Despite knowing the rules, many people will probably try this at least once in their lifetime...but the outcome will be deadly. It's just a matter of time, folks. Just a matter of time.

DJI F550 Hexacopter crash after flight above the clouds - YouTube

What are the rules? According to who? Local laws may cover where and how but as of right now.....there are no rules


Guidelines? Ummmm maybe, but in the United States no one could send you to jail be cause to go to jail you have to break a law. And as of 5-19-14 there are NO LAWS governing the flights of multirotors in the united states.

The FAA may try to threaten you, but at this point THAT is against the law

Im not saying the above is smart, but I will point out there are no laws other than local laws againts flying anything radio controlled.

and please dont quote AMA rules, they are not laws

Here in NZ, any radio-controlled aircraft are governed by a small set of rules. Breaking those rules leaves you liable for pretty hefty fines.

It's pretty basic stuff; 400 foot height limit, don't fly over people, don't fly within 4km of any controlled airspace, etc.

Even if there are no rules like that in other countries (I'm willing to bet there are in most), I personally think that it is extremely irresponsible to go above ~400-500 feet or fly within controlled airspace without permission. The risk to aircraft with actual people in them is too great.

What if the F550 in that video had been sucked into the engine of an airliner? I personally have mine set to a maximum height of 500 feet. In NZ, that's getting close to the altitude that passenger aircraft are allowed to fly.

We really need to set a good example so that our drones aren't banned completely.

As a hang glider pilot, FAA rules in the US for freeflight are to stay at least 500' away from clouds, period. On good flying days (for hang gliding) cloudbase is usually at 4K feet or higher, so that's not a problem. Though I remember one EPIC flight on a beautiful morning when there were well-defined clouds at a low altitude (like 900 feet), and on an aerotow flight I flew right through a few of them---definitely one of the highlights of my life! :-)

But yes---I definitely don't plan to fly our quad to (or above) cloudbase!

Truth is, 99% of all the shots I want to get with our quad are probably no more than 100 feet off the ground max. To me, LOW-altitude videography is where these things shine. If you want shots above the clouds, rent a helicopter!

Scott

My posts are aimed at laws only, and U.S. laws only.

rule- a guideline agreed upon by members of an organization. Breaking the rule can lead to you being expelled from the organization who formed the rule

Law- passed by congress, defined with defined actions for those who break said law.

Our history on this issue is a governing body (The FAA) overstepped its authority and sent threatening cease and desists letters to individuals without going through written LAW as to how to go about changing their own policy....i. e. they overstepped the LAW by trying to write LAW.

One individual stood up to the unlawful action of the FAA and said, I wont pay your fine see you in a court of LAW.
The Judge, who does have the autority to ADMINISTER law, but not write LAW RULED in favor of the plantiff. The fine and cease were put on hold ( a stay) untill the FAA can write rules they hope to become law.

So, as of now their are NO LAWS regulating the flight of any model aircraft in the US airspace at the federal level. Some states have enacted laws against using drones to get photos and video, and some local goverments have passed laws agaist flying remote controlled aircraft within city limits but thats it.

I cannont speak for New Zeland, England, Canada , France ,Germany, Iceland or any other country. I am only familiar with the current law in the U. S.

There is also a "rule" of "common sense" that when one fails to follow... may result in death or serious injury to self or others. THEN you can guarantee someone will be looking to pass some LAWs... Just because you CAN do something, doesn't make it a good idea, well illustrated by the video... lack of common sense!

I can't imagine how the person who shot this video fails to see the implications/risks of his "flight plan" or lack thereof, and for what? Too bad his rig didn't "disappear" instead of just turn to wreckage for someone to find.

I'm wondering how or why "failsafes" didn't apparently return the craft - guess maybe some winds and stuff the guy on the ground was clueless about?

What are the rules? According to who? Local laws may cover where and how but as of right now.....there are no rules


Guidelines? Ummmm maybe, but in the United States no one could send you to jail be cause to go to jail you have to break a law. And as of 5-19-14 there are NO LAWS governing the flights of multirotors in the united states.
In the absence of laws, then it may be true that you can't be sent to jail just for any flight as such.

But if something goes wrong, if somebody gets hurt or killed, then expect to end up in court to defend your actions. And in which case, your best chance of avoiding any prosecution or civil action is to show beyond reasonable doubt that you were acting in line with "best practice", whatever that may be. If it can be shown that you were doing anything contrary to any established "rules" or guidelines, that can only seriously harm any defence.

And whilst it may be true that the chances of anybody being directly hit may be small, then with enough drones flying, it's only a matter of time - and it's not just direct impact on a person, what about the potential for a drone falling on a busy road to cause a traffic accident?

But aside from all that, I think Jody probably says it best with "We really need to set a good example so that our drones aren't banned completely." Whatever the situation is or is not with laws at the moment, that situation is likely to change - laws WILL come about everywhere eventually. And the more drone operators take a "in the absence of laws, we can do what we like" attitude at the moment, the more draconian future legislation is likely to be.

You can bet if the heli in that video had gotten sucked into an engine or bought down a full size Heli, the person returning the parts would have had a VERY different agenda, likely involving a charge of "reckless endangerment". There are already laws on the books against certain types of foolishness that could be applied... Sometimes you don't NEED new laws to prosecute successfully.

And no new law would be required for a civil suit for negligence... lose the heli, the camera, the house, the car, and the bank account all for a few minutes of "cloud video"...

This is one of those cases of Want Don't Get.. The owner wanted the flight to go OK, He wanted the SUAV to return home, He wanted the failsafes to work, he wanted the batteries to last longer than they are suppose to. And now he wants to get only cool replies for his bad behavior.

John Cash. He was breaking the law. He went above the stated Law allowing for hobby flight. He entered flight altitude he did not have clearance to be in with a craft that is not designed to regularly perform within. AS clearly pointed out by the in ability to control the craft.

Getting a "stay " does not mean you will not get into trouble once the laws are clearly defined. Also fools like this will certainly piss off those that will be drafting the laws, making it harder to get what I want.

Im not defending the actions of the person. I too feel the flight is a danger. I film with a multi and I dont think they are very good for that above 50 feet or so. But what I get tired of is people constantly posting about LAWS that do not exist. Yes, civil court is always there and yes you will be very sorry in the wallet if you screw up.
But, there are NO LAWS in the US that says you have to stay below 400 feet. Or that you have to fly line of sight,or anything.

What Im stating is at the Federal level inthe US their are no laws governing any RC type.

Their are state laws in some states and thier are local laws in many places
I just wish people would stop with the illegal speak.

For example- A company in Texas has filled suit in Civil court against the FAA for not allowing it to use its foamy plane to hunt for missing persons.

They have to go to civil court to prove what Im typing right now.


Self responsibility is a great thing But before something is against the law, the Law has to be written

when you park in an area that you can be towed the sign will stae which municipal code covers the no parking. It has a number, sometimes letters in front.

In California our laws usually start with " AB-----" which stands for Assembly Bill

If flying a multi/RC craft is illegal in the US then surely someone can give me the number of the law?


Please dont quote the 2007 advisory the FAA put out. its clearly an ADVISORY

What are the rules? According to who? Local laws may cover where and how but as of right now.....there are no rules



It's called "the rules of common sense." All operators should have them, but sadly many do not.

Some of those commenting here seem to imply there would be no repercussions if this toy had been sucked into the intake of a low flying helicopter resulting in a crash. Forget the FAA regulations (although they would surely be part of the onslaught), start worrying about your manslaughter charges.

This is one of those cases of Want Don't Get.. The owner wanted the flight to go OK, He wanted the SUAV to return home, He wanted the failsafes to work, he wanted the batteries to last longer than they are suppose to. And now he wants to get only cool replies for his bad behavior.

John Cash. He was breaking the law. He went above the stated Law allowing for hobby flight. He entered flight altitude he did not have clearance to be in with a craft that is not designed to regularly perform within. AS clearly pointed out by the in ability to control the craft.

Getting a "stay " does not mean you will not get into trouble once the laws are clearly defined. Also fools like this will certainly piss off those that will be drafting the laws, making it harder to get what I want.

The judge did not issue a stay, the case was thrown out of court with prejudice, the FAA did not have the right at all to regulate AP from RC's. The FAA threatened to appeal the ruling, which they are entitled to do but that does not mean that the court has to hear it, nor does it mean that even if its ruled that the FAA has standing for the appeal they will win [the outcome will in all likelihood be the same] and it also does not mean that the "non-existent" rules that were [not] in-place before the case go into effect while the FAA tries to pull their head out of where there is no light of day.

I keep making this point and videos like this keep getting posted that I think support my argument even more -- YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY! No law would have prevented this fool from doing what he did.

In case you want something to read here is the judges ruling against the FAA. The FAA got its A$$ handed to it - our tax dollars at wok.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/FAA-v-Pirker.pdf

I keep making this point and videos like this keep getting posted that I think support my argument even more -- YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY! No law would have prevented this fool from doing what he did.
No, but you can make it easier to prosecute somebody in either a criminal court or civil court if bad things happen as a result of stupidity. And that doesn't necessarily need a law as such - a "rule" may be enough.

As example there is (in the UK) the Highway Code - the do's and don'ts of what to do on the road. ( https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction ) Some things in it are laws - you may be prosecuted simply for disobeying them (breaking a speed limit, for example) even if no consequences result. But others are "rules" and simply going against them is not in itself an offence - but...... As the Highway Code puts it in the introduction:
Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence..........

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
In other words, there are some actions which wouldn't lead to a prosecution in themselves, but could be used in court in the event that a case was brought.

It's also the case that many rules which started off as "advisory" (using a mobile phone whilst driving is a good example) have subsequently become mandatory due to being largely ignored at first. Users of drones who take a similar view of corresponding rules "because I can't be prosecuted just for doing it" should take note of that. It could lead to tighter laws in future.

Just think if there was a sky full of flying cars with the same people driving as flying some of the quads. Could have easily been a $10k mistake or much worse.

I'd guess the legal issue here would stop being about an RC vehicle and become about regular FAA rules regarding altitude restrictions. For instance, the FAA defines spaces for take off and landing. For flight spaces (at the altitude this guy was at, planes and helicopters do fly) they have rules... flying in this direction? (0 to 179 degrees), then you fly at either 3000, 5000, or 7000 feet. Or 180-359 flies at 2000, 4000, or 6000.

I've even seen where a guy sent a balloon into space (with a camera) who got permission from the FAA first, so he could make sure he didn't cause any problems. It was pretty easy and took just a few minutes. That was a vertical take off (and return), too.

This guy is a jackass for not considering all the issues he might cause both in the air and when his copter comes crashing down.

More an more UAV incidents will happen. and it's not certain the FAA will ever figure out how to handle it. I still think licensing/permits/etc.. should be based off of total flying weight + perhaps maximum height capabilities.

If you banned all UAVs altogether, the toy industry would get pissed, and so would many commercial videographers.

and if you just banned them for commercial use, then videographers would ask what the heck is the difference from the toys which basically do the same thing

With all the technology in these things, an altitude limiter is hardly a stretch, and could be required by law to be limited to a certain height, if an incident happens, and you were above that height, criminal charges. want to fly above that altitude? get a license.

these are my thoughts, and now i require brunch

What I really do not get - is the sheer irresponsibility of doing this. Forget the law, just common sense. PPL pilots avoid clouds for good reason, it's easy to get confused. With RF systems, as we often talk about on here, the idea of range worries me, the lack of spacial awareness worries me and the danger of dumping a flying object onto people or property worries me. On almost every aspect, the operator showed pretty poor judgement. Not knowing where the drone was, not realising battery power was limited - having to disconnect the GPS to attempt to regain control.

The video and the little notices not to flame the operator are not sufficient to make this video, with many others exactly the kind of thing that responsible operators hate. People in the UK now taking flying lessons because the crazy antics of some operators worry the authorities.

Is there a flying version of driving without due care and attention?

As I suggested a while back, "common" sense is not always common, and reckless indifference is a legal concept easily applied here.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that the guy who shot the video was completely clueless to the potential of aircraft at those heights, or the potential "targets" on the ground should there be a loss of control. That would make "reckless" operation a GIVEN, and the apparent indifference to risks might not matter to him, but certainly would to any victims of such "indifference". No doubt enough to bring charges and litigation.

Just because you CAN (there is no law specifically prohibiting your special brand of stupidity) does not mean there may not be consequences should you DO something incredibly stupid and cause harm or injury to person or property.

Unfortunately, every time someone does something stupid or horrific, we hear "there ought to be a law", why isn't the there a LAW?!?!! There ARE laws, stupidity cannot be legislated out of existence, and more laws don't solve anything, they just create more "law" breakers and less freedom, and often additional government "agencies" at great expense!

When stupidity is made illegal, who will be left to guard all the inmates? You'd have a 100% "criminal" population!

get a license.


Yes, get a license - this is also my view. I'm a pilot, with knowledge of the airspace rules and with all the safety training. Certainly some licensed pilots still do stupid things, and certainly some accidents happen, but by and large aviation is a safe and sane activity. The process of training for a license, and testing to get a license, and the periodic re-training and testing to maintain a license does wonders to minimize the number of fool hardy and ignorant and stupid people flying airplanes. A license requirement to fly these drones would thin the herd, but would not limit those with genuine interest or need.

And I'm certainly for a 400 foot AGL (above ground level) law. I really don't want to be at a legal flight altitude and encounter a drone. It could go right through the windshield, or disable a control surface, or take out an engine. All potentially lethal.

And frankly if I saw someone purposefully flying a drone in or above the clouds at a legal flight altitude, I wouldn't kindly return his crashed copter, I would go completely postal on him.

The process of training for a license, and testing to get a license, and the periodic re-training and testing to maintain a license does wonders to minimize the number of fool hardy and ignorant and stupid people flying airplanes. A license requirement to fly these drones would thin the herd, but would not limit those with genuine interest or need.

And I'm certainly for a 400 foot AGL (above ground level) law. I really don't want to be at a legal flight altitude and encounter a drone. It could go right through the windshield, or disable a control surface, or take out an engine. All potentially lethal.

And frankly if I saw someone purposefully flying a drone in or above the clouds at a legal flight altitude, I wouldn't kindly return his crashed copter, I would go completely postal on him.

Wait a minute, I resemble that remark, I am a "fool hardy and ignorant and stupid people flying airplanes."

I'm a pilot too, there are a lot of pilots flying MR's. I only fly recreationally now, about 300 hours a year in highly populated areas around LA, and in all that time I have never seen a MR in the air. Of coarse its the things you don't see that can hurt you. The point is that with as much flying as I do and the fact that I haven't even seen a MR makes me think that the threat of an air-to-air with a MR is greatly exaggerated.

I agree that it would not be good if it happened but your more likely to run into a large bunch of balloons that escaped the local auto mall or kids birthday. I see those all the time.

Yes I guess knowing something about how the air transportation system works might be helpful but the idea that someone flying a MR requires a commercial or private pilots license and a medical is ridiculous, you don't even require a medical to fly sport pilot, most people have no idea how much time it takes or the expense of getting a pilots license, it would probably be cost prohibitive for many and if RC's are required to remain below 400' then with a few exceptions they wouldn't interact with full sized aircraft anyway.

My concern is not that there should be regulations but that stupid logic will be applied to creating them and they will onerous and very few will be able to comply with them. Of coarse if your the FAA and you don't want people flying drones then that's exactly what they will do, they will have met the mandate to regulate but it won't be their fault that no one can afford it, then we'll be right back where we are, everyone doing AP illegally. Which at the moment we aren't because its not illegal and look at all the accidents that have occurred because of the anarchy.

I sort of agree with Chuck here. There's a rationale for having to know the rules, but requiring pilots of low weight drones to obtain a private or commercial certificate is a little overkill. However, with respect to not having seen one while out flying, one should do a sanity check and ask where there might be a concentration of drones and GA aircraft. The obvious answer is at an event that attracts aerial news coverage. This is in my mind the highest risk scenario, where manned and unmanned vehicles are maneuvered competitively to obtain the best view. Another aspect of regulation is the engineering certification of aircraft. Where every other word from some folks is "cheap", the risk of proliferation of unairworthy equipment will be high. Batteries are a good example. Chuck references LSA and the certification process for those is more of an industry based certification than the rather overbearing and slow FAA based process for other GA aircraft.

Yes I guess knowing something about how the air transportation system works might be helpful but the idea that someone flying a MR requires a commercial or private pilots license and a medical is ridiculous, you don't even require a medical to fly sport pilot, most people have no idea how much time it takes or the expense of getting a pilots license, it would probably be cost prohibitive for many and if RC's are required to remain below 400' then with a few exceptions they wouldn't interact with full sized aircraft anyway.

Hmm, sorry for the misunderstanding. By 'license' I meant specifically a license to fly these drones (MRs); not a commercial or private pilot's license. By comparison it would be a very simple license and would entail training on how to safely operate drones, flight training, and a written test and a flight test.

No, I've never encountered one of these small drones while flying either; hope I don't.

I knew what you meant but unfortunately one of the suggestion has been that for commercial Ap you had to have a pilots license. That's kind of the problem with regulating things, all good intentions aside you get people who have political agendas, privacy advocates, defense department contractors larger drone manufacturers who would rather not see the average person have the opportunity to compete in this market making all kinds of stupid suggestions and then under duress politicians from the FAA cave to those demands and we're out of business.

I sort of agree with Chuck here. There's a rationale for having to know the rules, but requiring pilots of low weight drones to obtain a private or commercial certificate is a little overkill. However, with respect to not having seen one while out flying, one should do a sanity check and ask where there might be a concentration of drones and GA aircraft. The obvious answer is at an event that attracts aerial news coverage. This is in my mind the highest risk scenario, where manned and unmanned vehicles are maneuvered competitively to obtain the best view. Another aspect of regulation is the engineering certification of aircraft. Where every other word from some folks is "cheap", the risk of proliferation of unairworthy equipment will be high. Batteries are a good example. Chuck references LSA and the certification process for those is more of an industry based certification than the rather overbearing and slow FAA based process for other GA aircraft.

Jim I fly out of Camarillo and there's an RC field a little over five or six miles away and fairly close to one of the helicopter approaches into the KCMA airspace and I don't know of any incidents or close calls. Certainly there's a higher probability of accidents near a news event but the people flying those news helicopters generally have their head on a swivel and have a heightened situational awareness. I know there have been incidents where there have been mechanical failure but I can't recall any air-to-air collisions in a situation like this. If drones are kept below 400' I don't think the danger is as bad as people think it is. Is there a potential for news gathering organizations to get a little overzealous, sure but non of them want to "make" the news so I'm guessing that a reckless drone pilot will not last long in that environment.

Paparazzi is a whole other thing, but we don't regulate camera's because of a minority of jerks. Not that all paparazzi are jerks...