3 ms·

I am actually surprised the FAA was so tolerant of drones for so long. Commercial drone operators are for more regulation because they know the day some dope fl

I am actually surprised the FAA was so tolerant of drones for so long. Commercial drone operators are for more regulation because they know the day some dope flies a drone into an approaching aircraft it will cause more draconian responses. Meanwhile there are millions of unguided medium sized drones flying around airports and everywhere (Birds). I think the 400ft line of sight rule is plenty safe because short of aircraft taking off or making a final approach there aren't aircraft in this zone (Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure.) If drones hitting people in the heads becomes a big issue, terrestrial laws are better to handle that. Generally besides areas very close to airports the FAA shouldn't be regulating <400ft AGL.

handedness 8y ago
> Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure. An aircraft might be there precisely because of an equipment failure.
- specialp 8y ago
  Ok then I suppose we should trim all trees to 50ft or less and ban structures that high, and exclude all birds from the skies there because an aircraft might be on a near crash unpowered approach. Also at that point, hitting a small drone is the least of their problems.
  - cameldrv 8y ago
    There are rules on structure height in approach paths. It doesn't restrict everything over 50 ft, but with drones we're talking 400 ft here, and they're practically invisible and don't carry transponders. If your drone crashes into an airplane, you buy a new one. The other guy might not be so fortunate.
    - specialp 8y ago
      At 400ft with a glide slope of 20:1 you are at 0ft in ~1.5 miles. You'd probably hit something else in a mile or less that is far more substantial than a drone at a lot greater probability.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        A piston twin with one engine out may be unable to maintain altitude but have a drift down slope of way shallower than 20:1... As a pilot, I have no objection to something sensible and low-risk like under 100' AGL more than a mile from an airport boundary without FAA involvement. Much over that, I want the FAA to have a say in the matter. I've had one close call on approach (defined as "close enough that I could see the drone lights visually from the cockpit").
syshum 8y ago
>>I am actually surprised the FAA was so tolerant of drones for so long. They were mandated by law to be "tolerant", Section 336 protected Hobby Flying. Section 336 is now repealed.

handedness 8y ago

> Or should there be as flying so low would give a plane very little time to react to an engine failure. An aircraft might be there precisely because of an equipment failure.

specialp 8y ago
Ok then I suppose we should trim all trees to 50ft or less and ban structures that high, and exclude all birds from the skies there because an aircraft might be on a near crash unpowered approach. Also at that point, hitting a small drone is the least of their problems.
- cameldrv 8y ago
  There are rules on structure height in approach paths. It doesn't restrict everything over 50 ft, but with drones we're talking 400 ft here, and they're practically invisible and don't carry transponders. If your drone crashes into an airplane, you buy a new one. The other guy might not be so fortunate.
  - specialp 8y ago
    At 400ft with a glide slope of 20:1 you are at 0ft in ~1.5 miles. You'd probably hit something else in a mile or less that is far more substantial than a drone at a lot greater probability.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      A piston twin with one engine out may be unable to maintain altitude but have a drift down slope of way shallower than 20:1... As a pilot, I have no objection to something sensible and low-risk like under 100' AGL more than a mile from an airport boundary without FAA involvement. Much over that, I want the FAA to have a say in the matter. I've had one close call on approach (defined as "close enough that I could see the drone lights visually from the cockpit").

syshum 8y ago

>>I am actually surprised the FAA was so tolerant of drones for so long. They were mandated by law to be "tolerant", Section 336 protected Hobby Flying. Section 336 is now repealed.