3 ms·
> I think we can all agree that operating an aircraft SAFELY requires some prior domain knowledge, which is obviously applicable to drones and RC as well. So y
by beojan 7y ago
> I think we can all agree that operating an aircraft SAFELY requires some prior domain knowledge, which is obviously applicable to drones and RC as well.
So you're saying drone operators should be even more strictly regulated with some form of licensing akin to pilot's licenses? I have no objection to that, I was just arguing that regulating drones more strictly than ultralight manned aircraft is reasonable because self-preservation will motivate pilots of manned aircraft to fly more safely than operators of remotely piloted unmanned aircraft.
- bronco21016 7y agoSelf-preservation certainly goes a long way in preventing an amateur from crashing an ultralight. However, self-preservation likely isn’t going to necessarily prevent an amateur pilot from flying his aircraft in a manner that is not hazardous to others. A self-taught ultralight pilot is not going to have any more knowledge of airspace, traffic, and right of way rules than any amateur drone operator. These are most of the issues that have come up with drones thus far. They’re being operated in a way that interferes with other traffic and the way to stop that is through education and perhaps even sensible geofencing. I think the current licensing requirements are about the right touch. The only thing I could see changing is adding some knowledge/licensing requirements for recreational operators so the regulatory body can at least certify a person has been told where they are and are not allowed to operate and how to safely avoid being an impediment to manned traffic. Simply throwing absurd tracking requirements on them is not going to stop them from being operated in the wrong space.