5 ms·

1/2: ensure drone operators are familiar with the other rules. imo licensing should be required to purchase a drone with much stronger punishments against unlic

1/2: ensure drone operators are familiar with the other rules. imo licensing should be required to purchase a drone with much stronger punishments against unlicensed operators, otherwise idiot operators will result in further regulations on use. 3. obviously necessary 4. Drones are a public nuisance. The sound, having a dot just floating in view, zipping around - it's annoying and even scary to bystanders. I own and fly several drones, but I was relieved when America started banning drones from wilderness areas, national parks, and many state/city parks. The serenity of those parks is far more valuable than private drone photography / selfies.

derefr 7y ago
> 3. obviously necessary One could argue that drones should be allowed to get right up next to helipads, lat/lon-wise, as long as they stay a safe distance away from the helipad altitude-wise. There are helipads on top of buildings. If the helipad is at ~1500ft, and my drone never exceeds 300ft, then it's not endangering the helicopters, even if it's right next to the building with the helipad on it. But instead, because of the way the law is phrased, if there's a helipad on top of a building in downtown, now I'm not able to film anywhere in downtown. (This same argument could apply to airfields, but airfields "above" neighbouring geography are pretty rare. I guess you could be filming against the cliff adjoining Lukla Airport in Nepal?)
- nitrogen 7y ago
  What are you filming in a crowded downtown with 150 story helipad-topped highrises that isn't the inside of private buildings?
  - gpm 7y ago
    Things happening in the street, such as festivals/parades/protests.
    - sverhagen 7y ago
      It will be hard not to fly over people, doing that... I don't think all helipads have so much restrictions around them. We are a few blocks away from one, and we fly drones all the time. Legally. It must be a matter of how the specific piece of airspace got regulated, who did it, etc. I also see plenty of FAA maps that were drawn very thoughtful and detailed, versus others where there's just a big circle around an object.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        I don't think FAA regulations apply in Canada.
- koboll 7y ago
  I'm not sure it's feasible for police to enforce no-fly zones in 3D space. No way is someone from the ground going to be able to tell the difference between 275 feet and 325 feet.
  - Retric 7y ago
    The US already uses 3D airspace: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_State... The issue is the distance reserved is conservative so people slightly encroaching don’t instantly cause problems.
- gbacon 7y ago
  One could argue that drones should be allowed to get right up next to helipads, lat/lon-wise, as long as they stay a safe distance away from the helipad altitude-wise. Pilots and ATC refer to these dimensions as laterally and vertically.
- cmurf 7y ago
  You're assuming normal operations. You have to take normal and emergency operations into account. A drone near a helipad is an undeclared obstacle, and permitting any drone near a helipad increases the probability of a conflict.
- cesarb 7y ago
  > This same argument could apply to airfields, but airfields "above" neighbouring geography are pretty rare. Take a look at Congonhas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo%E2%80%93Congonhas_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo%E2%80%93Congonh...), it's a very busy airport right in the middle of a major city, and its runway sits higher than the roof of many of its adjacent buildings. As a passenger, landing there feels like you are going to land on top of the buildings until the last second. If a plane overruns the runway, it'll go downwards, cross a major road, and hit a building on the other side (yes, this has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054).
sandworm101 7y ago
>> imo licensing should be required to purchase a drone with much stronger punishments against unlicensed operators, Until the drone police give you a ticket and take your license away. In combination with the near-blanket bans on drone use (see above) licensing would effectively mean you can only fly a drone until someone complains. I work in aviation. I'm the the air force and used to be a pilot. The bans on drones are ridiculously over-inclusive. Miles from any helipad? There are helipads everywhere. The better scheme is to regulate them by mass and construction. They don't need extensive steel or ceramic structures. Biuld them out of aluminum and plastic. So long hitting them is less dangerous than hitting a duck, they should be given freedom at low altitudes. Allowing drones to do what they do best may reduce the need for other manned aircraft (short-haul cargo, floatplanes and such) and make the sky a less cluttered place at altitude.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  You obviously know far more about aviation than I do, but it's not hard to find helipads in urban areas where a crash would be disastrous, eg near hospitals (which are often near major infrastructure like freeways for the same reasons they have helipads). A drone maliciously aimed at a helicopter's tail rotor could conceivably cause an accident depending on the construction/trickery selected by the operator, and a helicopter crash at a hospital has the potential to be a major disaster.
  - knodi123 7y ago
    > A drone maliciously aimed at a helicopter's tail rotor could conceivably cause an accident A gun maliciously fired at a helicopter's tail rotor could conceivably cause an accident. A laser fired maliciously into the eye of a helicopter pilot could etc etc. Do we ban any of those brought near a hospital out of fear that a malicious actor would use them in the worst possible way? A malicious actor can always find a way to cause problems. A benign but stupid actor is the one we should be regulating for, and IMO keeping your drone 50 yards away from a helicopter landing pad should be sufficient.
    - deleted 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nightfly 7y ago
> 3. obviously necessary No. In my hometown the park where people have been safely flying model airplanes decades before the drone craze is 2.5 miles from the town's airport. 5 miles is incredibly restrictive and not justifiable.
northwest65 7y ago
4) That's a terrible way to make laws. By that description we should ban dogs. Surely the number of people terrified by dogs far exceeds the number of people scared of drones, by a huge number.
- afiori 7y ago
  Considering how the only reason we don't ban cigarettes is that they are too entrenched in society and the economy there is a precedent.
prawn 7y ago
"Drones are a public nuisance. The sound, having a dot just floating in view, zipping around - it's annoying and even scary to bystanders." Whenever someone raises this gripe about drones, I wonder how they feel about cars. I'm currently in my office, with the windows closed and a heater audibly running. I can hear trucks/buses and occasionally cars on a 30-50km/h minor arterial road two blocks away. I can hear every car that drives down the road a block away. (I own two cars and two drones.)
- dwild 7y ago
  > Whenever someone raises this gripe about drones, I wonder how they feel about cars. I'm currently in my office, with the windows closed and a heater audibly running. I can hear trucks/buses and occasionally cars on a 30-50km/h minor arterial road two blocks away. I can hear every car that drives down the road a block away. I guess that his answer would be that this nuisance is good for the economy where flying a drone for entertainment doesn't. His argument was also about them being at at least 30m from bystander, which the nuisance is a good argument for.
  - prawn 7y ago
    I fly my drones to take photos for tourism purposes. Others fly to photograph houses/buildings for real estate agents. We pay tax and contribute to an economy. Obviously it's on a different scale than trucking, for example. I don't know anyone who consistently flies one purely for "entertainment" - it'd get boring fast. OP talked about them being a distracting dot in the periphery. Like birds? People overreacted to books, radio, magazines, TV, etc - it comes with all new things. I often think of the "but what about the animals" people in national parks. Those are national parks at the end of roads bordered by roadkill and with parking lots and shoulders absolutely flooded with cars, often idling. I am not arguing for drones all over national parks 24/7, but I marvel at reactions like OP's which could easily describe cars or dogs: "Drones are a public nuisance. The sound, having a dot just floating in view, zipping around - it's annoying and even scary to bystanders." As the article suggests, drone rules in the USA and Australia aren't outrageous, but the B4YFLY app is very poor.

derefr 7y ago

> 3. obviously necessary One could argue that drones should be allowed to get right up next to helipads, lat/lon-wise, as long as they stay a safe distance away from the helipad altitude-wise. There are helipads on top of buildings. If the helipad is at ~1500ft, and my drone never exceeds 300ft, then it's not endangering the helicopters, even if it's right next to the building with the helipad on it. But instead, because of the way the law is phrased, if there's a helipad on top of a building in downtown, now I'm not able to film anywhere in downtown. (This same argument could apply to airfields, but airfields "above" neighbouring geography are pretty rare. I guess you could be filming against the cliff adjoining Lukla Airport in Nepal?)

nitrogen 7y ago
What are you filming in a crowded downtown with 150 story helipad-topped highrises that isn't the inside of private buildings?
- gpm 7y ago
  Things happening in the street, such as festivals/parades/protests.
  - sverhagen 7y ago
    It will be hard not to fly over people, doing that... I don't think all helipads have so much restrictions around them. We are a few blocks away from one, and we fly drones all the time. Legally. It must be a matter of how the specific piece of airspace got regulated, who did it, etc. I also see plenty of FAA maps that were drawn very thoughtful and detailed, versus others where there's just a big circle around an object.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I don't think FAA regulations apply in Canada.
koboll 7y ago
I'm not sure it's feasible for police to enforce no-fly zones in 3D space. No way is someone from the ground going to be able to tell the difference between 275 feet and 325 feet.
- Retric 7y ago
  The US already uses 3D airspace: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_State... The issue is the distance reserved is conservative so people slightly encroaching don’t instantly cause problems.
gbacon 7y ago
One could argue that drones should be allowed to get right up next to helipads, lat/lon-wise, as long as they stay a safe distance away from the helipad altitude-wise. Pilots and ATC refer to these dimensions as laterally and vertically.
cmurf 7y ago
You're assuming normal operations. You have to take normal and emergency operations into account. A drone near a helipad is an undeclared obstacle, and permitting any drone near a helipad increases the probability of a conflict.
cesarb 7y ago
> This same argument could apply to airfields, but airfields "above" neighbouring geography are pretty rare. Take a look at Congonhas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo%E2%80%93Congonhas_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Paulo%E2%80%93Congonh...), it's a very busy airport right in the middle of a major city, and its runway sits higher than the roof of many of its adjacent buildings. As a passenger, landing there feels like you are going to land on top of the buildings until the last second. If a plane overruns the runway, it'll go downwards, cross a major road, and hit a building on the other side (yes, this has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054).

sandworm101 7y ago

>> imo licensing should be required to purchase a drone with much stronger punishments against unlicensed operators, Until the drone police give you a ticket and take your license away. In combination with the near-blanket bans on drone use (see above) licensing would effectively mean you can only fly a drone until someone complains. I work in aviation. I'm the the air force and used to be a pilot. The bans on drones are ridiculously over-inclusive. Miles from any helipad? There are helipads everywhere. The better scheme is to regulate them by mass and construction. They don't need extensive steel or ceramic structures. Biuld them out of aluminum and plastic. So long hitting them is less dangerous than hitting a duck, they should be given freedom at low altitudes. Allowing drones to do what they do best may reduce the need for other manned aircraft (short-haul cargo, floatplanes and such) and make the sky a less cluttered place at altitude.

anigbrowl 7y ago
You obviously know far more about aviation than I do, but it's not hard to find helipads in urban areas where a crash would be disastrous, eg near hospitals (which are often near major infrastructure like freeways for the same reasons they have helipads). A drone maliciously aimed at a helicopter's tail rotor could conceivably cause an accident depending on the construction/trickery selected by the operator, and a helicopter crash at a hospital has the potential to be a major disaster.
- knodi123 7y ago
  > A drone maliciously aimed at a helicopter's tail rotor could conceivably cause an accident A gun maliciously fired at a helicopter's tail rotor could conceivably cause an accident. A laser fired maliciously into the eye of a helicopter pilot could etc etc. Do we ban any of those brought near a hospital out of fear that a malicious actor would use them in the worst possible way? A malicious actor can always find a way to cause problems. A benign but stupid actor is the one we should be regulating for, and IMO keeping your drone 50 yards away from a helicopter landing pad should be sufficient.
  - deleted 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nightfly 7y ago

> 3. obviously necessary No. In my hometown the park where people have been safely flying model airplanes decades before the drone craze is 2.5 miles from the town's airport. 5 miles is incredibly restrictive and not justifiable.

northwest65 7y ago

4) That's a terrible way to make laws. By that description we should ban dogs. Surely the number of people terrified by dogs far exceeds the number of people scared of drones, by a huge number.

afiori 7y ago
Considering how the only reason we don't ban cigarettes is that they are too entrenched in society and the economy there is a precedent.

prawn 7y ago

"Drones are a public nuisance. The sound, having a dot just floating in view, zipping around - it's annoying and even scary to bystanders." Whenever someone raises this gripe about drones, I wonder how they feel about cars. I'm currently in my office, with the windows closed and a heater audibly running. I can hear trucks/buses and occasionally cars on a 30-50km/h minor arterial road two blocks away. I can hear every car that drives down the road a block away. (I own two cars and two drones.)

dwild 7y ago
> Whenever someone raises this gripe about drones, I wonder how they feel about cars. I'm currently in my office, with the windows closed and a heater audibly running. I can hear trucks/buses and occasionally cars on a 30-50km/h minor arterial road two blocks away. I can hear every car that drives down the road a block away. I guess that his answer would be that this nuisance is good for the economy where flying a drone for entertainment doesn't. His argument was also about them being at at least 30m from bystander, which the nuisance is a good argument for.
- prawn 7y ago
  I fly my drones to take photos for tourism purposes. Others fly to photograph houses/buildings for real estate agents. We pay tax and contribute to an economy. Obviously it's on a different scale than trucking, for example. I don't know anyone who consistently flies one purely for "entertainment" - it'd get boring fast. OP talked about them being a distracting dot in the periphery. Like birds? People overreacted to books, radio, magazines, TV, etc - it comes with all new things. I often think of the "but what about the animals" people in national parks. Those are national parks at the end of roads bordered by roadkill and with parking lots and shoulders absolutely flooded with cars, often idling. I am not arguing for drones all over national parks 24/7, but I marvel at reactions like OP's which could easily describe cars or dogs: "Drones are a public nuisance. The sound, having a dot just floating in view, zipping around - it's annoying and even scary to bystanders." As the article suggests, drone rules in the USA and Australia aren't outrageous, but the B4YFLY app is very poor.