From ABC News in Denver:
DENVER - The Federal Aviation Administration announced Tuesday that it is launching an official investigation around the drone that was seen flying over the 4/20 rally in Denver on Sunday.
"Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft -- manned or unmanned -- in U.S. airspace needs some level of authorization from the FAA," Allen Kenitzer from the FAA wrote in an email.
Authorization can be for either the private sector for purposes such as research or training, or for public use, which requires a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for public aircraft.
But drones are sometimes considered model aircraft, which only have to follow FAA guidelines. Those guidelines say hobby aircraft-flyers must keep their aircrafts below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. Besides this, the guidelines specifically exclude the flying of model aircraft for business purposes.
The FAA website says that "routine operation" of Unmanned Aircraft Systems over densely-populated areas is not allowed.
Comments
Hi Guys,
Sadly these FAA posts which are brought on by the FAA itself always devolve into a pro or anti FAA contest.
Not the point really, the FAA isn't going away, it would just be a lot better for everybody's perception of them if they handled these things with a bit less fanfare and billy club and a lot more reason and thoughtfulness.
In the long run we will be stuck with the FAA in any case, somehow I hope we can find a way to get them pointed in a reasonable direction.
So far they are behaving more like Buster Keaton in the Little Dictator only not nearly as funny.
My expectations for the future are not bright as a result of their actions so far.
Possibly they are just trying to make clear to the people who fund them how completly incapable of handling this they currently are without a lot more funding and a lot more personnel.
I guess if that is their purpose they are doing a pretty good job, although the way they are going about it, I would think that the first thing any oversight committee would do is replace everybody at the top.
Why do I bother. You're a waste of time to converse with on this matter because you are going to rant about what you want to rant about, not what someone actually said. It's just not worth repeating myself when you're going to keep ignoring it anyway.
You're not widening anything for me. In all of your long drawn out rants, you have no once said something I didn't already know. Even when you put words in my mouth.
Well as usual you're going to ignore what others say and put words in their mouth for your own rants. Again. Nevermind.
If they're only concerned with safety, they wouldn't be going out of their way to prohibit commercial use. Most of which is functionally no different than hobby use. Oh wait, it is something new they can regulate and add a fee or tax to. Imagine that. The FAA couldn't make a sensible statement let alone regulation on this matter if it was handed to them on a golden scroll.
Oh good grief. What are they going to do now to "investigate" this? Interview a bunch of stoned teenagers? Yoooooo duuuuuude ya I saw that drooonee! Looks like they're still upset about that pesky federal judge telling them they're not allowed to do exactly what they're once again trying to do.
Mmmmmkay. So assuming that means ultralights do have authorization, and assuming similar guidelines are in place for flying models..... Can't quote it off the top of my head, what's the problem?
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next