Brooklyn Man Arrested for Crashing Drone in Manhattan

[Jim Michael]

Pilot certificates in the USA do not have photographs. When exercising your privileges as PIC you must have your certificate in your possession as well as a govt. issued photo ID. Also, certificates do not expire. You do have to maintain currency through a flight review with an instructor every 2 years (or other means which I won't go into), but you don't lose your certification for not doing that, just can't fly legally. I suspect drone pilot certificates will follow the same model.

[Jeff Pulera]

Wow, watched the video and this clown apparently ran into several office buildings with his copter. Was supposed to be "full video of drone crash" but stopped before plummeting to the ground. Hmmm.

Jeff

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Ger Griffin

Unless you are running at someone with a skillsaw then your not endangering anyone elses life other than your own. Not the case with MRs. This is why I believe it should be mandatory to do the course to get the licence. At least then these idiots with too much money and free time will think of something else to do with both.

The reason I'm against regulating MR's has nothing to do with the regulations and more to do with who and why they're doing it.

I don't want to see anyone hurt as the result of MR's, I don't think anyone does. If you ask anyone in the US if they should have affordable healthcare the answer is yes, but the answer may be something different if you think that the affordable healthcare will come from the government.

You say "those idiots with too much money" as though getting into MR's is expensive, yet you argue for regulations that will invariably make this hobby much more expensive which will result in "only those idiots" will be able to afford to do this.

[Brian Drysdale]

Laws are the function of government, you mightn't like government departments, but you usually need them for a country to function.

I don't know how heathcare comes into an issue of aviation law.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Simple, things that sound good in theory in "emotional" terms, are not always all they are cracked up to be in PRACTICE.

No one wants anyone to be hurt, injured or killed or to "be without" basic services or personal safety... but "stuff happens", and you've got government regulators/legislators being told "there oughta be a law"... with mixed results.

I've got no problem when an IDIOT who clearly had just unpacked a new toy and was CLUELESS about how to fly, faces some penalty under EXISTING LAWS for "stupidity".

I DO have a problem when an experienced flyer is PERSECUTED under regulations that did not "pass muster" - ask Mark Cuban about what happens when a regulatory agency goes on a "witch hunt/fishing expedition".


In the end, I would expect manufacturers (out of their own self interest) to shroud rotors, have "safe return" failsafes, etc, etc... it may be necessary to have a big red "DO NOT FLY until you... do these things" warning in the box, which will STILL be ignored by some people.

I would think a sensible WEIGHT CLASS and or SIZE classification should be put into place - a small MR is clearly NOT in the same "class" as a modded Hughes 500 or F16 (both of which are being tested for remote "unmanned" piloting) or a Reaper... I'd expect agencies such as police/fire departments and other existing groups that can benefit from using a RPV/UAV will need to develop sensible operating procedures. I would argue for "private" use, as long as they are under a certain weight class, regulation should fall under existing laws, not a new "revenue generation scheme".

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

The reason I'm against regulating MR's has nothing to do with the regulations and more to do with who and why they're doing it.

Unless the whole argument has changed without me noticing, I don't think anybody here is saying they should all be regulated per se, are they?

Isn't the general argument for any legislation just to do with both commercial use and/or over a certain weight/size?

So no specific legislation about small MR being flown for hobby purposes in general - how does that sound?

And if you decide to do it over Manhattan in a fashion as shown here, deal with that under existing law.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Laws are the function of government, you mightn't like government departments, but you usually need them for a country to function.

I don't know how heathcare comes into an issue of aviation law.

How do you expect a government to "effectively" regulate MR's when it can't build a healthcare website, better manage the DMV, Post Office, Amtrak, or General Aviation?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what could happen yet people continue to burry their heads in the sand. I guess they're thinking that's the sort of thing that happens to the other guy.

I've said this before, I don't need a bureaucratic pinhead telling me how to do my job safely and responsibly and the people who do probably aren't going to follow the law anyway so the net result is that the honest people get treated like criminals.

"Given that the USA is probably one of the most litigious countries around, I'm surprised that there's much debate on professional operators needing minimum skill levels. One of these drones flying around the business centre of a city hitting the CEO of of billion dollar corporation (extreme I know, but not impossible in some places) might result in really heavy handed regulations being put into place"

I think your kind of making my point for me, the heavy handed regulations are already being contemplated and I don't think any billion dollar CEO's have been injured. In fact I think its those same CEO's from Boeing, Raytheon and others who are driving a lot of the NPRM. Much easier for them to leverage the FAA to regulate competition than actually win business. The probable reasons for the US being such a litigious society is because there are a lot of attorneys and the result of writing ridiculous regulations/laws that have no resemblance to reality.

"I suspect you won't last long as a chef in a restaurant or an engineer working for a company, even as a one man operation, unless you've got skills and the traditional methods of apprenticeships and training is the way most people learn these. You start up a catering establishment, but you can find that there's a fair amount of regulations involved and poor practise isn't good for the health of your customers."

I'm not sure what government or industry regulations has to do with good training or apprenticeships? I think it would get in the way of it. A lot of people keep comparing getting a drivers license to licensing for MR's, the CA drivers test is a joke, It has been so dumbed down to the lowest common denominator that its a complete waste of time. I guess that's good if your an idiot and need to take the test, but it scares the hell out of me knowing my niece will be driving with a lot of her peers that have no idea how to really drive a car safely.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Unless the whole argument has changed without me noticing, I don't think anybody here is saying they should all be regulated per se, are they?

Isn't the general argument for any legislation just to do with both commercial use and/or over a certain weight/size?

So no specific legislation about small MR being flown for hobby purposes in general - how does that sound?

And if you decide to do it over Manhattan in a fashion as shown here, deal with that under existing law.

A lot of "hobbyist" make this argument thinking this won't effect them, but in the last two years Oregon, Washington, Texas, and a bunch of other States are not distinguishing between "professional" or "hobbyist" AP, they have just made it illegal across the board. Oregon wanted to go so far as to make it illegal to own a MR, not sure where that ended up.

We don't really have a choice in this. In California the LA Sharifs department sent a letter to the California Realtors Association telling them that using AP for real estate was against the law and that they would prosecute with up to a $250K fine and ten years in prison. I think its interesting and a local sherifs municipality would try to enforce a non existent federal regulation and that they chose to threaten the realtors who paid for the service, not the people providing the service. The net result was the same, Realtors stopped spending money on AP, which for me seems like a pretty innocuous application for MR's.

The whole commercial AP vs private AP is a smoke screen.

[Jim Michael]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

... it scares the hell out of me knowing my niece will be driving with a lot of her peers that have no idea how to really drive a car safely.

Do you have a constructive recommendation in that regard?

Here's an interesting article that seems to hold some parallels in terms of local attempts at regulation:

Higa & Gipson Blog: Glider Pilot Arrested When Local Sheriff Oversteps the Authority of His Office

[Chuck Spaulding]

Do you have a constructive recommendation in that regard?

Do you have a child or relative getting their license?

I'm military veteran pilot so I'm instructing my niece about situational awareness, the importance of her scan to develop a complete sight picture and resource management inside the car - how talking on her cell and texting effects that. Mostly defensive driving techniques, that sort of thing.

She, and a couple of her friends had already had drivers education and they didn't cover this sort of thing, they only covered enough to pass the test.

[Brian Drysdale]

The relationship between government and industry is complex, but you do find crossovers where industrial regulations are part of government legislation. There are companies that require certified people, who can meet international standards and there are industrial organisations involved in setting these standards. Depending on their history, these organisations may or may not be part of government.

In the UK, many industries have organisations that set training standards for people employed within those industries and which have liaised with examination boards within the education sector about their requirements.

Railways tend to be subsidized in many countries, so it's not surprising that Amtrack also requires them, especially since so many Americans use their cars or fly because of the distances.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

Do you have a constructive recommendation in that regard?

Errr Jim, I think you've quoted me for something I didn't say.......

[Jim Michael]

David - oops - Sorry about that. Fixed.

Chuck, actually I see a similarity in what you described with people flying UAVs without knowing the rules. I think you recognize the fact that someone could easily fly one into the flight path of a low flying helicopter where it is sucked into the intake and result in a crash of the helicopter,or substitute your favorite disaster scenario. I think it's reasonable to assume that many of these have a service ceiling > 500 feet MSL. Helicopters regularly fly at low altitudes (ca. 500 feet agl) in the Atlanta metro area. They certainly can't see and avoid such small vehicles, particularly in the haze and ground clutter. Yet you are opposed to regulations that would try to insure that operators demonstrate their knowledge of the rules of the (aerial) road.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

David - oops - Sorry about that. Fixed.

Chuck, actually I see a similarity in what you described with people flying UAVs without knowing the rules. I think you recognize the fact that someone could easily fly one into the flight path of a low flying helicopter where it is sucked into the intake and result in a crash of the helicopter,or substitute your favorite disaster scenario. I think it's reasonable to assume that many of these have a service ceiling > 500 feet MSL. Helicopters regularly fly at low altitudes (ca. 500 feet agl) in the Atlanta metro area. They certainly can't see and avoid such small vehicles, particularly in the haze and ground clutter. Yet you are opposed to regulations that would try to insure that operators demonstrate their knowledge of the rules of the (aerial) road.

I'm not opposed to effective regulations but I am opposed to regulations that are developed as a result of paranoia and miss information. Those types of regulations will only increase the expense to comply with them and ultimately lead to flying MR's to be less safe, not more.

Until recently I flew full size aircraft and MR's a lot, and I can tell you that if I were flying a UH-1 at 100ft at 100 knots and you didn't know the direction I was approaching from that you couldn't fly your MR into my UH-1 if you tried. The odds of a midair collision between a helicopter and a MR are astronomical, it is almost a non issue. Its simple, keep RC's below 400ft agl, and at least five miles from any airport would keep them separated from GA traffic and under a certain weight and it would increase the safety of the public.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

A lot of "hobbyist" make this argument thinking this won't effect them, but in the last two years Oregon, Washington, Texas, and a bunch of other States are not distinguishing between "professional" or "hobbyist" AP, they have just made it illegal across the board..

Actually Chuck, the state of Texas passed legislation making AP illegal without the property owner's permission. The problem being that unless it's a residence on a decent sized plot of land, keeping other property out of the lens is next to impossible. Haven't seen any cases here yet of arrests and/or fines under that legislation, but it was mainly intended to reduce the public's fears of privacy violations. And then when I think of that angle, I wonder about Google Street View and aerial map views. I know Google goes to great lengths to blue anything objectionable, but still.

I tend to agree with the part about keeping UAV's at or below 400 agl as recommended in the FAA advisory circular AC-97 from 1981. Keeping manned aircraft at or above 500 agl as per regulations should keep the two activities safely separated from one another.

I know this is a hot button subject right now so let's keep the discussion here respectful and civil.

-gb-