Can we have a discussion about the attitude towards drone restrictions?

[Dan_Solo]

I'm concerned with a growing trend in the community that seems to disregard or disrespect the restrictions the FAA currently has on where/how to operate your drone.

I do understand for recreational users, many of these are 'guidelines', but even as such we should respect abide by them - they aren't random or overly cautious. I would say they are as generous as can be permitted.

Firstly, the safety of manned aviation is paramount. These little flying robots of ours are nothing more special than a potential hazard, and we need to accept our place in the skies. Accidents in aviation will still happen; either by weather, mechanical failure, pilot or controller error, or a combination of these. Some things just can't be prevented, but most accidents are prevented on a daily bases as a result of the highly regulated nature of aviation. Weather minimums, strict maintenance schedules, equipment and redundancy requirements, pilot and crew training and experience standards, all are designed to prevent loss of life before they happen. Civil aviation, and to a greater degree commercial civil aviation is incredibly safe because of these standards and regulations.

A flock of birds can't really be regulated away, but a drone operated by a human absolutely can be. That risk can be virtually eliminated from manned aviation if the humans (on all sides) simply agree to the same terms.

For example, let's discuss the 400ft limit. The very simple explanation is that over sparsely populated areas aircraft can operate down to 500ft above the ground, or away from persons, vehicle, or structures. Climbing into this altitude is recklessly adding unnecessary risk to manned flight for what - a picture? As a commercial (airplane) pilot, I can have a pretty good understanding of how aircraft will be operating where ever I am, and I still wouldn't go there. I would bet the other experienced pilots on this board would agree.

14 CFR 91.119 (c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Unlike some other industries I have noticed, in aviation we welcome the regulations and don't mess around violating them. The respect comes from an understanding that most have been written using far too much blood.

The FAA and other aviation authorities around the world are trying something new here; addressing a potential serious risk before metal has been bent. Let's not screw that up for a pretty picture.

/rant

 

[coolhand]

Dan, I like to think most people would agree with you. I certainly do. We have to follow the rules and I would even lobby for a little common sense in the absence of a specific rule/regulation. Dont fly over military bases... sounds pretty simple and obvious to me. However, I have seen where me just mentioning this hobby to people elicited a response bordering on confrontational. So the wine is already tainted. I dont know how we put the genie back in the bottle because as the financial entry point into the RC flight hobby lowers, the idiot count in the hobby will increase.

 

[Joe Horn]

DAN: I agree... HOWEVER, PLEASE don't forget that some of us ask questions like "What is the maximum altitude Solo can attain?" not because we plan on actually DOING that, but simply because we are trying to wrap our brains around Solo, to understand it as fully and accurately as possible. But people read a question like that on this forum and come unhinged, accusing the questioner of irresponsibility and stupidity and murder and who knows what. I wish that people who asked questions would either be answered or ignored rather than being excoriated for it.

Innocent bystander: Nice drone. How high can that thing fly?
Me: Shhh! Asking that question is illegal! Don't even THINK it!

Another pet peeve is the people here who assume wrongdoing when there is none. For example, if I were to post here that I've often flown 1200 feet above take-off altitude (which is true), I just KNOW some folks would have a cow, before ascertaining whether I ever flew above 400 feet AGL (which I have not). Flatlanders forget that some of us live near mountains and canyons where you can climb thousands of feet while staying very close to the ground.

Disclaimer: I totally agree with you about the owners who are ACTUALLY irresponsible. Forgive me for venting about the irksome times that responsible pilots are assumed to be irresponsible. </rant>

 

[Dan_Solo]

Oh definitely, I think we are on the same page. I was chatting with a guy on reddit recently who was asking about what to consider if he wanted to fly above 400ft on a vacation to Palm Springs. It was a good opportunity to point out that 400ft AGL shouldn't be done, particularly in an area like PSP which has some pretty wild descent profiles. I did suggest that PSP is blessed to have some awesome terrain close to the city. Take the drone up the mountain and get some shots from 8,000ft.

With regards to the max altitude thread, I loved the technical discussion. Can never have too much information! But i think some of the replies worried me as well, and just highlighted a general trend that got me going. rabble rabble rabble...lol

 

[Maxheadspace]

I don't like anyone telling me where and when I can fly my drone, but the FAA really had to come up with some standards because Congress and a paranoid segment of the public were demanding it. I think the rules established by the FAA are not that onerous, and after seeing the abomination drone law that Canada came up with, I'm really appreciating the level-headed approach the FAA took. Out of the tens of thousands of drones out there today, FAA citations are few and far between. The National Park Service really has it out for drones, though!

 

[pyrate]

I hear you, I hate big government, but honestly just go spend some time on youtube and you realize they had no real choice.
Someone was, and in my opinion is still going to get hurt real bad before it is all over with.
The one that makes me cringe the most are people flying solos or phantoms feet away from children

All we can really do as a community is self police.
That means someone will get their feathers ruffled when called out
But rather that than here their kid lost an eye or worse

 

[Zzz]

I don't like anyone telling me where and when I can fly my drone, but the FAA really had to come up with some standards because Congress and a paranoid segment of the public were demanding it. I think the rules established by the FAA are not that onerous, and after seeing the abomination drone law that Canada came up with, I'm really appreciating the level-headed approach the FAA took. Out of the tens of thousands of drones out there today, FAA citations are few and far between. The National Park Service really has it out for drones, though!

As a private pilot I can appreciate both sides of the fence. Many of us who fly at the legal low level often were seeing a hobby growing at a mindblowing rate, putting aircraft that a vegetable could fly into the hands of the general public who had at that point never stopped to comprehend the consequences of a middair collision. It's still difficult to convey the severity of a collision without having to show pictures of bird strike incidents where the windshield of an aircraft is blown out and the pilot partially blinded.

Even then, the focus is never on general aviation, the little guy. We make up such a small portion of total flights in comparison to the transport industry, though most seemed to band together on the issue.

I don't think it's paranoid to be concerned given the numbers of drones now flying and the growth rate of the industry. I don't think the commerical regulatory aspect is as useful as the awareness portion that requires all UAS over a half pound to be registered. It's a good opportunity to preach some awareness of the national airspace system, of which you can imagine the masses are ignorant. And Part 107 seems like it matters little to the hobby other than to create a barrier to entry for the enterprising but ignorant souls. It was funny to see the study material contain mostly images of fixed wing UAS when the vast majority of participants take are flying multirotors.

The commenters in this thread seem intelligent and conscientious on the topic, and aware of the consequences to a manned aircraft. So who are we arguing with? Does anyone here actually have an issue with the regulations? I agree we in the US ended up with something pretty reasonable, for now.

 

[Old.piot]

I'm concerned with a growing trend in the community that seems to disregard or disrespect the restrictions the FAA currently has on where/how to operate your drone.
/rant

As a long haul airline pilot and a drone flyer I also have a foot in both camps Dan. We had an 8 prop drone (DSLR carrying size) drift through one of the Heathrow holds at 10,000ft! It obviously came close enough for someone to see it but not with enough time to avoid (<5 sec) so it was lucky a collision didn't occur.

Here, I think, you are preaching to the converted. Its the type of person who wouldn't even read this thread that is likely to be the problem and how do you convince them? :-(

Capt Nick

 

[pyrate]

you don't
they either learn the hard way through their own experience or one they read about that wakes them up
sadly the regs get tightened for everyone
Canada is moving forward on some crazy new restrictions thanks to the rules don't apply to me crowd

 

[cameraguy]

The new Rules in Canada have pretty much kept me on the ground. 90m from people, 70m from structures, in addition to the 400 feet rule. Any Heliport has become a full fledged airport, just like the farmers landing strip. Heliports and farmers But the most terrifying part is a garden variety police officer is the Judge, Jury and executioner of the rules. The fine - $5,000.00.

So where can I fly? On a few friends farms, who have 1,000 acres. That's going to get old pretty fast. So with that in mind, I don't see them in as much demand as prior to the rules.

There has to be a better way. I don't disagree with any of the participants in this thread. You're right, the vegetables breaking the rules need to be stopped, but can't you set up a training program short of a private pilots licience to help the industry get it right.

 

[pyrate]

that is what the 107 is here
I am no longer bound by the 5 mile limit depending on the airport
the airspace around many of these small airports is actually free and clear to fly up to 400
and now that they are upgrading the waiver process even near controlled airports I can get a waiver
can even get a night flight waver
But, I had to become certified and have something to lose if I break the rules

Is there no 107 equivalent in Canada?

 

[Zzz]

I am no longer bound by the 5 mile limit depending on the airport
the airspace around many of these small airports is actually free and clear to fly up to 400

This is technically correct, but requires some careful airspace examination IMO. "Lateral boundaries of the surface area" of Class E as referenced in 107.41 gives me pause. Does that mean any class E should be considered to extend to the surface rather than 700 or 1200 AGL? Therefore requiring ATC authorization?

For instance, the greater Portland area is surrounded by a giant square of magenta soft edge line, indicating the floor of the Class E is 700 AGL. But as I read 107.41, you cannot fly inside that lateral boundary without authorization. Or is the reg referring only to the dotted magenta line, indicating Class E that extends to the surface as depicted?

I think one would be wise to reconsider "free and clear" around any airport. The takeoff and departure paths of low-powered aircraft, ultralights, and helicopters can have manned aircraft at or below 400 AGL within 2 miles of the runway, especially on hot days. Full size aircraft are difficult to spot, and drones are impossible to spot from the cockpit.

 

[pyrate]

it is my understanding that just the shaded magenta area inside is Class E at 700 feet
so if you are under that which you should be at 400 feet you are clear
but if the dashed line is present, that represents E to the surface and would require authorization

 

[Zzz]

it is my understanding that just the shaded magenta area inside is Class E at 700 feet
so if you are under that which you should be at 400 feet you are clear
but if the dashed line is present, that represents E to the surface and would require authorization

That would make sense, but the wording specifying "lateral boundary" in regard to only Class E seems odd.