5 ms·

Well the FAA wants the drone pilot to have a commercial pilot license in order to shoot commercial video with it. Seems entirely silly to me. In my opinion ther

by trose 12y ago

Well the FAA wants the drone pilot to have a commercial pilot license in order to shoot commercial video with it. Seems entirely silly to me. In my opinion there should be an altitude requirement involved here. Like, okay if you own a drone that is capable of going over 2000 ft you need a license to fly it regardless of whether you'll be filming. I have no idea if that is a reasonable threshold or not.

dmitrygr 12y ago
0 is a good one As a pilot who wants top live, i'd prefer people without training to stay out of the sky. Flying an extension of you (your drone) is even worse because you have even less interest in the safety since in a mid-air collision between planes, you die too. If your drone hits my plane - you do not die. Want to fly? Get a license. Want to fly a drone? Still get a license! What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that? To people who claim drones aren’t dangerous: YOU might have almost been killed by one last time you flew commercial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-collisions-between-drones-airliners-surge-new-faa-reports-show/2014/11/26/9a8c1716-758c-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-c...
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  0 is a good one As a pilot who wants top live, i'd prefer people without training to stay out of the sky. Then I suggest you stay out of the sky, because we're not going to make it 100.000000% safe for you, ever. You don't own the universe above 0 AGL. Other people need to use it, too. Nobody flying a drone below several hundred feet is, or should be, a hazard to you, as long as they're not doing so near an airport. Existing regulations are just fine in that regard without making up a bunch of horseshit about "monetization." What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that? The arrogance it must take to post something like that is simply breathtaking. You probably throw beer cans at bicyclists when you pass them on the road, too.
- kenrikm 12y ago
  Reasonably a drone flying at 50 - 100ft is of no danger to full size aircraft unless it's within a airports flight path which is illegal anyway. There are 40k deaths in cars each year and yet even with widespread use of model aircraft over the past 50years I've yet to hear about one taking down a full size plane.
- lisper 12y ago
  I'm a pilot too, so I sympathize with your position. But I think there's room for a more reasonable accommodation than simply requiring everyone who flies a drone to get a pilots license, e.g. license-free operation of drones less than a certain weight in uncontrolled airspace, under a certain altitude, and a certain distance from airports.
- evilduck 12y ago
  That's an extremist position. What if I want to build model rockets? They go into the sky, but the commercially available stuff doesn't go high enough to normally affect airplanes so they're legal and unlicensed and have been for decades. Same for model airplanes, and model helicopters, and until we slapped the word 'drone' on quadcopters and strapped on good video cameras they weren't a concern either. Likewise, I'll take the opposite extreme position that if you want to fly airplanes over populated locations, stay more than a couple thousand feet away as well, you're noisy and small aircraft and their pilots don't have quite the safety record that large ones do. How many people have quadcopter operators killed compared to small aircraft pilots? Seems like the answer should be that pilots of small aircraft, the planes vulnerable to small impacts and the pilots actually killing people should be kept away from the populace. What's the utility of allowing small aircraft to fly over my house anyways? There's definitely room for both activities in the air.
  - jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    > How many people have quadcopter operators killed Zero, meanwhile even Harrison Ford, an extremely qualified pilot, found a golf course when his engine gave out. Shit happens, and we need to plan accordingly instead of trying to prevent the shit in the first place. Oddly enough, I don't see worldwide media focusing on the private aviation hobby and how dangerous it is to everyone even though he landed on a fucking golf course. But no, one drone lands on the White House lawn and it's a national emergency with firmware updates pushed by DJI in response to ban Washington, D.C. My work, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, is to educate folks about the positive uses for drone technology and the industry that's about to happen. The possibilities of extending our senses into the air around us are endless. I've had people come up to me while operating in public and threaten me and my equipment. People are shooting at drones with some frequency in the more backwater parts of the United States. I'm waiting for one of those bullets to land a few miles away and kill a child, because I predict the backlash will be against the fliers, not the shooters. I often feel like I'm pushing, hopelessly against the avalanche of media fearmongering, because this technology has real, potent uses that should appeal to this community of startup tinkerers and hobbyists. We could be investing in automatic technology to build upon TCAS and integrate commercial UAS into that system, but we're not: we're trying to prevent the industry from ever happening. Imagine the Wright Brothers trying to tinker in today's regulatory climate. Remember how all of us fought against classifying our hobby as "drones," even though it's technically correct, because most peoples' exposure to the word "drone" is centered around Hellfire-carrying platforms? Yeah, this is why.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Crito 12y ago
  Is a 1kg drone at 300 feet operated by a stupid person really much worse than a stupid 1kg bird at 300 feet? What do you think about falconry?
  - yellowapple 12y ago
    The answer here is obviously to just ban birds (except for penguins and ostriches and emus, since they're effectively flightless).
- yellowapple 12y ago
  I can understand your concerns if folks are flying their RC helicopters around airports, but I'm pretty sure there are already airspace restrictions around airports for the same reasons you've mentioned. Beyond that, unless you're routinely buzzing rooftops, a low-altitude "drone" probably shouldn't be of any concern to your own flying, since you're going to be on an entirely different altitude vector. I'm no pilot, but several of my coworkers are. Based on various conversations with them about flying (altitude clearances, ATC, etc.), I'd reckon you're severely over-reacting by calling for an outright ban on unlicensed RC aircraft flight. Altitude and airspace restrictions are reasonable; outright bans are not.
kenrikm 12y ago
Practically any drone that can cary a gopro could also fly to 2000ft and you're limited to 500ft by the rules anyway. The issue is the FAA has always allowed model aircraft however now the technology has advanced to the point that those aircraft have potential to be widely used in commercial applications and the FAA is trying to hold back that use. This can't be left to the FAA alone, next gen ATC has taken them 20years and it's still not implemented if we were to follow the same path with drone integration it would likely not happen for another 20. The cat is out of the bag, people have drones and they need to move quickly to get some sane regulations for commercial use instead of sending letters and fines.
Varcht 12y ago
They have backed off of the need for a pilot's license in their latest proposal and are now looking at an "Operator's Certificate" some good news amongst other not so good regs. For an indepth analysis of the current proposal see http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Alert-FAA-Publishes-Notice-of-Proposes-Rulemaking-for-Small-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-03-11-2015/ http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Alert-F...

by trose 12y ago

dmitrygr 12y ago

0 is a good one As a pilot who wants top live, i'd prefer people without training to stay out of the sky. Flying an extension of you (your drone) is even worse because you have even less interest in the safety since in a mid-air collision between planes, you die too. If your drone hits my plane - you do not die. Want to fly? Get a license. Want to fly a drone? Still get a license! What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that? To people who claim drones aren’t dangerous: YOU might have almost been killed by one last time you flew commercial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-collisions-between-drones-airliners-surge-new-faa-reports-show/2014/11/26/9a8c1716-758c-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/near-c...

CamperBob2 12y ago
0 is a good one As a pilot who wants top live, i'd prefer people without training to stay out of the sky. Then I suggest you stay out of the sky, because we're not going to make it 100.000000% safe for you, ever. You don't own the universe above 0 AGL. Other people need to use it, too. Nobody flying a drone below several hundred feet is, or should be, a hazard to you, as long as they're not doing so near an airport. Existing regulations are just fine in that regard without making up a bunch of horseshit about "monetization." What you ask (FAA to leave the issue alone) is akin to letting 2 year olds drive 18-wheelers on the roads you drive your kids to school on? Feeling comfy with that? The arrogance it must take to post something like that is simply breathtaking. You probably throw beer cans at bicyclists when you pass them on the road, too.
kenrikm 12y ago
Reasonably a drone flying at 50 - 100ft is of no danger to full size aircraft unless it's within a airports flight path which is illegal anyway. There are 40k deaths in cars each year and yet even with widespread use of model aircraft over the past 50years I've yet to hear about one taking down a full size plane.
lisper 12y ago
I'm a pilot too, so I sympathize with your position. But I think there's room for a more reasonable accommodation than simply requiring everyone who flies a drone to get a pilots license, e.g. license-free operation of drones less than a certain weight in uncontrolled airspace, under a certain altitude, and a certain distance from airports.
evilduck 12y ago
That's an extremist position. What if I want to build model rockets? They go into the sky, but the commercially available stuff doesn't go high enough to normally affect airplanes so they're legal and unlicensed and have been for decades. Same for model airplanes, and model helicopters, and until we slapped the word 'drone' on quadcopters and strapped on good video cameras they weren't a concern either. Likewise, I'll take the opposite extreme position that if you want to fly airplanes over populated locations, stay more than a couple thousand feet away as well, you're noisy and small aircraft and their pilots don't have quite the safety record that large ones do. How many people have quadcopter operators killed compared to small aircraft pilots? Seems like the answer should be that pilots of small aircraft, the planes vulnerable to small impacts and the pilots actually killing people should be kept away from the populace. What's the utility of allowing small aircraft to fly over my house anyways? There's definitely room for both activities in the air.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  > How many people have quadcopter operators killed Zero, meanwhile even Harrison Ford, an extremely qualified pilot, found a golf course when his engine gave out. Shit happens, and we need to plan accordingly instead of trying to prevent the shit in the first place. Oddly enough, I don't see worldwide media focusing on the private aviation hobby and how dangerous it is to everyone even though he landed on a fucking golf course. But no, one drone lands on the White House lawn and it's a national emergency with firmware updates pushed by DJI in response to ban Washington, D.C. My work, as I point out elsewhere in this thread, is to educate folks about the positive uses for drone technology and the industry that's about to happen. The possibilities of extending our senses into the air around us are endless. I've had people come up to me while operating in public and threaten me and my equipment. People are shooting at drones with some frequency in the more backwater parts of the United States. I'm waiting for one of those bullets to land a few miles away and kill a child, because I predict the backlash will be against the fliers, not the shooters. I often feel like I'm pushing, hopelessly against the avalanche of media fearmongering, because this technology has real, potent uses that should appeal to this community of startup tinkerers and hobbyists. We could be investing in automatic technology to build upon TCAS and integrate commercial UAS into that system, but we're not: we're trying to prevent the industry from ever happening. Imagine the Wright Brothers trying to tinker in today's regulatory climate. Remember how all of us fought against classifying our hobby as "drones," even though it's technically correct, because most peoples' exposure to the word "drone" is centered around Hellfire-carrying platforms? Yeah, this is why.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Crito 12y ago
Is a 1kg drone at 300 feet operated by a stupid person really much worse than a stupid 1kg bird at 300 feet? What do you think about falconry?
- yellowapple 12y ago
  The answer here is obviously to just ban birds (except for penguins and ostriches and emus, since they're effectively flightless).
yellowapple 12y ago
I can understand your concerns if folks are flying their RC helicopters around airports, but I'm pretty sure there are already airspace restrictions around airports for the same reasons you've mentioned. Beyond that, unless you're routinely buzzing rooftops, a low-altitude "drone" probably shouldn't be of any concern to your own flying, since you're going to be on an entirely different altitude vector. I'm no pilot, but several of my coworkers are. Based on various conversations with them about flying (altitude clearances, ATC, etc.), I'd reckon you're severely over-reacting by calling for an outright ban on unlicensed RC aircraft flight. Altitude and airspace restrictions are reasonable; outright bans are not.

kenrikm 12y ago

Practically any drone that can cary a gopro could also fly to 2000ft and you're limited to 500ft by the rules anyway. The issue is the FAA has always allowed model aircraft however now the technology has advanced to the point that those aircraft have potential to be widely used in commercial applications and the FAA is trying to hold back that use. This can't be left to the FAA alone, next gen ATC has taken them 20years and it's still not implemented if we were to follow the same path with drone integration it would likely not happen for another 20. The cat is out of the bag, people have drones and they need to move quickly to get some sane regulations for commercial use instead of sending letters and fines.

Varcht 12y ago

They have backed off of the need for a pilot's license in their latest proposal and are now looking at an "Operator's Certificate" some good news amongst other not so good regs. For an indepth analysis of the current proposal see http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Alert-FAA-Publishes-Notice-of-Proposes-Rulemaking-for-Small-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-03-11-2015/ http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-Alert-F...