Registration Requires Intent to Fly VLOS Only!

Status
Not open for further replies.
It will be interesting to see how well that logic holds up once a drone/aircraft collision kills a few people. I sure would not wanna be the guy making that argument in court.
You keep repeating this opinion. It hasn't happened yet, and imho is not likely to happen. You're just repeating the media fear-mongering line.
 
While I know you won't do this, it would be interesting to see what the FAA would say if you ran this by them. I'm pretty sure they would not agree with what you're saying.
We all know that this registration is just a feel good measure which will not accomplish the intended goal of stopping rogue pilots doing stupid things like flying over airports, fires, and stadiums. They simply won't register. There are FAA Rules and FAA Safety Guidelines. The former are compulsory, and the latter are merely safety guidelines. As long as you are not flying recklessly, after you register, the VLOS is an "ask" and not a mandate! YMMV, but there is certainly no reason at all to register any sooner than February 19th. Even the AMA agrees with me here, as much as It pains me to agree with them about anything! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParsnipHysorter
It is pretty humorous hearing people espouse their very uneducated opinions as fact. As a commercial multi engine pilot, instrument rated, certified flight instructor for both aircraft and instrument flight, and a certified A&P mechanic, I have dealt with the FAA and the NTSB on multiple occasions. I have been involved with an aircraft accident and gone through a full NTSB investigation into the accident. You guys can interpret all you like, thinking you somehow have some idea how things work. The FAA controls all airspace in the US. If they choose to go after you, rest assured that if you are operating any type of aircraft, drone or otherwise, in violation of any of their regulations, you will end up spending a ton of money defending yourself. And if you have acted recklessly (read violated one of their regulations, or non-laws as you like to refer to them), you will pay one way or the other. And if it some how does end up that someone's high paid lawyer does find a loophole to save the ******* that kills someone, you can count on the fact that the laws will be changed rapidly and things will get very bad for our group very quickly. That's the part that the reckless, I'll do what I want, when I want and how I want crowd does not get. Cause of course, they know they are being safe flying their drone 10,000 feet away....just because they say so. And so it goes.....


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
It is pretty humorous hearing people espouse their very uneducated opinions as fact. As a commercial multi engine pilot, instrument rated, certified flight instructor for both aircraft and instrument flight, and a certified A&P mechanic, I have dealt with the FAA and the NTSB on multiple occasions. I have been involved with an aircraft accident and gone through a full NTSB investigation into the accident. You guys can interpret all you like, thinking you somehow have some idea how things work. The FAA controls all airspace in the US. If they choose to go after you, rest assured that if you are operating any type of aircraft, drone or otherwise, in violation of any of their regulations, you will end up spending a ton of money defending yourself. And if you have acted recklessly (read violated one of their regulations, or non-laws as you like to refer to them), you will pay one way or the other. And if it some how does end up that someone's high paid lawyer does find a loophole to save the ******* that kills someone, you can count on the fact that the laws will be changed rapidly and things will get very bad for our group very quickly. That's the part that the reckless, I'll do what I want, when I want and how I want crowd does not get. Cause of course, they know they are being safe flying their drone 10,000 feet away....just because they say so. And so it goes.....


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Your reasoning is sound, and most here agree. What you don't need to do is exaggerate the aircraft/drone collision theory. We've been hearing that for 2 years now. It hasn't happened. The rest of your posts I agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParsnipHysorter
So if I outfit my bird with a strobe light (one strong enough to be visible even in daylight), and I can see it even when I'm out 10,000 feet, I'm legally still within VLOS?
 
Your reasoning is sound, and most here agree. What you don't need to do is exaggerate the aircraft/drone collision theory. We've been hearing that for 2 years now. It hasn't happened. The rest of your posts I agree with.
It's a numbers game. This Christmas season I would venture more drones that are capable of being a problem were sold than were already in use 6 months ago. It's exploding as performance and capabilities increase (by which I mean little skill is needed to fly it), coupled with falling prices (a long with a few unfortunate phantoms with battery issues). It will only continue, and the numbers will soar. It's not really a matter of if it will happen, but when it will happen. I believe we will see a fatality due to incursion into airspace where it should not be within the next two years. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. And the reason? DJI and other manufacturers can try to make these things idiot proof. They will have to, at the direction of their lawyers. But history has shown us that idiots are a creative lot, and not to be underestimated.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
Again, that's why your should have a spotter. I know most don't, but not liking the truth doesn't change it.
What truth are you talking about? FAA does not specify you should have a spotter. In fact if you read the document I l linked they specifically forbid it -- instead saying the pilot should have line of sight at all times. If the pilot has line of sight then why do you say there should be a spotter? By saying you should have a spotter you are suggesting the pilot doesn't need LOS and therefore encouraging people to ignore FAA guidelines. What's up with that?
 
Common sense is so uncommon. You will, of course, do as you will, with no concern or care for others. There is no point continuing a discussion with someone who has made up their mind that they are right, just because. Happy flying. I hope you never have to live with the burden of having your arrogance kill someone.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Common sense is so uncommon. You will, of course, do as you will, with no concern or care for others. There is no point continuing a discussion with someone who has made up their mind that they are right, just because. Happy flying. I hope you never have to live with the burden of having your arrogance kill someone.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Chill Francis
You don't want to continue in the discussion than stop :)
Use your common sense
 
Common sense is so uncommon. You will, of course, do as you will, with no concern or care for others. There is no point continuing a discussion with someone who has made up their mind that they are right, just because. Happy flying. I hope you never have to live with the burden of having your arrogance kill someone.
That's kind of ironic because your opinions struck me as coming from a person trying to take the moral high road, convinced beyond reason you are right, while espousing emotional and unsubstantiated arguments.
 
It is pretty humorous hearing people espouse their very uneducated opinions as fact. As a commercial multi engine pilot, instrument rated, certified flight instructor for both aircraft and instrument flight, and a certified A&P mechanic, I have dealt with the FAA and the NTSB on multiple occasions. I have been involved with an aircraft accident and gone through a full NTSB investigation into the accident. You guys can interpret all you like, thinking you somehow have some idea how things work. The FAA controls all airspace in the US. If they choose to go after you, rest assured that if you are operating any type of aircraft, drone or otherwise, in violation of any of their regulations, you will end up spending a ton of money defending yourself. And if you have acted recklessly (read violated one of their regulations, or non-laws as you like to refer to them), you will pay one way or the other. And if it some how does end up that someone's high paid lawyer does find a loophole to save the ******* that kills someone, you can count on the fact that the laws will be changed rapidly and things will get very bad for our group very quickly. That's the part that the reckless, I'll do what I want, when I want and how I want crowd does not get. Cause of course, they know they are being safe flying their drone 10,000 feet away....just because they say so. And so it goes.....


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
No disagreement here either. What you fail to grasp is that there are currently no FAA Regulations for hobbyists except for no reckless flying, and the "I intend to follow the Safety Guidelines" checkbox during registration is not an FAA Regulation, nor is it binding. If the FAA had the authority to make it binding, they would have made it, "I agree that failure to follow all the safety guidelines at all times will be deemed reckless flying." Flying recklessly has always been illegal, and was specifically excluded from the entire discussion by me in the original post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParsnipHysorter
It's a numbers game. This Christmas season I would venture more drones that are capable of being a problem were sold than were already in use 6 months ago. It's exploding as performance and capabilities increase (by which I mean little skill is needed to fly it), coupled with falling prices (a long with a few unfortunate phantoms with battery issues). It will only continue, and the numbers will soar. It's not really a matter of if it will happen, but when it will happen. I believe we will see a fatality due to incursion into airspace where it should not be within the next two years. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. And the reason? DJI and other manufacturers can try to make these things idiot proof. They will have to, at the direction of their lawyers. But history has shown us that idiots are a creative lot, and not to be underestimated.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
99% of the drones sold during the Christmas season will be crashed by January 1. The rest will learn to fly responsibly or crash, too, into a tree, a house, or into the ground. Darwinism at work. Survival of the fittest. It's not the 2 pound drones that are flying over airports at 6,000 feet, or over fires. It's model aircraft that are DIY kits that weigh over 55 pounds that are more similar the the typical AMA craft or $5,000 multirotors. The vast majority of the drones sold for Christmas have a limited 300 foot range. None of those are creating a problem for real aircraft.
 
So if I outfit my bird with a strobe light (one strong enough to be visible even in daylight), and I can see it even when I'm out 10,000 feet, I'm legally still within VLOS?
Works for me! Make one, and I'll buy it! :p Those pilots will claim we're blinding them though....:rolleyes: First they can't see us, now they can see us, but they can't see anything else! We can't win! :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParsnipHysorter
Where we disagree is on the definition of reckless. You see, a jury will decide that. Not you or I. And at 2 miles, where you probably won't even be able to see the small, two person air craft, let alone your drone, a jury will, most likely call that reckless. Why am I so adamant on this issue? Because I came very close to killing myself and two passengers in a small aircraft accident. It would take too long to go through the long narrative of what happened, but bottom line the finding was that even though I did not break any specific FAR, I , as the PIC (pilot in command) was responsible for the safety of my plane and passengers. We crashed doing night touch and go landings and take offs as part of their flight training. I was the flight instructor. A thunderstorm more than 7 miles away caused an unseen severe downdraft and caused us to crash at the approach end of the runway. I did not get convicted of breaking any FARs, and did not loose my pilot license or instructor license, but that didn't stop the civil lawsuits that followed due to injuries. Tens of thousands of dollars later I won the civil suit. So where is this going? Bottom line is you can be in a situation where you don't break any laws but it still costs you a ton. You don't want to give them anything to use against you. And I just can't find a way that anyone will be able to say with a straight face in a court room that flying your recreational drone 10,000 feet or more away from you is anything but reckless, especially when the FAA recommends it remain within VLOS. Any half competent lawyer will have a great time playing that up big time. Shall vs should vs whatever won't matter. And the end result when it happens once or twice will be a butt load of new regulations, or the outright banning of MRs for recreational use, or perhaps limiting them to AMA airfields only. Lord knows our wonderful government loves to take away in a knee jerk manner anytime they can. And the unlucky examples will probably face at a minimum bankruptcy, or worse jail time.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blessed77
Ok, back on topic. Whether or not you register, the FAA safety guidelines still apply, and anyone that causes an accident and is operating in violation of those guidelines will find themselves more problems, legal problems both criminal and civil than if they are following them. So don't believe the premise of this topic, i.e. That it's morally ok and legal to fly your drone outside of VLOS or above 400 ft AGL just because you have not yet registered with the FAA.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Flying beyond VLOS has been legal ever since hobbyist drones have been sold, and the only FAA Regulation that has applied to hobbyists is no reckless flying. The current registration requirement has not changed the definition of reckless flying, and nothing relating to registration applies to anyone who has flown their drone prior to Dec 21, 2015 until February 19, 2016. Safety Guidelines are not FAA Regulations. You should know that by now. :rolleyes: Until one registers, one has not even agreed to "intend" to follow any safety guidelines. In the mean time, one only has to not fly recklessly to be in full FAA compliance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParsnipHysorter
Where we disagree is on the definition of reckless. You see, a jury will decide that. Not you or I. And at 2 miles, where you probably won't even be able to see the small, two person air craft, let alone your drone, a jury will, most likely call that reckless. Why am I so adamant on this issue? Because I came very close to killing myself and two passengers in a small aircraft accident. It would take too long to go through the long narrative of what happened, but bottom line the finding was that even though I did not break any specific FAR, I , as the PIC (pilot in command) was responsible for the safety of my plane and passengers. We crashed doing night touch and go landings and take offs as part of their flight training. I was the flight instructor. A thunderstorm more than 7 miles away caused an unseen severe downdraft and caused us to crash at the approach end of the runway. I did not get convicted of breaking any FARs, and did not loose my pilot license or instructor license, but that didn't stop the civil lawsuits that followed due to injuries. Tens of thousands of dollars later I won the civil suit. So where is this going? Bottom line is you can be in a situation where you don't break any laws but it still costs you a ton. You don't want to give them anything to use against you. And I just can't find a way that anyone will be able to say with a straight face in a court room that flying your recreational drone 10,000 feet or more away from you is anything but reckless, especially when the FAA recommends it remain within VLOS. Any half competent lawyer will have a great time playing that up big time. Shall vs should vs whatever won't matter. And the end result when it happens once or twice will be a butt load of new regulations, or the outright banning of MRs for recreational use, or perhaps limiting them to AMA airfields only. Lord knows our wonderful government loves to take away in a knee jerk manner anytime they can. And the unlucky examples will probably face at a minimum bankruptcy, or worse jail time.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
Two entirely different issues. Civil liabilty, and FAA culpability. I'll take my chances on the civil liability. As to the FAA culpability, their Safety Guidelines are no Safe Harbor if you were still flying recklessly, and a lack of following any one Safety Guideline does not establish recklessness by itself, or the FAA would have deemed it so. It's only the VLOS "guideline" and the inarticulateness of "above 400 feet” guideline that I take issue with. The FAA only cares about AGL, so why didn't they state 400 feet AGL, instead of "above 400 feet" which DJI GO uses as measured above the launch point, which is useless if you fly over steeply ascending or steeply descending terrain. Over the former, you'll run into the side of the hill. Over the latter, and you are quickly over 400 feet AGL. These so called safety guidelines do more to add confusion than to add clarity to already murky waters, and they certainly aren't binding if you only have to "intend' to follow them at the moment of checking the box during registration. It's hardly an agreement. It's more of a contract of adhesion. They tell you it's easy and free to register if you do it now, but then you find out at the very end you have to agree to "intend" to follow their Safety Guidelines to complete the registration process, and you still have to pay $5 with your credit card to register. That's underhanded and sneaky, and feels more like buying a timeshare, than registering with the FAA. Shame on the FAA for lying to all of us! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Whatever. You have answer for everything and are a master of justifying your own bad behavior. You obviously will do whatever you please as the concept of rules, let alone common sense, clearly don't apply to you.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Possible? Sure. Practical? No way... sure if you know EXACTLY where to look you might see a white object 18" in diameter.

If you are really, truly following the letter of the "guidance" you are limited to 300-400 feet maximum distance. Keep in sight, at all times, no exceptions: So if I look down and then look up and try to find my P3 in the sky, and it takes me 5-10 seconds to re-acquire it with my vision, am I still in compliance with this guideline? What if it takes me 1-2 minutes? 300-400 feet max... Enjoy flying in your yard.
Sounds more like flying over a boring AMA Flying field. Coincidence? I think not! :eek: If the AMA had their way, we'd all be registered by the AMA, flying in their AMA flying fields, under all AMA Flying Rules required for AMA Insurance, and paying AMA dues, while they would still themselves be exempt from FAA registration while flying their Model Aircraft! No wonder they are ticked off at the FAA! They all now have to register, too! :p

Whatever. You have answer for everything and are a master of justifying your own bad behavior. You obviously will do whatever you please as the concept of rules, let alone common sense, clearly don't apply to you.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
And you clearly want to hijack this thread with your own off topic agenda!
The issue at hand is whether P3P and P3A owners intend to give up their existing legal FPV flying ability and intend to strictly fly by VLOS after registering.

No one asked for your opinion about flying beyond VLOS. It was actually prohibited in the original post, but you violated it anyway! Why should anyone listen to you about your concept of rules, when you have flagrantly and repeatedly violated the rules I established, as the OP, for this thread to keep people like you from hijacking it?:rolleyes:
 
Because, as I stated earlier, you clearly feel that you somehow have the right to control the conversation that clearly is on topic, but isn't heading in the direction that you want it to go. So, you pitch a fit, report imagined infractions, and generally throw a temper tantrum that any two year old would be quite proud of. Well done sir!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Status
Not open for further replies.

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31