Sport_Pilot

LOL. Thus the root of the problem. Yes the Federal government is corrupt and more so than most local governments. Did you not know that the FAA is in the pocket of big airliner companies?

kerryg

I agree with you 100%, if you are speaking of civilian aircraft, this is why education is so important. Every radio system should have a cover over it with basic safety rules (like the NRA Gun Safety Rules) to help to being to enforce a common set of safe operating guidelines.

Never fly an aircraft over people of property
Keep away from overhead power lines
Do not operate an aircraft above 400'
Always keep your aircraft within visual range

Stuff like that. Even a basic set of rules someone has to physically remove from their radio might make someone stop and think "oh man, I never though about what could happen if this fell on someone".

Sport_Pilot

You do know that this is about very small UAV don't you? That is less than 4.4 pounds and fly under 400 feet. As long as they do not fly in navigable airspace I see no reason to conform as long as they stay out of the way of large aircraft. BTW this is identified as a special class and to be handed off to another government agency per law.

kerryg

How much damage do you think can be caused by 4.4 pounds falling from 400 can do? As for 400', have you watched YouTube with tons of people shooting for high altitudes? A friend of mine yesterday took his Phantom 2 up to 1300' before the software gave him a "Max Altitude" warning. He had no idea it wasn't legal, stupid yes, but not illegal.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I'll try to clear my position up some...although I am not going to write a book here... Basically I look at it like this; People should be held "personally responsible" and I mean that in the context of the "being" of flesh and blood...For us that truly care about others, if you wouldn't do whatever without insurance or license, you shouldn't do it at all... An example for consideration; I fly model airplanes...I fly them the way I would regardless of my insurance. I take serious precautions, directing energy away from people to insure I will not hurt any innocent unknowing bystander. I also fly helicopters...I've rarely even take them to the Flying field...and when I do its with a few good friends. I generally fly them in remote places... alone...a lot of people that I know are surprised to know that I even fly choppers. For me, its not about being "covered by insurance"...its about my skill level, my confidence in my equipment and my ability to set them up properly. Now, one day I may progress to where I might feel comfortable flying around more people but my "personal responsibility" will be to put a sufficient degree of margin on what I do. I have seen some of the best chopper pilots use margins that is unacceptable...to me... Again I exercise my "personal responsibility" to provide the distance of margin I am comfortable with...up to twisting the key on my car and leaving.

JohnShe

In case that you are unaware, the FAA has selected VLOS as the first stage of the plan for integrating UAS int the NAS. That would imply that both civil (commercial) and Public (Law Enforcement) LOS type UAS will be regulated. They are saving FPV operations for later.


Your rocks and dogs analogy fails on the old apples and oranges fallacy. It does matter a thrown rock is a malicious act. A dog can be controllable. A UAS is supposed to be under control and operated in a responsible manner.

Sport_Pilot

Not much. But why does that matter?Non of this will change that. The ignorant will always be uninformed by definition. They are such because they don't bother reading or educating themselves. But they are more likely to stay such when the FAA is in charge as they will only talk to pilots. That is until they post on YouTube. The states will educate them pretty quickly with a substantial fine in short order.

bogbeagle

Yep, going right after "the people who didn't do it."

My analogy is perfectly sound.

JohnShe

Wow! When did they stop teaching logic and sound reasoning?

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Really? I guess that means we can drop a 4 pound dead weight on your head from . . oh lets be nice and say . . 200 feet? Got burial insurance?

Please do the physics before you make any more ignorant assertions that make you look more stupid.

Meanwhile, go raise taxes to provide your local law enforcement guys the education it will take to make sure the local rules are followed. That is unless you think we should await a death to get the constabulary involved. It is sure looking like that is what you want from your posts.

cj_rumley

[QUOTE=JohnShe;11779120]In case that you are unaware, the FAA has selected VLOS as the first stage of the plan for integrating UAS int the NAS. That would imply that both civil (commercial) and Public (Law Enforcement) LOS type UAS will be regulated. They are saving FPV operations for later.

That agrees with I have read from FAA. A little finer breakdown of the sequence is Public sUAS first, then Civil. I'm skeptical about this being good for the industry. From the volume of crash reports in the media concerning their use, outfitting cops as a kickoff seems the worst possible case. If I had a say in the matter, starting with more innocuous civil apps like most agrarian apps seems more sensible. Kind of a next logical step after the test ranges, selected with plenty of flyover area in non- or sparsely populated areas.

bogbeagle

I don't believe that constitutes a rebuttal.

JohnShe

It is not possible to rebut a specious argument.

JohnShe

[QUOTE=cj_rumley;11779279]Interesting argument, but... A failure in a civil situation would be difficult to manage and investigate. However, public agencies are under much more severe scrutiny. Therefore, it seems yo be a reasonable approach to work the kinks, of which there will be many, out before turning it over to civil uses. I think they have a reasonable approach.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Is this a start????????????????????

http://www.suasnews.com/2014/04/2849...nish-airspace/

bogbeagle

Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out the flaws in my analogy.


Meanwhile, you attempt to outlaw the ownership/use of private property. You do realise that this is a socialist' stance, I suppose? The self-same justifications are used to prohibit the ownership and use of firearms.


There is no requirement for further law. The law already provides redress against those who cause financial and/or physical harm. In the case of the NZ' runner, the law already provides adequate response to meet with her injuries.

JW0311

bogeagle, I think I see your point; however, wouldn't a simple set of guidelines help in directing some of these people towards safer operation? Perhaps make them aware of the dangers? I of course understand that people will be people and some of them will ignore any thoughts of how they are endangering others. Does this have to be to either extreme? Outlaw them all together vs zero regulation. Doesn't there have to be some regulation?

James

Sport_Pilot

It still doesn't matter, even if it kills. It would be better handled by the local government and should be handled by the Constitution. The degree of severity doesn't matter as far as who has jurisdiction. The states handle murder cases in the states so they can (as in are capable of) handling dangerous UAV operators. Physics has nothing to do with this.

The FAA would have to do the same so that doesn't matter either, except most local government's are more efficient. Many actually balance the budget!

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

For those interested, please read this month's issue of Plane and Pilot, May 2014, page 40, entitled UAV update. The article gives their impression of what they believe is going to happen, and the crux of the problem as they see it. They fully expect the FAA the be able to open up the NAS (national iarspace) to drone operation by 2015. They expect some 7500 commercially operated drones to be operating in the NAS within a year. They don't give their interpretation of what they think the FAA will do, nor how they will do it, but from the read it sounds like they plan to implement some type of licensing / credentialing operation.
Found it interesting that it is also in the full scale aviation magazine as well, but the issue is dedicated to aviation related job markets.

bogbeagle

AFAIAC, the only necessary law is that you are responsible for your actions. Therein lies Liberty. Do what you like, but bear the full responsibility.

The gene pool would quickly be cleansed of idiots.

Sport_Pilot

Yeah, that will be coming. Expect to be arrested when flying you model airplane on your on property.

Sport_Pilot

This is mostly for large UAS. The topic is sUAV, especiall very small sUAV.

JohnShe

Were you trained to purposely misunderstand everything? My original post clearly points out the fallacy of your analogy. Your accusation of communism is absurdly specious and deserves no further discussion. As for UAS regulation, successful regulation will severely limit the number of violations and make enforcement possible. Otherwise, it will be a jungle out there.

JohnShe

Please explain how casusing injury to innocent bystanders will cleanse the gene pool of idiots.

bogbeagle

[QUOTE=JohnShe;11779731

Your accusation of communism is absurdly specious and deserves no further discussion.

.[/QUOTE]

Nothing absurd about it.

All Collectivists operate from the premise that the interests of the group outweigh those of the individual ... and that ownership is subject to the approval of the group.

Well, that's you.