I for one would do away with the current registration and require the operator be licensed. Education is key and handing over $5 to a website will not accomplish anything but making you $5 poorer. A training course similar to a hunter safety course should be mandatory for any UAV that has more than 30m range. Only upon completion would you receive the privilege of using a UAV in the NAS.Just skimming this thread bring shivers down my spine. Skimming clouds, unwillingness to follow FAA recommendations, looking for loop holes in regulations to justify flying outside recommendations. People with no understanding of the national airspace system flying drones within it. This is very scary stuff and the reason the FAA is pushing so hard to further regulate drone use.
Here are some airspace facts. Uncontrolled airspace extends from the surface to 1200' AGL over most of the United states, within 5 miles of an uncontrolled airport the uncontrolled airspace extends from the surface to 700' unless that airport has been designated as having controlled airspace to the surface. If within 4 miles of an airport with an operating control tower controlled airspace also extends to the surface. Within 5 miles of a class C airport the controlled airspace extends to the surface. In most cases if withing 5 miles of a class B airport you will also have controlled airspace to the ground, though class B airspace is tailored for each airports needs. Anyway a drone should never be flown within controlled airspace, there could be conflict with aircraft. Its the complexity of this airspace that has the FAA saying not to be flown within 5 miles of an airport, it would be great if the FAA said you can't fly drones withing controlled airspace, this would open up some flying areas that is now off limits. The thing is you'd have some dork who would correctly claim that a flight 1/2 off of an uncontrolled airport runway at a altitude of 400' was legal, and if the regulation was changed this would be correct, you'd have trouble quickly. Skimming this post I think we are going to have problems soon anyway.
Why do they choose 400'? Well I think it was explained above. There is an minimum aircraft altitude of 500' when flying over uncontested population areas. So by keeping drones 400' or below they are providing airspace separation between aircraft and drones. Over congested areas fixed wing aircraft must remain above 1000' of the surface, yet helicopters are be regulation allowed to fly lower, honestly we are sort of luck they FAA in only asking us to stay below 400' in congested areas, and 2 miles from Heliports.
If drone owner continue to break the rules and not fall into compliance we will end up with a drone certificate, all drones over a certain weight needing to be registered (not drone owners having to be registered,) a FAA drone certificate and testing needed to fly drones, a new section of CFR's for drone operating, and weather limitations.
For God's sake! flying drones through clouds.... scary! You're going to kill someone.
This is from a 30 year pilot, who owns a flight school, holds a CFI and ATP certificate, and is a drone enthusiast.
You are, you must always yield right of way to full scale aircraft. Also, helicopters do not have the same regulations as fixed wing aircraft so they are allowed to be under 500' if they choose. Also watch for crop dusters if you live near agricultural areas.I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?
You are, you must always yield right of way to full scale aircraft.
Also, helicopters do not have the same regulations as fixed wing aircraft so they are allowed to be under 500' if they choose.
I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?
My thoughts exactly. Of course I would yield "right of way" to a manned vehicle but if we're following the rules/laws, would we be criminally liable for such an accident.Yep, I might question the justification to prohibit my access to a given part of the airspace simply because my vehicle isn't directly piloted, but in practice, I understand why and the vehicle carrying people will and should always have the right of way. Maybe if/when an active collision avoidance system exists, we'll be allowed a little more freedom, but until then, if I hear an aircraft, my quads head for the deck.
That's interesting. Are there any restrictions at all? Last summer, I was on top of a local ridge and all of the sudden, a police heli came tearing over a nearby hill, past the ridge and on through a little valley. We were looking almost level at it as it passed. It was seriously LOW and it was hauling you know what. And we didn't hear it coming until seconds before it passed, it startled everyone.
It was pretty cool to see, but if a collision occurs in situations like that, I think it'd be hard to really blame the drone operator - there would have just been little to no time to react.
You are.
My thoughts exactly. Of course I would yield "right of way" to a manned vehicle but if we're following the rules/laws, would we be criminally liable for such an accident.
I've had a few times where a helicopter has flown over the area I was flying, under 400 ft. Who's to blame if it hits my drone flying in my legal space?
I question my responsibility if I notified the proper channels before flight and was sticking to my intended area and altitude....
I do not believe it would be my fault if litigated and proven.
Would I cede airspace? Absolutely. But these quads don't really maneuver all that quickly compared to Helis.. A fast moving chopper could overtake us in moments and as ground operators WE are the disadvantaged ones. No real viewing plane to avoid collision. I see new minimum ceiling requirements for low flying manned aircraft as the only safe course of action. Seriously.
And let's face it...those Hot Shot Heli pilots racing around at 300' are quite annoying anyways. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and to be honest it is solely in their best interest to fly a little higher.
Well if it is a police heli you already know the answer to that... as far as other heli traffic 500' (I routinely see much lower aircraft fly overhead by me and I am in an suburban area) or 1000' feet, depending on whether you are over an uncongested area or not, except in emergencies and while taking off and landing. Helicopters have an addition exception of being able to operate at less than the minimums if you "present no hazard to peoples or property on the ground", so this is somewhat at the pilots discretion. What this means, for practical purposes. They can land anywhere in an emergency, and with the land owner's permission on private property. This means that more or less, they are allowed to land anywhere as long as a) they don't piss people off, b) they have someone's permission, c) they aren't in controlled airspace.Yep, I might question the justification to prohibit my access to a given part of the airspace simply because my vehicle isn't directly piloted, but in practice, I understand why and the vehicle carrying people will and should always have the right of way. Maybe if/when an active collision avoidance system exists, we'll be allowed a little more freedom, but until then, if I hear an aircraft, my quads head for the deck.
That's interesting. Are there any restrictions at all? Last summer, I was on top of a local ridge and all of the sudden, a police heli came tearing over a nearby hill, past the ridge and on through a little valley. We were looking almost level at it as it passed. It was seriously LOW and it was hauling you know what. And we didn't hear it coming until seconds before it passed, it startled everyone.
It was pretty cool to see, but if a collision occurs in situations like that, I think it'd be hard to really blame the drone operator - there would have just been little to no time to react.
Curious though. Do you think we have a chance at NOT being regulated? I don't.
This guy gets it.The only person that "owns" airspace is an air traffic controller within their radar sector or airport traffic area.
Controller to UAL B787...make a right 360 and reduce speed to 180kts for spacing into LAX.
UAL pilot to controller...unable, this is a waste of time and fuel. I'm the PIC of "my" aircraft!
Controller to UAL B787...it may be your aircraft captain, but you're in "my" sky!
UAL pilot to controller...United 15 Heavy, making a right 360 and reducing to 180.
Skirting clouds, breaking altitude records with a toy, thinking you have rights to airspace. Foolish!
I sure don't want to be the drone pilot the FAA makes an example of. They can and will do it!
Just skimming this thread bring shivers down my spine. Skimming clouds, unwillingness to follow FAA recommendations, looking for loop holes in regulations to justify flying outside recommendations. People with no understanding of the national airspace system flying drones within it. This is very scary stuff and the reason the FAA is pushing so hard to further regulate drone use.
Here are some airspace facts. Uncontrolled airspace extends from the surface to 1200' AGL over most of the United states, within 5 miles of an uncontrolled airport the uncontrolled airspace extends from the surface to 700' unless that airport has been designated as having controlled airspace to the surface. If within 4 miles of an airport with an operating control tower controlled airspace also extends to the surface. Within 5 miles of a class C airport the controlled airspace extends to the surface. In most cases if withing 5 miles of a class B airport you will also have controlled airspace to the ground, though class B airspace is tailored for each airports needs. Anyway a drone should never be flown within controlled airspace, there could be conflict with aircraft. Its the complexity of this airspace that has the FAA saying not to be flown within 5 miles of an airport, it would be great if the FAA said you can't fly drones withing controlled airspace, this would open up some flying areas that is now off limits. The thing is you'd have some dork who would correctly claim that a flight 1/2 off of an uncontrolled airport runway at a altitude of 400' was legal, and if the regulation was changed this would be correct, you'd have trouble quickly. Skimming this post I think we are going to have problems soon anyway.
Why do they choose 400'? Well I think it was explained above. There is an minimum aircraft altitude of 500' when flying over uncontested population areas. So by keeping drones 400' or below they are providing airspace separation between aircraft and drones. Over congested areas fixed wing aircraft must remain above 1000' of the surface, yet helicopters are be regulation allowed to fly lower, honestly we are sort of luck they FAA in only asking us to stay below 400' in congested areas, and 2 miles from Heliports.
If drone owner continue to break the rules and not fall into compliance we will end up with a drone certificate, all drones over a certain weight needing to be registered (not drone owners having to be registered,) a FAA drone certificate and testing needed to fly drones, a new section of CFR's for drone operating, and weather limitations.
For God's sake! flying drones through clouds.... scary! You're going to kill someone.
This is from a 30 year pilot, who owns a flight school, holds a CFI and ATP certificate, and is a drone enthusiast.
A little over dramatic don't you think??? We're not talking about 1/2 scale RC aircraft, these are 2 pound foam and plastic circuit boards. I worked out at Pratt & Whitney 20 years ago where they had test stands for shooting frozen chickens into running engines. You're a thousand of times more likely to get taken out by a flock of geese than some kids 2 lb toy but neither scenario is likely. If it really becomes a problem, which at this point it has not, we'll end up equipping drones with transponders identifying them to manned and other unmanned traffic.
The question has been asked, why do people want to fly above 400 ft? Well for one because not everyone likes to fly around in circles and shouldn't be required to jam themselves in a box because other are uncomfortable with progress. Human nature is to explore and push the boundaries of whats possible. Forget about 400 ft, I want to fly my drone into space and if I can figure out how to make it happen I should have every right to do so.. and for no other reason than it being out of this world cool.
Solo is definitely not a 2 pound piece of foam and various circuit board, it's a roughly four-pound flying brick that could cause almost inconceivable damage it certain cases.A little over dramatic don't you think??? We're not talking about 1/2 scale RC aircraft, these are 2 pound foam and plastic circuit boards. I worked out at Pratt & Whitney 20 years ago where they had test stands for shooting frozen chickens into running engines. You're a thousand of times more likely to get taken out by a flock of geese than some kids 2 lb toy but neither scenario is likely. If it really becomes a problem, which at this point it has not, we'll end up equipping drones with transponders identifying them to manned and other unmanned traffic.
The question has been asked, why do people want to fly above 400 ft? Well for one because not everyone likes to fly around in circles and shouldn't be required to jam themselves in a box because other are uncomfortable with progress. Human nature is to explore and push the boundaries of whats possible. Forget about 400 ft, I want to fly my drone into space and if I can figure out how to make it happen I should have every right to do so.. and for no other reason than it being out of this world cool.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.