Reading the article requires a subscription, but for those who have one, there is an interesting article on drone use in the US - and associated regulation: https://www.wsj.com/articles/drones-...od=djem10point

A few highlights:
1. "Reports of drone sightings [by pilots] around airports are pouring into the FAA at a rate of more than 100 a month." LAX has one reported drone sighting per week. "In late 2019, drones operating near London Gatwick Airport forced the 36-hour suspension of commercial flights ... similar events have beleaguered airports in Dubai, Dublin and Frankfurt." WhiteFox Defense Technologies, a developer of drone tracking technology, has been tracking drone incursions into the LAX airspace since 2019. They report between 20 and 40 every day.
2. "In September 2019 ... a swarm of drones overflew the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station". A few examples of using drones for malicious intent are mentioned: In April of 2021, a drone was used to drop explosives on a US airbase in Iraq; the same happened to a police station in Mexico.

We all know regulation is coming, some of it not pleasant and expensive. I found the article interesting, as it presents a viewpoint from outside the hobby. I am not saying the article is right or wrong, just I appreciate the perspective.

Unfortunately, this is the perspective most people have ... this is not surprising since this type of coverage is the only exposure most people have to the hobby.

Worse yet, because the word "drone" is in the popular vernacular, anything that you fly remotely is now a drone to the general public. Even my sisters, who know that I have been building and flying model airplanes since I was young boy, have started referring to my hobby as flying "drones" now.

This has been one of my biggest complaints about the AMA. They should be leading community outreach campaigns to help us create a more positive image for the hobby. They certainly could/should be doing things at a national level including actual "effective" use of social media, but even more importantly, they should be providing guidance and leadership to the local clubs so that we can have a grass roots campaign too.

Apparently, the powers that be don't see it as an issue. Then again, some of the "droners" don't see it as an issue either. I know I was talking to someone that flies quadcopters a couple of weeks ago and he's all for being able to fly where and when he wants. When I told him that he's part of the reason the FAA and Congress are looking at adding regulations and restrictions, he looked at me like I was insane.

I have a close relative at NASA. We debated for a couple of hours about the issue of "what is a drone which is flown in a dangerous fashion as opposed to a model airplane operated by an AMA member who really doesn't need more regulation other than his/her club and the AMA."

I lost the debate. There is no way to distinguish between the two insofar as public airspace is concerned.

There are good reasons why the public airspace is regulated and monitored by the FAA, and we are going to have to face up to that fact and accept the responsibility that comes with sharing the public airspace with others.

To make it easier to accept this just think about the next time you (or a loved one) fly on a commercial airline. Do you really want the possibility of a radio controlled aircraft of any kind in the area with that airplane? I don't.

To be fair to the data in this discussion, one simple truth stands out the furthest;

Look back ten years, Fifteen even, how many reports from airline pilots have there been involving close calls with traditional RC model airplanes? OK, now, how many reports of close calls with "Drones" (Quadcopters) have there been?

Don't take either Colombo or Baretta to crack this case, we ain't the guilty party here.

To paraphrase Star Wars; "These aren't the drones(droids) your looking for" .......

Not sure that employment at NASA is necessarily qualifies someone to be an authority on the topic of sUAS and airspace safety. I suppose it depends on what this individual's job is. I would love to hear what argument he used to convince you we need to be lumped into one group, as I cannot envision any scenario where a responsible operation of a traditional RC airplane, flown VLOS, would ever put a manned aircraft at risk. Further, I would love to hear how any of the new regulations we are living with actually mitigate any such potential risk in a meaningful way.

I get how most people have a hard time understanding the difference between a drone and a traditional RC airplane, but the difference is clear if you look at the facts (both the safety record perspective as well as the basic modes of operation).

Oh, I don't know.......ever heard of VFR flight? We traditional modelers have been doing just that since the existence of RC. IFR? Now that is a whole different story!

Traditional models = VFR
Drones = IFR

Astro

Actually, IFR is Instrument Flight Rules, meaning that you have no visual way of flying without the assistance of ATC. Since many want to fly quads BVLS, it can't be VFR or IFR since they have no way of seeing anything beyond what is shown a view screen. By definition, since they can't see out of the quad without a camera, it can't be VFR and, since there are no instruments (compass, artificial horizon, altimeter, etc), it can't be called IFR. To take it one step further, to fly any aircraft IFR, you have to have a pilot's license with an IFR endorsement, something I know no drone flyer is going to have

Hydro,

Chill, bro! I was trying to provide a simple example of how traditional vs. autonomous/FPV differ. Was a simple comparison, not meant to be taken literally.

My post was meant for dzlstunter, who had a difficult time presenting his case to his close relative who worked at NASA (not sure why that was relevant). it shouldn't be hard to note the many differences of how each affect the NAS.

Traditional modeling is very much like VFR. It has been around since modeling began and has proven to be very simple and safe; see and avoid.

FPV presents many challenges to the NAS, especially where unprepared, unknowledgeable and irresponsible drone pilots are involved.

Astro

Trust me, I AM CHILLED. Trust me again in that I got what you were trying to say. The problem was the example didn't work in the context you were trying to explain, to me at least. I think a better example would have been comparing normal vision to tunnel vision. With normal vision, you can see everything within a roughly 160 degree plain, up/down/left /right. When flying BVLS, however, you can only see what the camera sees. To see a wide angle, you can't see beyond a short distance before things get blurry. To see longer distances, you have to narrow down the view. Either way, you can't see what's going on around the drone like you can when you can actually see the drone.

I think a little bit of Shawn rubbed off on you and it stuck.....

Who is Shawn and what rubbed off? Could it be dead skin from a sunburn from Sunday before last? I know I'm shedding dead skin like a Siberian Husky sheds fir in the middle of July in Arizona from both arms and hands from a rather serious burn.

Could just be sunstroke.