Another Drone Incident
#1
Thread Starter

My Feedback: (10)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Displaced Canadian in Central Texas TX
Saw in the News Today, a Plane was departing LaGuardia in NY; encountered a Drone at 2700 feet, Plane had to take evasive action climbed an additional 200 feet to be clear of the Drone; just a matter of time before a collision happens between a Drone and a Jetliner and something bad happens.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/29...on-with-drone/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/29...on-with-drone/
Last edited by dasintex; 05-29-2015 at 07:38 PM.
#2
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These types of incidents are only going to rise, the only solution is a regulation on the sale of such uav. All the issues these yahoos cause will only make the regulations on recreational drone pilots stricter.
#3

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
Fortunately, FAA doesn't agree. That would make your second sentence self-fulfilling prophesy, though.
#4
Add to it the guy who hit someone in the head t a Memorial day parade, and the dumb singer who tried removing his hand, and the guy who flew over 3rd base at a Phillies game. And now I saw a guy flying in the street and hovering 3 feet off the ground, so some neighbor got pissed off and swatted it with a shirt and knocked it to the ground. It will continue to get worse, it is only a matter of time.
#5
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just pouring fuel on a fire.
Which will can be put out by strict regulations.
The stronger the fire the stronger the regulations.
My 2 cents
#6

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
Let's see if you can cite a couple of examples of where any freedoms of any group of people were protected by denying/rescinding those same freedoms to individuals outside the group. From posts over the weeks that this topic has dominated the discussion group, I must admit that my position is shared by a disturbingly small minority of folks that post here, but that's my 2 cents. Making regulations to control others as a preemptive measure against regulation of a select few is distasteful to me, but if I ignore that bias and attempt to rationalize it on objective grounds only it still fails based on historical evidence.
#7
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
many examples, which I will not mention on a public forum. But i do disagree with you.
I am all about freedom, but without responsible freedom someone will get hurt, at which point sales on drones will be temporarily halted.
And the only "person" that will be allowed to buy drones will be amazon and other companies who have enough liability.
Who is liable when a drone crashes through a window and hits someone. Let's say rendering then blind.
Recorded History is never straight and true....
I am all about freedom, but without responsible freedom someone will get hurt, at which point sales on drones will be temporarily halted.
And the only "person" that will be allowed to buy drones will be amazon and other companies who have enough liability.
Who is liable when a drone crashes through a window and hits someone. Let's say rendering then blind.
Recorded History is never straight and true....
Last edited by Fly4Fly; 06-10-2015 at 03:08 AM.
#8
A 'control' theory that hasn't come up yet is the wounded individual will go after the deep pockets.
Do any of you remember the general aviation crisis of the 70's and 80's? Virtually all of the GA manufacturers were looking at going out of business because they were being sued weekly over accidents that just happend to involve their airplanes. The companies were being sued by people injured by fools flying airplanes that had been long, improperly modified by the fools flying them. But the victims sued the compaines because they had deep deep pockets.
Congress eventually passed the 7-year end of liabily laws that gave the manufacturers reliefe from old planes that may or may not have been properly, legally maintained.
When one of the victims finds out that DJI is a US owned company the lawsuits will start over them selling an unsafe product to begin with. This will result in OSHA like or FAR minimum safety standards for these airframes.
If the victim is hurt by a knock off made out of country you will see the US manufacturers call for a ban unless the out of country folks meet the same standards.
Do any of you remember the general aviation crisis of the 70's and 80's? Virtually all of the GA manufacturers were looking at going out of business because they were being sued weekly over accidents that just happend to involve their airplanes. The companies were being sued by people injured by fools flying airplanes that had been long, improperly modified by the fools flying them. But the victims sued the compaines because they had deep deep pockets.
Congress eventually passed the 7-year end of liabily laws that gave the manufacturers reliefe from old planes that may or may not have been properly, legally maintained.
When one of the victims finds out that DJI is a US owned company the lawsuits will start over them selling an unsafe product to begin with. This will result in OSHA like or FAR minimum safety standards for these airframes.
If the victim is hurt by a knock off made out of country you will see the US manufacturers call for a ban unless the out of country folks meet the same standards.
#9
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomski, thanks for the input and the historical example. That was slightly before my time, but it is a great example.
standardization in the manufacturing process Will probably be one of the factors to influence the future of uav and I suspect the flyer will need some sort of certification etc. and the model should be traceable to the owner in the case damages occur. One has to take responsibility if they choose to be in the skies.
standardization in the manufacturing process Will probably be one of the factors to influence the future of uav and I suspect the flyer will need some sort of certification etc. and the model should be traceable to the owner in the case damages occur. One has to take responsibility if they choose to be in the skies.
#10
Tomski, thanks for the input and the historical example. That was slightly before my time, but it is a great example.
standardization in the manufacturing process Will probably be one of the factors to influence the future of uav and I suspect the flyer will need some sort of certification etc. and the model should be traceable to the owner in the case damages occur. One has to take responsibility if they choose to be in the skies.
standardization in the manufacturing process Will probably be one of the factors to influence the future of uav and I suspect the flyer will need some sort of certification etc. and the model should be traceable to the owner in the case damages occur. One has to take responsibility if they choose to be in the skies.



