We knew it would happen...now it has

[N017RW]

Well you could explain your 'context'.
Maybe it's not clear beyond your grey-matter. In reading some of your other posts you appear a bit 'loose with the facts'.
But this is only one man's opinion.

 

[YogiFlyer]

Well you could explain your 'context'.
Maybe it's not clear beyond your grey-matter. In reading some of your other posts you appear a bit 'loose with the facts'.
But this is only one man's opinion.

In situations like this, I would typically speak slower. Unfortunately, I can't type slower. If you read...you'll understand most everyone here is talking about local/state laws. Not federal. Yes, DJI is voluntarily involved with several industry councils/commissions that help influence at the federal level. My guess is they providing technical details on what restrictions they can, or cannot put on one of their products rather than making any real recommendation on what the laws should say. But that's not what I was talking about at all. So...is the context a bit clearer for you??? DJI doesn't give a flying flip about our local/state laws and that appears to be where all the bad laws are coming from. I'm quite sure I used those words in the first post, but if you need to take time to read it again, I would encourage you to do so. As several have stated here, there are no big $$ advocates for US...the PILOTS! Context any clearer?? Read the posts again if you'd like.

I'm moderately pleased with what the FAA has done with Part 107, although it needs some improvements. So, my arguments having really nothing to do with the FAA at all, nor does it have anything to do with the "voluntary" councils that are being formed to advise the FAA and other federal leaders. I fear the selective reading syndrome has struck again with some users here.

 

[N017RW]

Local laws, when applied to airspace, are being struck down.
Property rights are not the within the the FAA's jurisdiction.

No toy drone advocacy group will have any influence on property sovereignty laws be it personal, state, or federal.

So why should DJI burn any calories trying to influence such?

 

[YogiFlyer]

Local laws, when applied to airspace, are being struck down.
Property rights are not the within the the FAA's jurisdiction.

No toy drone advocacy group will have any influence on property sovereignty laws be it personal, state, or federal.

So why should DJI burn any calories trying to influence such?

DING! DING! DING! That's exactly my point. Local laws only get struck down when someone challenges them. Unfortunately, not many are being challenged, and sometimes no one even knows they need to be challenged. That's the ENTIRE point of my post!!! There is no advocacy group acting to challenge these bad laws, some that even encroach on the FAA jurisdiction. Others have tried to argue here that big drone business (ex. DJI and others) are here to help us. They are here to help their pocketbooks...nothing more. They will NEVER get involved with local/state laws. EVER! They don't care....these big businesses only care about making sure the laws don't prohibit them selling a bazillion of their latest product. And cozy up to those leaders by writing in things like NFZs and other restrictions. (Not that I necessarily disagree with some type of NFZ system) But helping you and I is not what they are about.

As an example, general aviation has the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association). They go door to door, state to state, airport to airport constantly fighting any local law, regulation, ordinance, or airport regulation that is unfair to the GA community and do so from the local airport all the way to Congress and the FAA. They will even fight unfair airport, fuel, or aviation taxes, whether local, state or federal. They do so with their money and file lawsuits on a regular basis on behalf of pilots. There is no such group for the UAV community. (Yes, I think I said that a few times as well).

The biggest problem with all the bad local laws is once they are in force, the local police will start enforcing it, whether it is actually legal or not. Unsuspecting UAV pilots (both hobbyists and Part 107) are being caught up in these unnecessarily and having to fight completely on their own against judges who probably aren't knowledgeable about aviation law. With an attorney not familiar with aviation law. We need an organization that can step in to help with these cases and get those laws overturned at a faster rate, while educating local leaders to create a supported and safe framework we can work with. I fear this type organization is years away....AOPA has recently added UAV pilots as a membership category, so it is very possible they will accept the cause. I hope so....for all of our sake.

EDIT: Context is a valuable thing. When you read someone's post, it is important to read the entire thread. It's like a conversation. If someone responds, it could be they respond based on another comment made. In this case, my post was in response to another user who stated "big businesses care about us". My response...no, they don't.

 

[N017RW]

Get real.
You are talking about toys.
Industry has their lawyers and lobbyists.
Step back and gain some perspective.

 

[tcope]

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.

"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."

What part did I miss or take out of context?

 

[YogiFlyer]

Get real.
You are talking about toys.
Industry has their lawyers and lobbyists.
Step back and gain some perspective.

Yes...because Congress writes laws ordering the FAA to integrate "just toys" into the National Airspace System
Yes...because the FAA wrote an entire new licensing category for "just toys"
Yes...because companies like Amazon are fighting tooth and nail to be able to use "just toys"
Yes...because the AOPA adds a membership category for "just toys"

I betcha if you took a poll here and asked how many made money off their "just toy" in the last month, it would be significant. All of this isn't "just toys". It's real business. It's big business. It's serious business. These "toys" can take out manned aircraft if not flown safely. These "toys" have the ability to revolutionize business, search and rescue and countless yet unknown uses. I believe I do have perspective. This is all very real.

 

[YogiFlyer]

"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."

What part did I miss or take out of context?

*sigh* I'm tired of typing now. Go re-read the entire thread.

 

[tcope]

DING! DING! DING! That's exactly my point. Local laws only get struck down when someone challenges them. Unfortunately, not many are being challenged, and sometimes no one even knows they need to be challenged.

Only? That is how the entire system works. Any person with authority to make a law or regulation, can. At that point the _only_ way to remove it is to challenge it in court. Local laws are being challenged and struck down. It does not happen often as it requires legal expertise, time effort and money. Laws are seldom challenged until they become an actual issue for someone. What is the case is that these local laws have not really affected many people.

There is no advocacy group acting to challenge these bad laws, some that even encroach on the FAA jurisdiction. Others have tried to argue here that big drone business (ex. DJI and others) are here to help us. They are here to help their pocketbooks...nothing more.

How do they help their pocket books? By selling more drones. Making it easier to fly means more people will be able to use drones as they want. So.... they sell more drones. So companies such as DJI have a huge interest in less restrictive laws against drones. It's to the tune of 1.5 billion US per year.

They will NEVER get involved with local/state laws. EVER!

National laws apply locally and DJI is _very much_ involved in national law making. So what you say simply is not correct.

I certainly do agree that DJI is mainly looking out for their bottom line. While much of this, consumer interest and DJI's interest are actually aligned, there are many differences. I'm sure DJI would rather add some flight restrictions in order to limit control over drones rather than seek to have no limitations as long as it does not affect sales.[/QUOTE]

 

[tcope]

*sigh* I'm tired of typing now. Go re-read the entire thread.

So now it's the entire thread? Your statement was this...

"As soon as you read the rest of my post..."

So you change that to "thread" now and cop out when asked a simple question. If you can't support your statement, so be it. Just don't act like other people don't understand.

 

[YogiFlyer]

So now it's the entire thread? Your statement was this...

"As soon as you read the rest of my post..."

So you change that to "thread" now and cop out when asked a simple question. If you can't support your statement, so be it. Just don't act like other people don't understand.

Ha! Yea, because you would understand the context of my response better and why I typed it. But then again, you just like to argue. So be it. Have a good evening. Are you an attorney by any chance?? /sarcasm off

 

[trevsdad]

While I wholeheartedly believe it is likely to be true, there are some inconsistencies in the story. Also one of the gentlemen who "broke the news" just happens to run a company that's Anti-Drone.

Evidence in an old used ziploc bag? Story leaked on Social Media before any other source? ATC traffic has no record of the Emergency Declaration (this could be valid but "looks" suspicious).

Keep in mind this is an ongoing investigation and as such could possibly take weeks to months before NTSB etc release a full report. The above are purely my speculation and worth exactly what you paid for it LOL.

I'm also curious about some of the inconsistencies in this story. Who's the gentleman/ website you refer to who broke the story?...PM me if you like.

 

[BigAl07]

I don't have those details available. It was an ongoing discussion with someone high in the system and with more knowledge that I have. If I run across it again I'll try to link it here.

It's funny how it sort of went silent pretty quickly . . . . ? ? ?

 

[trevsdad]

I don't have those details available. It was an ongoing discussion with someone high in the system and with more knowledge that I have. If I run across it again I'll try to link it here.

It's funny how it sort of went silent pretty quickly . . . . ? ? ?

Thanks...Agreed! it did get kind of buried. I'm just learning about it and I work in news. Something about it just doesn't pass the 'smell test'.

 

[BigAl07]

Well it "Officially" happened. It looks like a lot of the speculation can be put to rest (and some more will now come to the surface).
NTSB Investigating Collision Between Drone, U.S. Army Helicopter

10/5/2017

 

[YogiFlyer]

Well it "Officially" happened. It looks like a lot of the speculation can be put to rest (and some more will now come to the surface).
NTSB Investigating Collision Between Drone, U.S. Army Helicopter

10/5/2017

Ewww...notice the little note in there that says, "The NTSB’s investigation is ongoing and investigators are reviewing air traffic control radar data, flight data from the helicopter, the flight data logs provided by the drone operator and FAA airspace and temporary flight restriction documents."

They either caught the person, or someone came forward and put their big boy pants on and fessed up.

 

[BigAl07]

......They either caught the person, or someone came forward and put their big boy pants on and fessed up.

Yep. Hopefully the RPIC came forward and offered to help. I'm anxious to hear full details and hopefully it won't take the usual 6+ months to come to the final conclusion since everyone survived and the RPIC can be questioned.

 

[jwmcgrath]

Well it "Officially" happened. It looks like a lot of the speculation can be put to rest (and some more will now come to the surface).
NTSB Investigating Collision Between Drone, U.S. Army Helicopter

10/5/2017

Guess what else can be put to rest?!

The sensationalistic media reports that almost ANY contact between a Phantom and a manned aircraft of any kind will most certainly result in the immediate and complete catastrophic destruction of said manned aircraft.

I don’t mean to diminish the seriousness of any contact between the two, but I think it’s now safe to say that Prince Harry wasn’t likely to go down in a ball of flames...

 

[N017RW]

Not all car crashes are fatal, but some are.

As an (inactive) PPL holder I never want(ed) to contact any object while in flight.

Your hyperbole with regards to the outcome of a collision make you seem just as sensationalistic.

 

[anotherlab]

In another report, it says that DJI is a party in the investigation.