Peter Patricelli said:
We have an honest difference of opinion.
I agree that "isolated instances of foolish behavior" will not draw a legal response (unless it brings down a commercial airliner full of people). Such behavior is already legally covered by general "reckless endangerment" and other non-specific laws about being a public nuisance or danger.
You are guessing that the size drone world and incidences of publicly annoying to dangerous and accident causing behavior will never rise to the level that the public/legal sector reacts with SPECIFIC limitations. I would point out that there is ALREADY a significant instance in which there HAS been a law passed.
The state of Texas just this year passed a law making it illegal for UAV to fly over or photograph private property WITHOUT specific permission. And that includes NON-commercial flying. LOTS of people would start getting upset and be very sensitive about drones carrying cameras flying over their homes and property, for good reason. One good case of thieves using a drone in a suburb to case out property and backyards would push the button hard.
It all depends on the FREQUENCY and egregiousness of the "isolated instances of foolish behavior". There is a threshold for both frequency and egregiousness (such as bringing down a commercial airliner) which would trigger specific laws and no-fly zones. You are suggesting that we not worry about where that threshold is. I am suggesting that we don't know where that threshold is and it is better to not push the issue...and find out. It IS on the public and lawmakers minds and the Texas law is a real, specific, and chilling example of that.
That may be; we may have a difference of opinion but I don't think it's THAT different. A couple of things I should point out...firstly, I am not in the U.S., I am in Canada. Our "sensitivities"to these sorts of things are MUCH mellower, generally speaking than those in the U.S.
Second: I spent almost four decades in the aviation industry. The possibility of interaction between any of the aircraft we operate in class G airspace and any type of full size aircraft can only occur within a couple of miles of an airport. Beyond that, it simply won't happen unless the full size aircraft is operating at an illegal altitude.
Even the largest quad is highly unlikely to be anywhere near a commercial jet. Even if it were possible, a commercial jet vs. a multi will not result in the full size aircraft being brought down. Will Not happen. Not even with the multi being directly ingested into an engine. There are lots of video online from the FAA and other agencies around the world where a variety of things have been thrown, dropped or fired into a jet engine...it's quite enlightening; they're much tougher than you may think.
there are a million "what if's" that we can say "what if___________________happened with someone flying a multi?" R/C? helicopters have been around for many years, with the same flight capabilities as multi's, yet they have not initiated a similar respsone that is so often described by the "gloom and doom" brigade. I'm not suggesting for a second that as a group we should go out with the intent of active civil disobedience and force the hand of legislators. What I am saying is paranoia is insidious, and it seems to creep into this "debate" with increasing frequency.
If we aren't careful, there will be no need for any regulating by the FAA or other entities; we'll self regulate our hobby into farm fields in the middle of nowhere...in the dark. After all, this video showing someone rather foolishly overloading a Phantom and dropping it into the water off the coast of Iceland has resulted in pages of debate over why this bit of nonsense will turn into another nail in the coffin of sport flying UAV's.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it seems to me that lately there seems to be far more posted in almost all the forums about how much longer we're going to be allowed to fly instead of active discussion of all aspects of the hobby, and it wears thin for me after a time