Yeah, you're right - I don't live there. I enjoy far more reasonable rules. And guess what? It's not anarchy over here. We're not overrun with phantoms flying into airports, buildings or bridges.
But I have good commercial reasons that rely on the US market having practical laws that UAS operators can adhere to, and genuinely improve safety. I'm not advocating "anarchy" - far from it, in fact. I *want* less "phantom videos". In fact, the original 1980's guidelines were perfectly adequate (commercial clauses aside) - they just missed the basic user education of them.
Merely that the FAA is "helped" to introduce a practical and reasonable ruleset that improves safety without crushing a fledgling industry. They need to listen to the AMA. They need to listen to the community. Because transparently they're struggling to come up with some decent rules on their own.
But looks like the US will be followers, not leaders in this technology if the current proposed ruleset gets through. But I guess you'll be happy with that?
Could you provide a URL to "Your Book" so we all have access to Euan's definitions? Sorry, I don't have a book but use others like dictionaries.
And of course I feel it is YOU that miss the point. You have all sorts of arguments and loopholes and reasons you think you should be able to do as you please. Here in the US, my country, I can build and fly a plane. I can have all the fun I want. I cannot use it commercially. If I want to use it commercially I and it will be held to a higher standard. Your cutesy examples about photoshop or building an airframe are perfect. Essentially no one ever sells their pictures while in the air (I know there are cases but the vast majority are sold after landing) so you loophole guys will say "I flew for fun" and just happened to sell the photos later. So the flight was legal. Wink Wink. Of course you call yourself the 'Real Estate Aerial Photo Guy' but that is just a coincidence. If you sell one, OK. But 2 or 3 is a pattern and you are dishonest because you know you are going to sell them. The law exempts development of aircraft being developed for recreation already. But you are right. When you start selling them then flying them is illegal. That is a contradiction that needs addressed. One of several. But saying to hell with the FAA. I'll do as I please will not help you get them to change. In my opinion. By the way, When you are designing that airframe and you advertise it as perfect for aerial mapping or use in the movie industry then it is NOT a model. And you are subject to the full faith and credit of the FAA. It has to be approved and you have to be approved and have a permit or waiver or whatever my FAA tells you to do.
And remember for the most part all we are discussing was in the law passed by congress. The FAA did not promulgate these rules. They are merely informing us about what congress said. It is congress and not the FAA you should be angry at. If you liive in the US.
I don't think anyone's denying the problem marty - we all dread the next phantom video that makes the news, and we know something needs to be done.
But blindly letting the FAA "handle it" - when they're making such a bloody great cock up of it - is wrong. I think it's right their latest proposals are getting slated. At least in the past they consulted the AMA for the 1980 guidelines...the latest proposals appear to have bypassed them this time, and as a result, they look punitive, bitter, completely out of touch and out of date.
And pigeons do not hurtle through the air in a ballistic trajectory like a baseball or out of control quad. Your total lack of ability to understand as evidenced by this obviously unrelated example is why I, for the most part, support the FAA in its attempt to control those that can't or won't like you.
They are punitive because they will trap - often by accident - many of the users operating safely, while doing nothing to prevent and prosecute those who fly unsafely. That's punitive in my book.
You miss the point re: commercial - taking photographs with my 6S hex is no less safe whether I do it commercially, or for a hobby. The same way a taxi driver is no less safe driving home, than when he is taking a fare on the same route. If anything, he is safer. He has different insurance and different licences, but the rules of the road are EXACTLY THE SAME. The rules of the road are about SAFETY, regardless of what you're using the roads for.
And it's not just the flight itself they are wanting to prosecute, which I could *almost* understand. But it's not. It's*any* commercial activity around the flight. I could do an identical photo flight twice, but only if I sell the pictures from the second flight, does it make that flight more dangerous/illegal...*even though it has already taken place*. Has my work in photoshop suddenly made that flight massively more dangerous? NO! I could design and test-fly a new airframe, but because I choose to sell that airframe 3 months down the line, somehow it makes that previous flight illegal? How does that work?
And yes, you *need* imperial evidence before you can introduce law. They made that mistake in the UK with their speed cameras - 50% of the sites were torn down after it was proven they had not met the criteria for fitment (i.e. no accidents). There was public outrage at the time - and while still unpopular, it is now clearly understood the criteria that need to be met before they are placed, and they are slowly being accepted as "safety"cameras.
I didn't comment on the commercial aspects because there are only so many hours in a day.
Where do you get the idea that these are punitive rules? They are just rules. Because you don't agree with them you call them punitive.
I do not believe the FAA should be allowed to implement safety measures. I believe they are mandated to and have to implement safety rules. It is their job. Sure I know you don't like it.
I don't need any study to tell me my quad or hex is dangerous. 8 or 12 very sharp knives spinning at 5000 to 10000 RPM? Do you seriously need a "scientific study" to tell you that they are dangerous? Why all the arming precautions if they are not dangerous? And the very fact that there are people like Bill Patterson who clearly state their opinion that his quad "won't hurt anybody" is exactly why we need an FAA to protect us from him.
For Bill's and your information 850 people have been killed by baseballs which weigh 140 gms or so. And most of these were in ballparks where they were watching for and even trying to catch them.
Thanks for making my point. This is analogous to our problem with UASs. Just because you can buy a recharge kit doesn't mean you have a clue about the law. And if some guy (shadetree mech.) wants to charge you to use said recharge kit he is breaking the law. Just like the amateur pilot with a 350gm drone selling Real Estate photos who is not only clueless about safety but denies there is even any safety problem by a '350 gm' drone!
Quotes from the EPA about AC law: "• MVAC systems may only be serviced for consideration
(payment or bartering) by technicians trained and certified under CAA Section 609. • It is illegal for any person to knowingly release or vent refrigerants (except CO² ) during service, maintenance, repair and disposal. Such actions pose a risk to human health and the environment."
This is a perfect example of my point. You think because you can buy a drone which YOU declare safe then you should be able to do with it what you please. You also seem to think because you can buy a recharge kit you should be able to use it however you want. Your ignorance of the consequences and the law in both cases proves why you personally need the FAA and the EPA to guide you.
I know exactly how much 350 gms is. I have been weighing the pieces I use to make small models for years. To the 0.01 of a gm tolerance. 28 gms is an ounce. 350 gms is 12.3 ounces or 3/4 of a pound. A baseball weighs 5 ounces. Less than half of your 350gms. How many people are injured by baseballs each year? And it doesn't have 4 sharp high speed blades spinning around it. I again submit that if your 2 year old daughter was playing in the park and was hit without warning by 350 gram drone you would be upset to put it mildly. Please do not even try to tell me you think that would be OK. What about the stitches to her face?
I personally feel you are the reason I agree with the FAA that we need regulation. The fact that you boldy state "it won't hurt anybody" is why you need controlled.
And again it is not you that gets to decide what the NAS is or is not.
Thanks for the advice Marty. I moved there two years ago...
I notice you didn't respond to my commercial comment. Do you believe a government agency should be allowed to implement punitive safety measures without a single shred of independent evidence (data, white paper, scientific study) or consultation? Hell, I'll bet none of them even fly RC.
Nobody here is arguing against safety - we all know it needs to be safe. But it's the FAA who's got their definition wrong, not us.
Comments
I am not here for an argument, I am here for abuse! PLEASE STOP FEEDING THE THROLLS. Dr M here loves to be the center of attention, got it.
Yeah, you're right - I don't live there. I enjoy far more reasonable rules. And guess what? It's not anarchy over here. We're not overrun with phantoms flying into airports, buildings or bridges.
But I have good commercial reasons that rely on the US market having practical laws that UAS operators can adhere to, and genuinely improve safety. I'm not advocating "anarchy" - far from it, in fact. I *want* less "phantom videos". In fact, the original 1980's guidelines were perfectly adequate (commercial clauses aside) - they just missed the basic user education of them.
Merely that the FAA is "helped" to introduce a practical and reasonable ruleset that improves safety without crushing a fledgling industry. They need to listen to the AMA. They need to listen to the community. Because transparently they're struggling to come up with some decent rules on their own.
But looks like the US will be followers, not leaders in this technology if the current proposed ruleset gets through. But I guess you'll be happy with that?
Euan,
Could you provide a URL to "Your Book" so we all have access to Euan's definitions? Sorry, I don't have a book but use others like dictionaries.
And of course I feel it is YOU that miss the point. You have all sorts of arguments and loopholes and reasons you think you should be able to do as you please. Here in the US, my country, I can build and fly a plane. I can have all the fun I want. I cannot use it commercially. If I want to use it commercially I and it will be held to a higher standard. Your cutesy examples about photoshop or building an airframe are perfect. Essentially no one ever sells their pictures while in the air (I know there are cases but the vast majority are sold after landing) so you loophole guys will say "I flew for fun" and just happened to sell the photos later. So the flight was legal. Wink Wink. Of course you call yourself the 'Real Estate Aerial Photo Guy' but that is just a coincidence. If you sell one, OK. But 2 or 3 is a pattern and you are dishonest because you know you are going to sell them. The law exempts development of aircraft being developed for recreation already. But you are right. When you start selling them then flying them is illegal. That is a contradiction that needs addressed. One of several. But saying to hell with the FAA. I'll do as I please will not help you get them to change. In my opinion. By the way, When you are designing that airframe and you advertise it as perfect for aerial mapping or use in the movie industry then it is NOT a model. And you are subject to the full faith and credit of the FAA. It has to be approved and you have to be approved and have a permit or waiver or whatever my FAA tells you to do.
And remember for the most part all we are discussing was in the law passed by congress. The FAA did not promulgate these rules. They are merely informing us about what congress said. It is congress and not the FAA you should be angry at. If you liive in the US.
DrMarty
I don't think anyone's denying the problem marty - we all dread the next phantom video that makes the news, and we know something needs to be done.
But blindly letting the FAA "handle it" - when they're making such a bloody great cock up of it - is wrong. I think it's right their latest proposals are getting slated. At least in the past they consulted the AMA for the 1980 guidelines...the latest proposals appear to have bypassed them this time, and as a result, they look punitive, bitter, completely out of touch and out of date.
And pigeons do not hurtle through the air in a ballistic trajectory like a baseball or out of control quad. Your total lack of ability to understand as evidenced by this obviously unrelated example is why I, for the most part, support the FAA in its attempt to control those that can't or won't like you.
Your denial of the problem is the problem.
DrMarty
They are punitive because they will trap - often by accident - many of the users operating safely, while doing nothing to prevent and prosecute those who fly unsafely. That's punitive in my book.
You miss the point re: commercial - taking photographs with my 6S hex is no less safe whether I do it commercially, or for a hobby. The same way a taxi driver is no less safe driving home, than when he is taking a fare on the same route. If anything, he is safer. He has different insurance and different licences, but the rules of the road are EXACTLY THE SAME. The rules of the road are about SAFETY, regardless of what you're using the roads for.
And it's not just the flight itself they are wanting to prosecute, which I could *almost* understand. But it's not. It's*any* commercial activity around the flight. I could do an identical photo flight twice, but only if I sell the pictures from the second flight, does it make that flight more dangerous/illegal...*even though it has already taken place*. Has my work in photoshop suddenly made that flight massively more dangerous? NO! I could design and test-fly a new airframe, but because I choose to sell that airframe 3 months down the line, somehow it makes that previous flight illegal? How does that work?
And yes, you *need* imperial evidence before you can introduce law. They made that mistake in the UK with their speed cameras - 50% of the sites were torn down after it was proven they had not met the criteria for fitment (i.e. no accidents). There was public outrage at the time - and while still unpopular, it is now clearly understood the criteria that need to be met before they are placed, and they are slowly being accepted as "safety"cameras.
How many have been killed by pigeons Dr Smarty pants? They weight 350 grams.
A tiny quad does not equal 150mph projectile.
Looking forward to the end of baseball since its killed so many people. How many have tiny quads killed? Oh yea. None.
Euan,
I didn't comment on the commercial aspects because there are only so many hours in a day.
Where do you get the idea that these are punitive rules? They are just rules. Because you don't agree with them you call them punitive.
I do not believe the FAA should be allowed to implement safety measures. I believe they are mandated to and have to implement safety rules. It is their job. Sure I know you don't like it.
I don't need any study to tell me my quad or hex is dangerous. 8 or 12 very sharp knives spinning at 5000 to 10000 RPM? Do you seriously need a "scientific study" to tell you that they are dangerous? Why all the arming precautions if they are not dangerous? And the very fact that there are people like Bill Patterson who clearly state their opinion that his quad "won't hurt anybody" is exactly why we need an FAA to protect us from him.
For Bill's and your information 850 people have been killed by baseballs which weigh 140 gms or so. And most of these were in ballparks where they were watching for and even trying to catch them.
DrMarty
Bill,
Thanks for making my point. This is analogous to our problem with UASs. Just because you can buy a recharge kit doesn't mean you have a clue about the law. And if some guy (shadetree mech.) wants to charge you to use said recharge kit he is breaking the law. Just like the amateur pilot with a 350gm drone selling Real Estate photos who is not only clueless about safety but denies there is even any safety problem by a '350 gm' drone!
Quotes from the EPA about AC law: "• MVAC systems may only be serviced for consideration
(payment or bartering) by technicians trained and
certified under CAA Section 609.
• It is illegal for any person to knowingly release or vent
refrigerants (except CO²
) during service, maintenance,
repair and disposal. Such actions pose a risk to human
health and the environment."
This is a perfect example of my point. You think because you can buy a drone which YOU declare safe then you should be able to do with it what you please. You also seem to think because you can buy a recharge kit you should be able to use it however you want. Your ignorance of the consequences and the law in both cases proves why you personally need the FAA and the EPA to guide you.
I know exactly how much 350 gms is. I have been weighing the pieces I use to make small models for years. To the 0.01 of a gm tolerance. 28 gms is an ounce. 350 gms is 12.3 ounces or 3/4 of a pound. A baseball weighs 5 ounces. Less than half of your 350gms. How many people are injured by baseballs each year? And it doesn't have 4 sharp high speed blades spinning around it. I again submit that if your 2 year old daughter was playing in the park and was hit without warning by 350 gram drone you would be upset to put it mildly. Please do not even try to tell me you think that would be OK. What about the stitches to her face?
I personally feel you are the reason I agree with the FAA that we need regulation. The fact that you boldy state "it won't hurt anybody" is why you need controlled.
And again it is not you that gets to decide what the NAS is or is not.
Dr Marty
I notice you didn't respond to my commercial comment. Do you believe a government agency should be allowed to implement punitive safety measures without a single shred of independent evidence (data, white paper, scientific study) or consultation? Hell, I'll bet none of them even fly RC.
Nobody here is arguing against safety - we all know it needs to be safe. But it's the FAA who's got their definition wrong, not us.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next