We knew it would happen...now it has

[N017RW]

It doesn’t matter. They are going to print new books to throw at whoever was flying it. This is the example anti uav people have been waiting for.

You mean anti-irresponsible operators.

Drones are here to stay.

Find a new boogeyman.

 

[YogiFlyer]

You mean anti-irresponsible operators.

Drones are here to stay.

Find a new boogeyman.

Nope...I pretty much meant what I said. There are people out there who hate UAVs and are looking for every excuse they can to outlaw them. It is irresponsible users like this one that give these people the ammunition they need to go to Congress, the FAA, or local/state leaders and say, “See, I told you those drones were bad. Let’s get rid of them.”

I’m not saying they will win. I’m just saying an example like this is bad for all of us.

 

[macoman]

Nope...I pretty much meant what I said. There are people out there who hate UAVs and are looking for every excuse they can to outlaw them. It is irresponsible users like this one that give these people the ammunition they need to go to Congress, the FAA, or local/state leaders and say, “See, I told you those drones were bad. Let’s get rid of them.”

I’m not saying they will win. I’m just saying an example like this is bad for all of us.

They can do anything they wish to do but one thing is certainly... they will need to fight the big drone businesses first and these are already lobbying the congress and the senate... similar to the RNA... not one can fight the RNA.

 

[YogiFlyer]

They can do anything they wish to do but one thing is certainly... they will need to fight the big drone businesses first and these are already lobbying the congress and the senate... similar to the RNA... not one can fight the RNA.

Which big drone business?? DJI? You think a Chinese company gives a flying flip about the laws here?? They aren’t lobbying anyone on our behalf. The industry does not yet have a powerful enough lobbying arm to fight bad laws. Look at all the examples of bad local/state laws we are seeing. Even Congress has a bill pending that will give cities/states some powers to regulate drone use up to 200 feet.

And who the heck is the RNA???

 

[pomonabill220]

RNA????? who dat?
You mean the NRA?

 

[N017RW]

Nope...I pretty much meant what I said. There are people out there who hate UAVs and are looking for every excuse they can to outlaw them. It is irresponsible users like this one that give these people the ammunition they need to go to Congress, the FAA, or local/state leaders and say, “See, I told you those drones were bad. Let’s get rid of them.”

I’m not saying they will win. I’m just saying an example like this is bad for all of us.

Please list these haters looking to outlaw their responsible use.

 

[BigAl07]

Contrary to what we think/feel there are no Big $$ lobbyist at work for the UAS Industry. Just a few years ago we had that (well technically the AMA did) and this is how we got such a screwed up set of laws & regulations for the UAS.

I can assure you of one thing... the first time Commercial Airlines see a decline in ticket sales because John Q.Public is afraid of UAS we will see a new degree of regulations/restrictions that will shock us all. The amount of Big $$ behind Commercial Airlines is mind boggling.

We think/feel/hope we are big fish in this pond but in reality we are just baby fish or less.

 

[macoman]

Contrary to what we think/feel there are no Big $$ lobbyist at work for the UAS Industry. Just a few years ago we had that (well technically the AMA did) and this is how we got such a screwed up set of laws & regulations for the UAS.

I can assure you of one thing... the first time Commercial Airlines see a decline in ticket sales because John Q.Public is afraid of UAS we will see a new degree of regulations/restrictions that will shock us all. The amount of Big $$ behind Commercial Airlines is mind boggling.

We think/feel/hope we are big fish in this pond but in reality we are just baby fish or less.

Not really the commercial airlines but more from helicopters manufacturers. Drones have a direct impact in the helicopter camera tv business, inspection of electrical towers, bridges, etc. Drones are clearly the future and helicopters will continue to operate but at a less capacity than before.

 

[anotherlab]

Nope...I pretty much meant what I said. There are people out there who hate UAVs and are looking for every excuse they can to outlaw them. It is irresponsible users like this one that give these people the ammunition they need to go to Congress, the FAA, or local/state leaders and say, “See, I told you those drones were bad. Let’s get rid of them.”

I’m not saying they will win. I’m just saying an example like this is bad for all of us.

There are enough commercial companies with interest in using sUAVS that they will not be banned. They are a disruptive technology and it will take some time before public attitude and regulations settle.

 

[YogiFlyer]

There are enough commercial companies with interest in using sUAVS that they will not be banned. They are a disruptive technology and it will take some time before public attitude and regulations settle.

Which is pretty much my point. This is all so new, the laws are just now catching up. But make no mistake about it, there are thousands of places across the country where flying these things are banned. Most of these laws are local/state. Heck, even the National Park Service bans them. Perhaps for good reason. The problem is there is no one out there (yet) fighting any of these laws. The FAA doesn't care...Congress doesn't care about anything but themselves, and few are showing up at local city council meetings arguing for the industry. I'm not saying these laws are legal. They just aren't being challenged...and incidents like this feed the fear and encourage particularly local leaders to make their own laws. Can you imagine if this had hit a civilian helicopter? It probably would have caused it to crash. Military helicopters are armored and although it did some damage, it wasn't catastrophic.

The incident boils down to irresponsible use, which prompts lawmakers to make more laws and more regulations. Amazon or Google be damned in the face of any accident that should ever cause a death. Neither of those companies have enough cash to drowned out the public outcry should a UAV take out a passenger jet. This is why all of us have a responsibility to educate not only those who might purchase one, but the public as well. No, they aren't bad...and yes, I think it will all settle down.

I never said they would be banned nationwide. But there is also no guaranteed right to operate one either. Should another accident occur, especially if it causes any death or injury, I wouldn't be surprised to see "hobbyist" outlawed completely...or at least required to take a test and get a license just as commercial operators do today. Personally, I think it should be that way anyway. If operated irresponsibly, the results can make for a really bad day.

 

[sar104]

Which is pretty much my point. This is all so new, the laws are just now catching up. But make no mistake about it, there are thousands of places across the country where flying these things are banned. Most of these laws are local/state. Heck, even the National Park Service bans them. Perhaps for good reason. The problem is there is no one out there (yet) fighting any of these laws. The FAA doesn't care...Congress doesn't care about anything but themselves, and few are showing up at local city council meetings arguing for the industry. I'm not saying these laws are legal. They just aren't being challenged...and incidents like this feed the fear and encourage particularly local leaders to make their own laws. Can you imagine if this had hit a civilian helicopter? It probably would have caused it to crash. Military helicopters are armored and although it did some damage, it wasn't catastrophic.

The incident boils down to irresponsible use, which prompts lawmakers to make more laws and more regulations. Amazon or Google be damned in the face of any accident that should ever cause a death. Neither of those companies have enough cash to drowned out the public outcry should a UAV take out a passenger jet. This is why all of us have a responsibility to educate not only those who might purchase one, but the public as well. No, they aren't bad...and yes, I think it will all settle down.

I never said they would be banned nationwide. But there is also no guaranteed right to operate one either. Should another accident occur, especially if it causes any death or injury, I wouldn't be surprised to see "hobbyist" outlawed completely...or at least required to take a test and get a license just as commercial operators do today. Personally, I think it should be that way anyway. If operated irresponsibly, the results can make for a really bad day.

What could certainly happen is that Congress rethinks its decision to prevent the FAA from regulating recreational flying, and if incidents continue to happen then I doubt that the AMA will have enough clout to head that off.

 

[BigAl07]

What could certainly happen is that Congress rethinks its decision to prevent the FAA from regulating recreational flying, and if incidents continue to happen then I doubt that the AMA will have enough clout to head that off.

BINGO!

I seriously doubt the AMA would fight it at this point. It would be a tough (aka expensive) fight and I don't think lobbyist would be successful like they were in 2012.

 

[Boarhogone]

Isis Drone impact with military helicopter

 

[Boarhogone]

Saw the damage on the helicopter on tv. Looks real folks

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I grew up on Staten Island just a few miles from Midland Beach. There's always a lot of aerial activity in the area, especially during the warmer weather. If I recall Class B airspace starts at 1600 AGL and E airspace at 700' all along the east shore. There are also several Victor Airways and low level routes in the location as well. I know any time there is a large gathering at the UN the entire Class B ring to include Newark, Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports rolls into a giant TFR. This isn't fake news or anti-drone news. I believe this happened and the person responsible should pay dearly.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Cuss me if you like, but one thing that should have already happened is ALL manned aircraft be 1500 feet or higher unless landing or taking off. I live well away from any airport- however, occasionally military helicopters come out of no where fling very low and not much over tree top level and at full tilt. Actually its a little scary at times because the time you have from hearing to appearing is a few seconds. Manned aircraft have the right away, I know, I know, I know. But were is the common since because every pilot should know there are UAV fling everywhere now.

 

[jwmcgrath]

I struggle so much with writing that seems as though it was conjured by/for 12 yr olds that they undermine any credibility they MAY have had when they wrote the article.

Drones are “smashing” and “slamming”, and flying 20’, yes FEET, below commercial airliners... guys are “busted” and “nabbed”... align your sensationalism and you might approach credibility.

 

[tcope]

You think a Chinese company gives a flying flip about the laws here??

They have a presence in CA so they are subject to US laws. They also make millions from US customers each year. They also voluntarily sit on several governmental boards to give input as to how drone regulations should move forward. They _very much_ have a BIG part in this.

 

[N017RW]

+1 tcope.

Not to mention NFZs, FCC compliance, etc.

 

[YogiFlyer]

They have a presence in CA so they are subject to US laws. They also make millions from US customers each year. They also voluntarily sit on several governmental boards to give input as to how drone regulations should move forward. They _very much_ have a BIG part in this.

As soon as you read the rest of my post and place this statement within the context with which it was intended, let me know.