Presidential Candidates' Views on Recreational Drones?

Joined
Sep 22, 2016
Messages
499
Reaction score
151
Location
Warm & sunny Southern California
I'm not referring to military drones, but what do we know about the U.S. presidential candidates' views on recreational or commercial drones?
 
It is a very important question that deserves a well measured answer, and while everyone agrees freedom is important we have to weigh the responsibility of the public safety and make reasonable and common sense decisions.
 
With all the issues in the US your really not going to base your decision on that are you?


ATP, CFII, MEI, RPO
Part 121, 135, and 91 Corporate Pilot
30 years of exploration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cfd701
With all the issues in the US your really not going to base your decision on that are you?


ATP, CFII, MEI, RPO
Part 121, 135, and 91 Corporate Pilot
30 years of exploration.


I guess it depends on where your priorities are, just how much $$ you have invested, and if you're doing it for hobby or as a dedicated full-time business. These criteria could very well sway how important the issue really is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoCalDude
Does not matter... the President is not involved in such matters. It's the FAA, land owners/managers and local idiots who matter.

The President can issue executive orders to any agency directing their rules and regulations, unless said rules and regulations are actual law. Once that EO is issued it can take years in court to have it removed.

Since the parameters for the 107 aren't part of law (the dictate is as I understand it) they could be changed by an EO without you having a chance to sneeze first.

I think it is a very relevant thing to people who care about flying UAS.
 
The President can issue executive orders to any agency directing their rules and regulations, unless said rules and regulations are actual law. Once that EO is issued it can take years in court to have it removed.

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (issued by the Senate), which governs UAV's in the air.

Since the parameters for the 107 aren't part of law (the dictate is as I understand it) they could be changed by an EO without you having a chance to sneeze first.
Part 107 only applies to commercial use. Why take action against a small minority and not all UAV use in general? It makes no sense for the President to do this.

I think it is a very relevant thing to people who care about flying UAS.
If attempting to regulate UAV private UAV use is _anywhere_ on the President's radar, we have bigger issues.

The FAA is _already_ in charge of UAVs. There is simply no reason for a President to become involved in such a small matter.
 
The FAA is _already_ in charge of UAVs. There is simply no reason for a President to become involved in such a small matter.

And yet they could. Politicians will pander to their constituents simply to look like they are doing something. Never underestimate what any politician will do, or where they might turn their focus.
 
And yet they could. Politicians will pander to their constituents simply to look like they are doing something. Never underestimate what any politician will do, or where they might turn their focus.

As mentioned above, Senate passed a law governing UAVs. You have stated that the President cannot pass an EO against exiting laws. UAV's are an extremely small "issue" that has _already_ been dealt with, there is no indication from any person running that they would do anything on the matter (even if they could) and no actions have ever been taken by a President om UAVs.

I guess he/she "could" try. But I think we might want to look at the obvious nature of the answer, that the President is not involved in such matters.
 
It's not just the candidates opinion of drones - it's the congress's opinions. They hold the law making ability. I can see some presidents saying OMG we have to stop that terrorist tool!!! (and cell phones, and pressure cookers, and bacpacs, and BB guns, and big knifes, and and and). It's the climate of we are going to wrap our arms around you poor innocent beings so that no one can ever hurt you.... 1984. So, yes -- basing my vote on something this "trivial" would be silly; but basing my vote on the mind set that made something this trivial just one more match to the fire is not so silly.
But that's just me...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,029
Messages
1,467,075
Members
104,899
Latest member
Zayndart5