'It Shouldn't Be This Hard To Responsibly Fly a Drone' (ieee.org) 67
The B4UFLY app from America's Federal Aviation Administration tells you where you can and can't fly your drone. But a senior writer for IEEE Spectrum reports that in fact the app "ignores both local and national regulations," and concludes after some field-testing in Oregon that it's "in many situations, worse than useless."
Buried in a PDF FAQ (now offline) about the app is this:
"Additionally, there may be local laws or ordinances about flying unmanned aircraft affecting your intended flight that are not reflected in this app. It is the responsibility of the operator to know the rules and fly safely at all times."
And oh boy is that a huge responsibility that the app itself doesn't even mention, and that enormous loophole means that the B4UFLY app's "good to go" indicator is not just meaningless but in fact giving you the wrong idea entirely.... You could argue that this is worse than no app at all, because the app is actively giving you bad information. You are not, in fact, good to go, and if you're already going, you should stop immediately...
When the FAA itself presents the B4UFLY app as a tool that can be used so that "recreational flyers know whether it is safe to fly their drone," that's exactly what it should do. Instead, the app provides only one very limited kind of information about recreational drone safety, without telling the user that it's on them to somehow dig up all the rest of the information that may or may not affect their flight... At the absolute minimum, the B4UFLY app should not tell users that they're "good to go" unless they are flying from an area where drone use is explicitly permitted, like national forests. Anywhere else, users should be instructed to verify that their local laws allow drone use. Is that going to be a huge annoyance that drives users away from the app? Of course. But it's the truth, and if the FAA doesn't like that, they should work with local governments to put the necessary information into the app instead.
This article inspired a suggestion from long-time Slashdot reader gurps_npc. "What should be done is that every park that is not too close to an airport or other forbidden zone should set aside a location and a time where they allow and encourage people to use drones."
"Additionally, there may be local laws or ordinances about flying unmanned aircraft affecting your intended flight that are not reflected in this app. It is the responsibility of the operator to know the rules and fly safely at all times."
And oh boy is that a huge responsibility that the app itself doesn't even mention, and that enormous loophole means that the B4UFLY app's "good to go" indicator is not just meaningless but in fact giving you the wrong idea entirely.... You could argue that this is worse than no app at all, because the app is actively giving you bad information. You are not, in fact, good to go, and if you're already going, you should stop immediately...
When the FAA itself presents the B4UFLY app as a tool that can be used so that "recreational flyers know whether it is safe to fly their drone," that's exactly what it should do. Instead, the app provides only one very limited kind of information about recreational drone safety, without telling the user that it's on them to somehow dig up all the rest of the information that may or may not affect their flight... At the absolute minimum, the B4UFLY app should not tell users that they're "good to go" unless they are flying from an area where drone use is explicitly permitted, like national forests. Anywhere else, users should be instructed to verify that their local laws allow drone use. Is that going to be a huge annoyance that drives users away from the app? Of course. But it's the truth, and if the FAA doesn't like that, they should work with local governments to put the necessary information into the app instead.
This article inspired a suggestion from long-time Slashdot reader gurps_npc. "What should be done is that every park that is not too close to an airport or other forbidden zone should set aside a location and a time where they allow and encourage people to use drones."
only lawsuits will help (Score:2)
Sadly, the FAA only responds to lawsuits, giving zero fucks for logical arguments. So what's needed is a class action lawsuit for fraud. They tell us it's safe to fly somewhere and it isn't? They're exposing us to risk. Hell, maybe even inciting us to commit crimes.
Speaking of crimes, it's a crime against the people that we can't use drones in so many places. Around airports is reasonable enough, but most of the rest is nonsense designed to prevent citizens from discovering malfeasance. If we have a right t
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of crimes, it's a crime against the people that we can't use drones in so many places. Around airports is reasonable enough, but most of the rest is nonsense designed to prevent citizens from discovering malfeasance.
It's a double edged crime. Where I live B4UFly makes it impossible to fly almost the entire county. They made the rules so strict that they approach stupid. Any aircraft that might have a problem with my drone flying in my front yard - well the drone is the last problem it has, because the plane is going to have a horrible crash in the next few seconds. They do need to establish zones for flight, not just some stupid huge circle around every airport where it is banned.
In a bit of weirdness, My RC club has
Drone rule is stricter than full-sized aircraft (Score:4, Informative)
> Any aircraft that might have a problem with my drone flying in my front yard - well the drone is the last problem it has, because the plane is going to have a horrible crash in the next few seconds.
That's one of several problems with the drone rule as it currently exists - it's illegal to fly your toy five or six feet off the ground in your front yard. It's perfectly legal for me to strap myself into my ultralight plane and do touch-and-gos here, that's considered safe, while my toy is illegal.
For full-sized aircraft, the safety zone has ALTITUDE as well as radius from the airport. In Class C airspace, you can't fly a plane between 400 feet and 1,200 feet; below 400 feet your fine. Because as the parent said, a plane under 400 feet while 8 miles from the runway has much bigger problems than a toy quad being in somebody's yard. They need to include altitude in the rule - anything below 400 feet isn't going to interfere with airport operations unless you're standing at the end of the runway.
Also, the rule for full-sized planes properly distinguishes between one of the 19,000 air strips in the country vs LAX. The neighbor who does crop dusting does several flights per week. LAX has 1,700 flights per day. The drone rule calls these both "airports" and treats them as if they are the same.
We DID get one thing fixed from an earlier draft of the rules. An earlier draft actually made paper airplanes illegal for most people (anywhere within 10 miles of any of the 19,000 airports). We got an exception added for unpowered craft less than a few ounces.
Re: (Score:2)
> Any aircraft that might have a problem with my drone flying in my front yard - well the drone is the last problem it has, because the plane is going to have a horrible crash in the next few seconds.
That's one of several problems with the drone rule as it currently exists - it's illegal to fly your toy five or six feet off the ground in your front yard. It's perfectly legal for me to strap myself into my ultralight plane and do touch-and-gos here, that's considered safe, while my toy is illegal.
For full-sized aircraft, the safety zone has ALTITUDE as well as radius from the airport. In Class C airspace, you can't fly a plane between 400 feet and 1,200 feet; below 400 feet your fine. Because as the parent said, a plane under 400 feet while 8 miles from the runway has much bigger problems than a toy quad being in somebody's yard. They need to include altitude in the rule - anything below 400 feet isn't going to interfere with airport operations unless you're standing at the end of the runway.
Also, the rule for full-sized planes properly distinguishes between one of the 19,000 air strips in the country vs LAX. The neighbor who does crop dusting does several flights per week. LAX has 1,700 flights per day. The drone rule calls these both "airports" and treats them as if they are the same.
We DID get one thing fixed from an earlier draft of the rules. An earlier draft actually made paper airplanes illegal for most people (anywhere within 10 miles of any of the 19,000 airports). We got an exception added for unpowered craft less than a few ounces.
Not to mention any flight in my front or back yard that is not above the height of the trees is not going to be noticed by anyone except for maybe a cop driving by or an annoying neighbor. Which makes me wonder how likely enforcement is going to be if a drone is not high enough to actually start being a concern with local air traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
You spent a lot of time training to get your pilots license additionally your life is on the line when flying your ultralight. However any moron with a few bucks can bring home a good sized drone that can fly for miles and thousands of feet in altitude to go with the 12 pack they picked up at the Quikie Mart. There's quite a bit of difference.
Re: (Score:2)
You spent a lot of time training to get your pilots license additionally your life is on the line when flying your ultralight. However any moron with a few bucks can bring home a good sized drone that can fly for miles and thousands of feet in altitude to go with the 12 pack they picked up at the Quikie Mart. There's quite a bit of difference.
Apparently people that fly ultralights cannot pick up and drink 12 packs they got at the Quickie Mart.
You have the stats on how many drunk drone owners have brought down planes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you didn't read the other post very well. He already addressed that. Sure a pilot could drink a 12 pack. But their life is on the line, so you tend not to see that behavior. You don't have that same sort of safety assurance from someone flying a drone
Umm, that's because it isn't needed, Morty
What about when you wusses tried to ban paper airplanes, as per raymorriss' post.
I mean, people have been hit with paper airplanes! And those rubber band things that you shoot whirly things in the air? scary scary, scary.
Now head down to the safe room into the safest corner - there might be some scary thing afoot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did I try to ban paper airplanes? I don't recall ever doing anything like that.
You didn't, my chachalaca.
You wish to accuse me of not having critical thinking skills? You demonstrate a complete lack of reading ability. I not only did not say you were trying to ban paper airplanes,but I most 100 percent completely referred you to a very findable post in this very same thread by raymorris that did say that. Read it or not, I don't care at this point, I do not argue with people that probably failed debate class becaus they thought "Oh yeah? well you're a stupid cacahead!" was a great
Re: (Score:2)
When did I try to ban paper airplanes? I don't recall ever doing anything like that.
You wish to accuse me of not having critical thinking skills? You demonstrate a complete lack of reading ability. I not only did not say you were trying to ban paper airplanes
You didn't say that? Really? Your response to me: "What about when you wusses tried to ban paper airplanes". You replied to me saying "when you tried to". As for raymorriss's post. There was nothing there about TRYING to ban paper airplane. The law could be interpreted in a way that would ban paper airplanes. There's really nothing special there. That' happens all the time in law. Someone writes a law, someone else points out an unintended consequence, and then hopefully the law gets amended to avoid that
Re: (Score:2)
When did I try to ban paper airplanes? I don't recall ever doing anything like that.
You wish to accuse me of not having critical thinking skills? You demonstrate a complete lack of reading ability. I not only did not say you were trying to ban paper airplanes
You didn't say that? Really? Your response to me: "What about when you wusses tried to ban paper airplanes".
You don't understand that when a person uses that sort of language, it isn't referring to you particularly, but to the wusses that tried to ban paper airplanes? They are wusses, and you are redefining cowardice, but yeah, you are a wuss. Therefore, "you wusses" You wuss, they wuss. You wusses.
Is english like your tenth language? Now please, have a last reply, declare yourself as teh winner of the intertoobz , and don't expect any more replies from me, because it is starting to feel like I'm picking on t
Re: (Score:2)
We DID get one thing fixed from an earlier draft of the rules. An earlier draft actually made paper airplanes illegal for most people (anywhere within 10 miles of any of the 19,000 airports). We got an exception added for unpowered craft less than a few ounces.
A lot of good stuff there. Yeah, so many people are simply terrified of tiny little quadcopters. So they try to make up rules that don't do much more than ban everything. See the guy posting below that thinks we drink a 12 pack of beer before flying.
Flying in my front yard in a forested suburb is illegal. Yet I can quite legally fly at the actual airport our club uses. Completely messed up as per your report.
A related screw-up was in trying to ban texting while driving (a worthy goal) many states have
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan, you have to pull over to the side of the road and stop the car to legally transmit through your radio rig. I don't think it's enforced much so long as they do it hands-free, because it would be pretty much impossible to tell whether someone is on the radio or on the phone, but the law is there nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan, you have to pull over to the side of the road and stop the car to legally transmit through your radio rig. I don't think it's enforced much so long as they do it hands-free, because it would be pretty much impossible to tell whether someone is on the radio or on the phone, but the law is there nonetheless.
Imagine though, a policeman in hot pursuit, having to pull over to tell someone something.
What the original laws as proposed, were to ban everything. My cars squacks APRS data, which is a digital location system. even though I don't even notice it while it's working, it would have been banned.
Side note - the folks in here that are paranoid about everything, I wonder how they would feel about everyone in the world being able to know where I was at any given time?
What a dipshit idea. (Score:1)
ON TOP of which, you have all those local and state regulations.
The entirety of FAA's authority is based in the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution... and in fact the 1926 law that created it is called The 1926 Air Commerce Act.
In no way does it have anything to do with someone flying a drone at low altitude, whether in a city or park, which is NOT involved in interstate commerce (whi
Re: (Score:2)
"The entirety of FAA's authority is based in the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution..."
If you really don't see how regulating air travel doesn't promote the general welfare, i don't think you can be helped.
Re: (Score:2)
First, this has exactly nothing to do with my point.
Second: the "general welfare" clause is a restrictive one, not a permissive one. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
In no way does it have anything to do with someone flying a drone at low altitude
Yes, it does if that has the potential to affect commerce. In the past, this meant regulating air space above 400 feet AGL and in the vicinity of airports. Above that level, your drone has to play nicely with licensed aircraft. Which includes the 'see and be seen' rule for navigation. Camera and other remote sensing technology is generally not approved. You have to be sitting in the cockpit, looking out the windscreen to comply. So much for drones.
Once Amazon gets approval to do drone deliveries, this alt
Re: (Score:2)
The PROBLEM is that the FAA is trying to regulate things over which it has no Constitutional authority...
The PROBLEM is that most idiots commenting on the internet have no clue what they're talking about.
49 U.S. Code 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(b)Use of Airspace.
(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
The Federal government owns all airspace. Federal regulations therefore supersede any local ordinances. The FAA owns all navigable airspace. In other words: once an aircraft (basically anything that flies, manned or unmanned) flies above the trees or buildings, the FAA has authority.
Re: (Score:1)
"Navigable" airspace is airspace which can be used by human-carrying airplanes for (theoretically) interstate commerce.
It specifically refers to crafts which carry human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up what the word "navigable" means in Federal law, idiot.
br> "Navigable" airspace is airspace which can be used by human-carrying airplanes for (theoretically) interstate commerce.
It specifically refers to crafts which carry human beings.
Once again, I shall quote you the statutory definition of "navigable airspace", and even provide you with a source. https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]:
(a)General Definitions. In this part
(6) "aircraft" means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.
(32) "navigable airspace" means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.
Since helicopters can land anywhere where it is safely possible and not explicitly prohibited (14 C.F.R. 91.119(d)(1)), pretty much every inch above the ground falls under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
This is even explicitly codified on http://www.faraim.org/aim/aim-... [faraim.org]:
Class G: 1,200 feet or less above the surface.
In short: stop making things up. The FAA controls the flight rules of every inch of airspa
Re: (Score:2)
Since helicopters can land anywhere where it is safely possible and not explicitly prohibited (14 C.F.R. 91.119(d)(1)), pretty much every inch above the ground falls under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
In short: stop making things up. The FAA controls the flight rules of every inch of airspace above the U.S.
So my 3 year old violates FAA regs every time he launches a stomp rocket? What about those balsa wood planes with the rubber band-powered propeller?
Re: (Score:2)
I will repeat, for those of you who have not researched the history of this, or the legal interaction between Federal and State laws.
First, look up the Air Commerce Act of 1926. Read it thoroughly. It is the sole authority for the existence of the FAA.
The FAA is only authorized, according to the Constitution, to regulate airspace than can affect interstate trade.
But yes, according to current (unconstitutional) regulations, your child does indeed violate regulations by launching a stomp
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how some people just swallow unconstitutional Federal regulations and call it fine. Whatever happened to "The Land of the Free"?
This is what the Supreme Court of the U.S. has to say:
Congress has recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce. Federal control is intensive and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxies onto a runway it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. It takes off only by instruction from the control tower, it travels on prescribed beams, it may be diverted from its intended landing, and it obeys signals and orders. Its privileges, rights, and protection, so far as transit is concerned, it owes to the Federal Government alone and not to any state government.
Source: Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 303 (1944)(Jackson, R., concurring).
Maybe you'll want to withdraw that comment.
Re: (Score:2)
So my 3 year old violates FAA regs every time he launches a stomp rocket? What about those balsa wood planes with the rubber band-powered propeller?
If it flies then yes: the FAA governs it.
Here is a more realistic example. Your 3 year old had his/her birthday and got a some helium balloons. At the end of the day, he let one fly out in the open. Unfortunately, you live near an airport and a small single engine aircraft was on approach. The balloon hits the propeller, and its remains clog up the air intake. The aircraft now makes a forced landing short of the runway.
And that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, in many places they're claiming to have banned drone flight BELOW the treetop level. In other words, in airspace that is most certainly NOT navigable.
The pilots are the problem (Score:1)
To use a computer analogy, "The worst problem is the loose nut behind the keyboard"
And my favorite error message: "User error: Please replace user, and try again".
A very, very, very few drone pilots are ignorant, arrogant and downright dumb asses.
But without mind control, an app is not going to change their behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
PEBCAK - Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard
ID10T Error - (IDIOT)
Re: (Score:2)
very, very, very few drone pilots are ignorant, arrogant and downright dumb asses.
But without mind control, an app is not going to change their behavior.
Personal drones suffer from two wrong stigmas. One is that people are fearful of military drones. Which makes them paranoid.
The second is like that Kook i Texas that claimed that someone was using a drone to spy on his lovely teenage daughter and her friends, who were in the back yard, spreading tanning oil on their firm, supple, and nearly naked bodies, in the full bloom of their womanho......... ah, I digress. I suspect maybe the girls father was projecting about his daughter's friends.
Meanwhile my bu
Re: (Score:2)
spreading tanning oil on their firm, supple, and nearly naked bodies
In Texas, that's a private matter. Best kept between a father and his daughter.
Drone pilots need to take responsibility. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they should not. This is no different to radio controlled planes and Helicoptors. Parks are for people and pets. Drone users have a responsibility to keep their hardware away from people and pets. It is your responsibility as a drone pilot, to seek out safe locations away from the general population to pursue your hobby. These places exist. If there are none close to you, then maybe you need a new hobby. And is it really too difficult to call local authorities and find out where you can legally use them?
If you want to book a particular park for some kind of drone event, then feel free to approach the relevant authority so you can book a time. If you have to pay a fee to secure exclusive use of a park, then that's on you. Just like other people need to do to secure exclusive usage rights for their events, hobbies and sports.
Where I live (Australia) it is illegal to fly a drone in the vicinity of others. It's not the responsibility of the others to stay away from the drone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"And is it really too difficult to call local authorities and find out where you can legally use them? "
yes it is, that is the point of this article. One factual map that you can look at for the regulations of a given area does not exist and even local authorities can't figure it out.
If you want people to follow laws, at least you could try to make it easy for people who want to follow them, to be able to get the information.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly did not read the original article. In summary it said that everything you believe is false. Basically it stated that IT IS NOT EASY TO FIND A SAFE LOCATION. Not unless you live in the middle of nowhere. I know Australia has many big cities, but only someone that lives in the stereotypical Australian small town would believe the stuff you wrote. If you live in any major metropolitan area, it is extremely difficult to find safe locations.
I want people to obey the law. You are not a drone u
Funnily enough (Score:2)
Federal Regulation supersedes state and local laws and regulations. An official Federal app that gives you a 'Good to Fly' might have the effect of Federal regulation and give the user in effect a Federal license to fly that supersedes state and local regulation. Giving the user a literal get out of jail/fine free card if you can convince the judge.
A bit if disservice to drone users to point out the fine print and try and get the FAA to ditch the app.
Federal, state and local laws (not to mention case law)
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is the responsibility of the operator to know the rules and fly safely at all times"
Which is one of the "little" issues with our legal system, it is so insanely complicated that not even a team of lawyers can really tell you what is legal or not in many cases/locations especially on short notice. For example I still don't think there is an agreed upon definition of how high a property owners "land" ends and the public airspace begins (its somewhere between 83ft and 500ft last I checked). It wouldn't be so bad if there was a little more of a tendency to give warnings/justifications and a little better centralized logging of the rules/regulations. But the general tendency seems to be for current laws to be haphazardly applied by people with next to no legal expertise/knowledge, new ones to be passed daily on the local/state/federal level by people who often don't read/understand them and in both cases for lawyers to have wildly differing opinions on how those laws can be legally interpreted within the vast and contradictory legal code.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the unfortunate side-effects of our form of government - if the lads/lasses in government don't pass new laws, they've got nothing to point at as a reason they should be reelected. So getting a law pushed through, whether needed (by anyone other than the person seeking reelection) or not, becomes a metric for "lawmakers"...
Re: (Score:2)
...and sorting it all puts money in the pockets of lawyers, who are a large portion of the congresspeople, though the percentage has been trending downward. There is some debate about whether this good or not -- Is there more of a problem with ignorance of the law or conflict of interest?
A possible scenario (Score:1)
My guess is that a manager who can't say no bullied some developers who can't say no (or needed the money) and then told his own bully of a manager, "Yes, sir. It works." And, the developers reasoned, it does work, technically. You can launch the app, it can determine your location, and correlate that with the FAA regulations for those GPS coordinates.
The missing pieces, of course, are all those niggling details like local laws and regulations and even state and federal rules that were just about impossible
Re: (Score:2)
There are better options (Score:1)
fly? how about DRIVE? (Score:2)
Well it shouldn't be this hard to responsibly drive a car either, but here we are. And have been here for over a century now. If it were an easy question to answer, I'm sure by now someone would have done it by now.
Forcing people to do the right thing s a pipe dream. Education will always be more effective than force.
It would be easier if it weren't for SOME PEOPLE (Score:2)
Drones were cool new technology, then cool new toys -- and then a few assholes decided to abuse them, use them in ways not intended, use them in highly irresponsible ways, and so of course they're now regulated in what seems to the responsible drone owners to be a totally unfair degree.
Blame the assholes who misused their drones, not the FAA or Law Enforcement or anyone else! The public has to be protected from d
Adapt to sectionals (Score:2)
If the FAA is going to treat drones like aircraft, then the drone operators need a little bit of training like that of pilots. Teach them to read sectionals so they can see airspace restrictions (I think sectionals are a great start), fly their drones VFR, and outside of that they need to work with ATC. It is an immense amount of training but aircraft had the skies before drones did and the lives in those aircraft outweigh the hobbyist's love for their drones.
The Real Problem With Drones (Score:1)
...is that they have cameras. This dramatically interferes with the gov't's ability to sequester information that it doesn't want you to see, so when the Branch Davidians, besieged by the FBI et. al., hang a bedsheet out the window with the message, "For God's sake bring back the press", and the FBI has backed the press way up so far that they can't see or photograph it for the evening news, "the authorities" have no excuse that "It's too dangerous for you to be in sight of the compound because they coul
It's all about the mighty dollar (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a regular commentator on the issue of drone regulation and an advocate for responsible drone and RC model flyers who are being unreasonably regulated to excess.
It has become very clear to everyone affected by these changes that the issue of "safety" is being used as a cover for the commercialization of the 0-400ft slice of the national airspace. For many decades, people flew RC planes (now considered to be drones) in this 0-400ft chunk of the airspace without problems or very much in the way of regulations. In fact, the Senate passed a bill some time ago (S336) that expressely protected the hobby from the excesses of regulation.
The 0-400ft slice of the airspace has had no commercial value until recently -- being too low for the safe operation of manned aircraft. Being without value, those who used it (hobbyists with their toy planes) were left to themselves and every one was happy.
However, advances in technology has now raised the possibility of using this airspace for commercial gain, via things such as "drone deliveries".
Of course as soon as companies likie Google (who are already doing drone delivery operations in Australia), Amazon, DHL, etc start to see the opportunity to make some money, pressure is applied to politicians. Several articles have been published in the Australian press which actually include phrases such as "Google's airspace" now when refering to the 0-400ft slice.
The result of this has been a concerted effort to get RC plane and drone flyers out of the space they had previously used for decades without problems. The Googles, Amazons, DHLs (etc) of the world now want exclusive access to this airspace without the hassles of having to share with a bunch of amateurs and their toys. As a result of this commercial pressure, section 336 was revoked and the FAA ordered to create new regulations to control the use of drones and RC flying models -- which they did.
Of course to cover their tracks, the specter of "aviation safety" has been used as a smokescreen.
The public was told that "it's only a matter of time" before a drone brings down an aircraft, an airliner or a helicopter and people die.
Well it's been almost a decade since "drones" (remotely piloted multirotor craft) as we know them took to the air and despite all the claims of the doomsayers, not one person has yet died anywhere in the world as the result of the recreational use of multirotor drones. Despite this, the public are still told "it's only a matter of trime".
Well yes, it *is* only a matter of time because, given enough time, anything that can happen, will happen. So the burning question must be... how long before a drone brings down an aircraft and someone dies?
Believe it or not, some academics have crunched the numbers [mercatus.org] and come up with the answer. Apparently, at present rates of aircraft and drone use, there is (if you simplify their results) one chance of a fatal mid-air collision involving a recreational drone every four hundred years. Yes, you read that correctly ONE FATAL INCIDENT EVERY 400 YEARS.
Strangely enough, regulators and politicians never acknowledge this report from the George Mason University -- preferring instead to focus on the fear and hysteria of groups such as airline pilots' unions who have a fear of drones -- not because they may take their lives but because they *will* take their livelihoodes.
However, not all pilots sing from the official ALP hymn-book. Take airline captain and former military pilot Chris Manno for instance. He wrote a very interesting (and honest) blog titled Airliners vs. Drones: Calm Down [wordpress.com] in which he debunks the risks and states that, while he's in the cockpit, he's more worried about birds and thunderstorms than he is about drones.
The tail of deceit driven by commercial agendas un
B4UFLY requirements are ridiculous. (Score:3)
I was having my roof replaced, and after all the problems with the original roof, I wanted to have a way to inspect it myself. so I bought an HD drone to fly up and give close inspection to the historic trouble areas and capture clear HD video of the new replacement, but when I started looking into what I needed to ber B4UFLY compliant, I simply gave up and stuck the expensive drone in the closet. And there it sits, forever collecting dust.
Little to my knowledge at the time that I bought the drone, I live in two overlapping no-fly zones where the notifications I would need to send have no official means of notifying them. With the amount of training, licensing, and lack of means to do what is required of me, just to inspect my own roof, it just was not worth the hassle. It would have been far easier to hire a helicopter pilot to fly over my house and photograph it. Or even an air balloon, I've had many fly right over my house and I bet they didn't have to notify all the local airports and hospitals and have a detailed preregistered flight plan.
How big is your house? (Score:2)
Because I would think no more than a hundred feet or two would be enough to survey your roof. If the regulated airspace is really that low, then there is something seriously broken with the laws,
Re: (Score:1)
Some controlled airspaces are "to the surface," generally within about 4nm of an airport. And no, those laws are not broken. It is necessary to regulate airspace to the surface within the approach and departure zones of an airport.
The fact that this is inconvenient for you does not mean the laws are broken. It's just that there are some things that are more important that remote controlled toys, like jumbo jets full of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Some controlled airspaces are "to the surface," generally within about 4nm of an airport. And no, those laws are not broken. It is necessary to regulate airspace to the surface within the approach and departure zones of an airport.
The fact that this is inconvenient for you does not mean the laws are broken. It's just that there are some things that are more important that remote controlled toys, like jumbo jets full of people.
If the restriction is "to the surface" in my own back yard, am I violating controlled airspace by walking in my own backyard? Do I need FAA permission to build a tool shed since at about 10 feet tall, it would be protruding into controlled airspace? If so, I do agree that the law is "broken".
Re: (Score:1)
The answer to both of your questions is "no."
You are only violating controlled airspace if you fly an aircraft in that space without complying with the requirements of the controlled airspace. For example, the requirement to fly in a Class D airspace is to establish communications with the control tower for that airspace. You do not need clearance - you need only establish communications. Generally though pilots will ask to transit the airspace out of courtesy.
The FAA _does_ care about structure heights, an
Re: How big is your house? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While it may be to the surface, in general, it's around 50 feet. We choose 50 feet
Re: (Score:1)
"With the amount of training, licensing, and lack of means to do what is required of me, just to inspect my own roof"
No, you do not have to do any of those things to inspect your own roof. You have to do those things to fly an aircraft. You can inspect your roof all you want. You just can't do it any damn way you please, potentially putting flight safety at risk.
"I've had many fly right over my house"
If this is true, then it can't be true that you live under a no-fly zone. What is more likely is that you li
Re: (Score:2)
Or, for the price you paid for your expensive drone now gathering dust, you could have had D-rings installed along the roof line to secure yourself to and do the inspections manually. I had them installed on my house for exactly that purpose, and the people putting them in were so impressed by the idea that they started offering permanent D-rings (most are temporary) as a feature for their deluxe-level roofing package. As a bonus to being able to inspect your roof directly with your own eyes, you would ha
Re: (Score:2)
Or even an air balloon, I've had many fly right over my house and I bet they didn't have to notify all the local airports and hospitals and have a detailed preregistered flight plan.
I bet you they did.
the FAA owns the air. Localities own the land. (Score:1)
There are multiple problems with the drone rules, which have made me much less interested in flying drones over the past year. I've got my FAA License, so can fly under either recreational or part 107 rules. Neither allow for flying over people that are not explicitly part of the project.
What really should happen is that any locality making rules against flying drones needs to register no-fly zones with the FAA.
Seattle Parks have enacted a no-drone rule recently. I have used parks in the past to fly out ove
Re: (Score:1)
Localities do own the land... which you are standing on when you conduct an unmanned flight. They are well within their rights to regulate your activities on land, including remotely controlling an aerial vehicle, even if they can't regulate the specific behavior that vehicle takes in the sky.
There's way too many laws (Score:2)
Especially in regard to what is done with toy helicopters.
Re: (Score:1)
There's way too many laws. Why do you think we have the highest incarceration rate on the planet? it's because virtually everything is illegal.
"I can't program my VCR but I can use AOL" (Score:2)
...this is the type of people that these drones are being sold to. I wish in this day and age, people can spend a bit of time reading up on proper procedures in using these things, but I guess I'm asking too much. :\
"actively giving you bad information" (Score:1)
No, that is not what it is doing at all. It is giving you good information. It is just not giving you complete information.
You are "good to go" as far as the FEDERAL government is concerned. The only problem is that you as a pilot of an aircraft are responsible for familiarizing yourself with ALL information relevant to your flight.
Just because the federal government's app gives you only some of the information you need does not mean the app is giving you BAD information.
Don't whine because you don't feel l