my drone and the rare occurrence of a manned aircraft in the same part of the immensely huge airspace is infinitesimal. I never fly above 400 ft anyway, but there are no FAA rules that say I can't. That's my point - there are no rules saying I can't fly over 400 ft. Just because YOU don't think that flight over 400 ft meets YOUR definition of common sense does not give you or anyone else the right ask the moderators to censure posts about flights that violate YOUR limits.
- Status
Similar threads
