British Pilots: Poll Data Says Public Wants Strict Rules For Drones 110
According to the Guardian, a survey of members of the British public conducted on behalf of the British Airline Pilots Association reveals support among those surveyed for strict rules governing drone flights in urban areas, and (probably less surprising) calling for serious consquences in the form of jail sentences for those who endanger passenger aircraft with drone flights. A slice: The study, which will be presented on Monday at a drone safety summit organised by UK pilots, revealed that about a third of those polled think no one should be able to fly drones over urban areas.
What was the survey verbiage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without knowing how the questions were phrased, the survey is pretty much meaningless. For example:
1) The pilot's association believes that drones present a real and tangible threat to air safety. Do you think they should be permitted to fly in areas where airplanes may be flying?
2) Do you believe that drones which have been proven to be safe should be allowed to be flown by trained individuals in urban areas?
Those two questions essentially ask the same question but will illicit opposite answers from most survey takers.
Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom. (Score:2, Insightful)
People want to be free to make their own choices and live according to their own values. However, nobody wants their neighbors to be free to do things that are threatening or disturbing. That second inclination tends to override the first, driving most people to want more laws that further restrict freedom (rather than fewer laws, or more laws that protect freedom). The end result is a steady trot towards a police state.
Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an old concept called The Ring of Gyges [wikipedia.org], as an idea from Plato that essentially boils down to one's good behavior is dependent on one's likelihood of being caught, and should one have the ability to get away with things, one would probably do things that are not acceptable. This idea has been expounded upon with stories like The Invisible Man.
The drone concept has finally reached a point where one can anonymously violate the privacy of others and those others might not even know that it's happening, and the burden to do this is so low that nearly everyone in western society can afford to do it. This required significant advances in both radio-controlled aircraft and in camera technology, and we're now there. The development of the technology has outpaced the ability to detect it at the same casual level.
It's a tough call. The US federal rules that prohibit the use of radio controlled aircraft for anything short of recreational use has meant that there could be penalties for using them to spy on people for profit from taking pictures. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that there aren't other abuses already being committed.
Re: (Score:2)
I never really bought that idea. Outside my girlfriend's place of work in Japan there is an unofficial bike parking area. There are maybe 100 spaces. None of the bikes are locked, and people move them all the time to make a bit more space. Anyone could easily take one and there would be almost no chance of getting caught.
People don't for some reason. It can't be fear of getting caught.
Re: (Score:1)
I never really bought that idea. Outside my girlfriend's place of work in Japan there is an unofficial bike parking area. There are maybe 100 spaces. None of the bikes are locked, and people move them all the time to make a bit more space. Anyone could easily take one and there would be almost no chance of getting caught.
People don't for some reason. It can't be fear of getting caught.
I believe that reason is called, "respect". For oneself and for others. It's in remarkably low supply in most of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I never really bought that idea. Outside my girlfriend's place of work in Japan there is an unofficial bike parking area. There are maybe 100 spaces. None of the bikes are locked, and people move them all the time to make a bit more space. Anyone could easily take one and there would be almost no chance of getting caught.
People don't for some reason. It can't be fear of getting caught.
Unfortunately, this would not be the case in most parts of the worlds, including the UK where I live. Japan is obviously the exception that proves the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the technology has outpaced our ability to responsibly use it.
Morality and ethics seem to have disappeared as our technological dissemination increases, and I'd have to agree. Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you should; whether someone complains or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, i want to be free to be able to take out any drone that flies over my property, break it into little pieces
Check your local laws. You might be allowed to. All but the illegal dumping thing, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I would be almost certain these are "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" style questions.
Still, the media will love it.
Re: (Score:1)
The pilots association has a vested interest in restricting replacements to their jobs in the fields of remote sensing and photography.
Re: (Score:2)
Classic Yes Prime Minister scene [youtube.com] on survey rigging.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
one might fly an amphibian plane from one's ranch to a lake a few hundred miles away and land in the lake
This is while one is not driving one's Ferrari to meet one's supermodel girlfriend at one's town residence, one assumes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
One of them has always been that flying over property that doesn't belong to you is illegal,
I've never heard that, and I've seen larger RC craft only on public property. Large parks that are flat, open, and large enough to fly complex patterns without leaving the park boundary or going out of sight.
Even your FAA link doesn't mention anything about who owns the land you are flying on, or over. There are even RC clubs that meet at public parks. Sure, they don't fly on the days when there are soccer games are going on in the fields, but when there aren't that many people out, they are out, in publ
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? We just show up and after a quick survey of the area, we fly. Occasionally, the police show up, but they just seem interested in watching. Occasionally they'll come over and ask questions just as other bystanders do. We also have one police officer who flies with us at the same parks. He doesn't come to spy or curb our flying. He comes because he enjoys the company.
Re: (Score:1)
You can get away with that using smaller "park flier" planes as they are less able to cause damage, but there is risk involved. If you hurt someone you will be personally liable and wont be insured.
By comparison any official club will register with international model aircraft organisations. They train their members in the rules of safe flying, and provide insurance if something goes wrong. A few years ago my local club was $180 per year, not cheap but not too bad considering they have to maintain ground
Re: (Score:2)
You can get away with that using smaller "park flier" planes as they are less able to cause damage, but there is risk involved.
In this case, size does indeed matter. AMA defines a park flyer as less than 2 lbs, less than 60 mph and electric only. Many of our fit into that category, but others do not. My heaviest plane is around 5 lbs., with a 60" span and some of my faster planes will fly in excess of 80 mph. We don't have many that fly larger craft in these spaces on a regular basis, but we do have internal combustion craft. If we need more room, we find an adequate location. We always work to ensure that everyone is safe,
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
The only "rules" I've ever heard of are the safety guidelines put in place by the Academy of Model Aeronautics: http://www.modelaircraft.org/f... [modelaircraft.org]. Better follow those guiidelines if you're a member, so you'll be covered by their liability insurance: http://www.modelaircraft.org/m... [modelaircraft.org]. Then it's "not your ass".
Even your referenced link points to "Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)": https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/... [faa.gov]. Did you catch the date on that? Unless you're ten, I would call three years a "very long time." The majority of points listed in your post are not contained within SEC. 336. The only one that is valid is flying a model aircraft within five miles of an airport... and even that can be done, when " the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation"
You're spreading incorrect information.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
The FAA and the model aircraft folks have an understanding - they have worked with the FAA for many years and kept their members in check (using, among other things, the carrot/stick insurance approach). Before the 2012 law that explicitly orders the FAA to work with the model aircraft folks to come up with reasonable rules, there's been an advisory circular ("this is our interpretation of the rules, just a heads up because we'll enforce them this way") since 1981 that's still basically the rules: AC 91-57 [faa.gov]. You'll note that they're hardly onerous and really there's been very few problems with the "traditional" model aircraft folks. An advisory circular isn't a rule as such - and in fact one of the court cases over the drones was the judge saying "you can't enforce an AC as an official rule" - but it is broadly speaking "intent to rule". The actual federal air regulations are quite nonspecific and allow a tremendous amount of leeway for the FAA to say exactly what the rule means - and unless the interpretation is deliberately capricious the administrative law judge (basically a trial for regulations, not laws) is bound to their interpretation so they almost always win. Best not to violate the AC, since that's how you know what this interpretation is that they'll hit you with.
The FAA trusts the AMA guys to do this right, and really they've done a remarkably good job and have a many-decade long track record. It's hard to build and fly model aircraft, and if it's a hobby it's much easier to do things "right" by joining a club and using their field and following the rules.
They're not the problem. No, the problem is the drone idiots who go on Amazon and buy a "point and fly" DJI Phantom or something and go to the park and fly it up to check out a police helicopter, or the planes in a major airport's approach path. They have no training, no sense, and no community that will keep them in line. They don't care about being accredited and having insurance - their level of commitment is a few hundred bucks and a couple hours' time.
Irresponsible drone use is ruining it for the rest of the hobbyists. There is responsible use, but since drones are so easy to use, there's a lot more irresponsible use than there was with traditional model planes. It's really that simple. They are causing a safety hazard and forcing the FAA's hand to more proper regulation than their laissez-faire "the AMA seems to be doing this properly" approach of the last 30 years until now.
I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. Birds are bad enough, but at least they're not metal and we can't really control them. I trust the model aircraft guys to stay low and in their traditional fields and away from my airports. I don't trust the drone guys.
As for incorrect information... the GP was more accurate than you on balance, so maybe look a little deeper next time?
Re: (Score:1)
"I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. Birds are bad enough, but at least they're not metal."
How often do you fly in uncontrolled airspace at less than 800' agl without major focus on your field of travel? Because if something "flies through your window at 140mph" in uncontrolled airspace, I would have to blame that on pilot error. And, surely that something could not be a DJI Quadcopter because their flight control systems won't allow function in
Re: Seriously? (Score:1)
Yeah, and you'd play 'blame the pilot' too, when a polair heli gets a drone thru its tail rotor?
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AC 91-57: Outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance [emphasis mine] with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.
The FAA has some tough-sounding language on their website about enforcing compliance with these guidelines, but they go on to say "the agency has a number of enforcement tools available to address these operations, including a verbal warning, a warning letter, and an order to stop the operation."
It's not clear what could happen if someone violated an order to stop the operation, or tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
The poster above was able to link to AC 91-57, which does "outline, and encourage voluntary compliance with" some safety guidelines. I'd hardly consider that to be regulations and rules worthy of files and punishment should they be broken.
That said, those rules you mentioned are a good practice; but they are not codified as such.
Re: (Score:1)
The rules are the same here in Canada.
Check out M.A.A.C - The Model Aeronautics Association of Canada, full rules and safety data can be found here:
http://www.maac.ca/en/document... [www.maac.ca]
MAAC has been around since shortly after the end of World War II. They work hand in hand with Transport Canada.
Articles like the one quoted seem to completely ignore these facts. Either that , or they have no similar rules in the UK to begin with, with I find hard to swa
Re: (Score:2)
Public law 112-95 and the Special Rule for model aircraft does not have any altitude restriction, the AMA Safety code does not have an altitude restriction, AC91-57 does mention 400ft, but it is a guideline, not a must.
Ultimately the FAA does not have a law prohibiting model airplanes from anything. AC91-57 suggests some operating parameters that are good to follow, but this is far from anything enforceable. Stay within the AC's guidelines and they won't even look at you. Go outside of them and you have to
Re: (Score:3)
The reason you don't fly over property that isn't yours is you have to trespass if it crashes and you need to go get it
I am not sure where you live, but in America, it is not trespassing to go onto someone's property unless "no trespassing" signs are posted, or they specifically ask you to leave. My neighbor's kid has an RC helicopter, and has gone into my backyard many times to retrieve it. That is not illegal, nor should it be.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are opening a closed (but not locked) gate, or wandering on un
Re: (Score:2)
One-size-fits-all rules don't work any more. We need different weight/risk classes. IMHO, the smallest/safest of toys should be pretty much unregulated (max 100g at 100ft altitude, maybe?). Then we've got the medium sized consumer/hobbyist drones (usually und
Re: Seriously? (Score:2)
Since when does not being ignorant matter for forcing your opinion in our society ? They don't call it Democracide for nothing.
As long as you don't own one (Score:1)
I bet the people who are against it are the ones who don't own one.
More elucidation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just like British gun control, because only allowing people to own a shotgun or bolt action rifle makes the world so much safer.
Yes as the death / murder statistics in countries with firearm controls would show.
Poll data (Score:2, Interesting)
"Poll Data Says Public Wants Strict Rules For Drones "
Poll data also showed no Conservative majority.
Re: (Score:2)
You can walk your doggie. You can ride your bicycle.
Everything else is banned.
'Everything not forbidden is compulsory' or 'Anything that is not compulsory is forbidden.' take your pick...
RC Rules (Score:5, Interesting)
Now these nimrods have ruined RC aircraft for everyone because they never bothered to find out what the FAA rules were for operating such craft. I see YouTube video of people flying over active streets, other people's property, well above 400 feet and even in public places like parks. Those were all no-no's that would get the cops on you and possibly get you charged with a felony when I was a kid, and we avoided doing that not only to keep our parents from having to get us at the police station, but because it was the best way to keep doing something we loved doing.
So my question is, when did everyone decide that they could do whatever they want wherever they want thinking there were no consequences? I'm 43 and I see people my age and older doing some of this stupid stuff and it blows my mind. Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices? They've existed for longer than I've been alive so I just don't get why no one knows or bothered to ask about them and now everyone gets the shaft. It's sad that my children won't be able to do the fun things that I used to do, all while playing within the rules. The new rules are almost certainly require RC pilots to have full FAA pilot licenses in order to operate them. That's just outrageous, and it's because of ignorant, selfish assholes that did whatever they pleased and spoiled a hobby for everyone.
Oh, and get off my effing lawn!
Re: (Score:1)
Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices?
Yes actually, and it's not that surprising. If you get a new toy are you really going to think that there are laws written specifically for a TOY? I mean you said it yourself, you only thought to look up the rules for these TOYS because someone told you about them. What if you hadn't had friends who played with RC toys when you first got one?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with drones today is that its at a bit of a cusp in the technological capability.
Personally, I see 'drones' which you have to control manually, with joysticks, as 'RC toys'. Whereas the new generation of programmable drones (fly a loop at this orientation, this diameter and centered at this altitude) are flying robots. Its this later generation thats going to (er) take off. Likely to be MUCH safer, more precise.
One very interesting application I read about was 3d printing; quadrocopter drones with
Re: (Score:2)
quadrocopter drones with cans of foam which can be sprayed at programmed points building structures.
Foam? Spray paint!
I'm totally tagging the 91st floor of the Freedom Tower...
Re: (Score:3)
Conversely these "set it and forget it" drones can be programmed to fly miles. You set a course, off it goes and you'll see it again 20 minutes later. Assuming it hasn't hit a tree, power / cable line, or a bird, or a plane, or been flipped by the
Unenforceable? (Score:2)
The impression I get from some of these smartphone quadcopter "pilots" that any and all of these rules are believed to be largely unenforceable in most areas of the country except for extremely dense public spaces... maybe.
Airports shouldn't be a problem for enforcing these rules, but in other places... I don't think they will fare well.
Admittedly, it would be pretty difficult without the right tech and a good set of eyes on the skies all the time in the city, countryside, and every other place around the c
Re: (Score:2)
Pick me! ... (Score:2)
... the answer to you question is because, "cameras."
Re: (Score:2)
Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices?
Yes. People are. Hobbyists aren't. There's the key difference. I bet you could count on 2 hands the number of people who were hobby flying RC aircraft in your city when you were young. These hobbyists take an interest, they read rules, they want to expand their hobby.
RC toys nowadays are just that. Toy drones, highly capable, cheap, disposable, and every idiot has one.
Re: (Score:2)
No, AC, I'm saying that the AMA and FAA rules were either referenced in the instructions and it was your responsibility to go read them, just as it is today.
From page 25 of the DJI Phantom User's Manual: (emphasis is mine)
Re: (Score:2)
> I bet you could count on 2 hands the number of people who were hobby flying RC aircraft in your city
Utter rubbish.
When I was a kid (rural Australia, in the 1950's and 60's), RC modeling was a huge hobby. Most of us progressed from Free-Flight, to Control Line models, to RC flying. Not to mention RC boats and cars.
Admittedly the gear was rather basic with only one or two channels. We could only dream of owning the expensive USA gear, hence our homemade Valve (Tube) Transmitters, Receivers, servos, tone
Re: (Score:2)
I have. Now how many people do you know now with RC toys who buy into the books etc.
I remember clearly a time where you could only buy RC kits from hobby stores and stores dedicated to the hobby. As opposed to now where you can buy them at hobby stores, online, at electronics stores, at ToysRus, and a myriad of other places including small ones at general stores like BigW.
If you think that the RC users from 20 years ago weren't a small fraction of what they are today then you're living with your eyes closed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet I could name more than I have fingers and toes, or did you miss the part where I said I had friends that were competitive RC flyers? I went to club gatherings and competitions
I was speaking figuratively, but you also suffer from observer bias. You have friends and know people from clubs?
I know colleges who are engineers, administrators, web designers, photographers, people who don't do this as a hobby or for racing, people who never gave it another thought other than the fact you can buy an out of the box ready to fly (shit I don't think anything was ready-to-fly back 20 years ago) for under $400. These people are very different from aviation fanatics, racers, or other people wh
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait until the peeping toms start posting videos all over youtube captured using their remotely piloted quad+ copters.
Consider the source (Score:2)
BullShit (Score:4, Interesting)
The British public don't give a flying fuck about drones, just because some people picked the answers in a quiz that sounded good doesn't change this.
Re:BullShit (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think it's as clear cut as that.
please tick the box that sums up the way you feel (Score:2)
Please tick the box that sums up the way you feel about drones:
[ ] People should be able to fly drones near airports where they can crash into planes.
[ ] People should be able to fly drones at night causing a noise nuisance.
[ ] Drones should be regulated so they can't fly near my house at night or crash into planes.
One day soon (Score:3)
Just like laser pointers. 'Toys', right?.Obviously you should not point them at aircraft. Yet asshats still do it. On purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot or malicious person. Honestly I don't think that's even thinking far enough outside the box. Unmanned drones could be used to wreak all kinds of havoc with low risk of getting caught, especially as lifting capacity increases. They're already being used for smuggling operations, but I suspect they will be used for offensive capabilities in the near future, targeted or otherwise. Hell, they could use the devices themselves as a weapon [dailymail.co.uk], or drop heavy objects on unsuspecting persons below, where "heav
Humans suck at risk quantification (Score:2)
"We need the government to protect us form terrorists, hobby pilots with their killer drones, 3D printers, GMO foods, hold on a minute..... Yes officer? What do you mean I'm not allowed to talk on my phone while driving? Why should I put on a seatbelt? ..... Hey mate I'll need to call you back."
Humans suck at risk quantification, news at 11.
The only time (Score:1)
The only time the public is asked prior to legislation, is to use their ignorance to further the agenda of someone already intent on banning "drones".
Polls are useless for factual data, they are however handy for manipulating public opinion.
Public Opinion: http://www.teebweb.org/media/2... [teebweb.org]
Red Flag Trafic laws (Score:2)
Does anyone else think this is a bit like the the Red Flag Traffic laws from over 100 years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. These drone proponents seem to want to be able fly over everybodies head with impunity. I remember reading a post the other day where someone had a dream of ruining other bather's peaceful enjoyment of the beach just to have a towel delivered to him.
and everyone's worried about 3d printed guns (Score:2)
There are some laws all drones must follow (Score:1)
The laws of physics for starters.
Drones (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this suddenly a big deal?
Because these idiots want to have these things flying over everyones heads without regard for their rights. Whatever happened to your rights end at my nose?
Re: (Score:2)
There have been radio controlled planes for AGES. Why is this suddenly a big deal?
Because ages ago, the various regulatory agencies left rule making up to the hobbyist groups themselves. And with the only people building and flying RC aircraft being a small group of people with an interest in actually flying and doing so well, that solution worked.
Fast forward to the newer, cheaper 'drones'. More accurately, RC aircraft with some stability enhancements, making them easier to fly. Now, lots of people are buying these things, not so much for the thrill of flying them, but because they ca
No need for new regulations? (Score:2)
Is there really a need for new regulations? Or are government bureaucrats just feeling their oats?
Endangering a commercial aircraft? There are already laws covering that. Spying on your neighbors? "Peeping Toms" are nothing new. Flying over other people's property? Existing trespassing laws can be applied, since people have rights to their airspace immediately above their property. As other posters have pointed out, there are also all of the old rules for model aircraft and model rocketry.
"The new rules are
In other news: Butchers want to bann vegetarianism (Score:2)
Really, ask the wrong group that has an interest only on one side of the issue and get a grossly unbalanced answer. Although I think I am probably being unfair to the butchers.
What is the future? (Score:2)
Able vs. Allowed (Score:2)
about a third of those polled think no one should be able to fly drones over urban areas.
It's much easier to disallow something than to disable it. It's all well and good to disallow people from flying unmanned aircraft in urban areas, but is there any way to actually stop it? If not, it's useless to disallow it, and the best you can hope is to regulate it. Perhaps a more practical solution is required, and one day we will have nets covering all of our streets and houses.