Drones are a problem

[Rushie]

I'm having a problem with Joe Sixpack buying these things from amazon. Look at the chart halfway down the page. I don't think they are comparable to model airplanes. On the other hand I fundamentally disagree with government banning these things or imposing draconian restrictions because like with guns, the bad guys will circumvent that. But on the other other hand, I don't think it's the deliberate terrorist we need to fear, all those "incidents" aren't terrorists, they're Joe Sixpack, likely. What's the answer here?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40476264

 

[Brad Z]

I'm having a problem with Joe Sixpack buying these things from amazon. Look at the chart halfway down the page. I don't think they are comparable to model airplanes. On the other hand I fundamentally disagree with government banning these things or imposing draconian restrictions because like with guns, the bad guys will circumvent that. But on the other other hand, I don't think it's the deliberate terrorist we need to fear, all those "incidents" aren't terrorists, they're Joe Sixpack, likely. What's the answer here?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40476264

Probably the same answer as if everyone who got a radio controlled car decided it would be more fun to operate them on public highways. There'd be some sort of restriction, and penalties for violations.

 

[murphey]

There is a legitimate problem with consumer use of drones - and high-end use of drones by operators that are supposed to know better. The southwest has a number of fires right now. In Colorado, two arial fire drops had emergency terminations or early drops because unknown drones got in the way. This jeopardizes both life and $millions of property because someone thought it was a good idea to get a closeup view with the drone they got for Christmas. At this point it's not "bad guys" but stupidity because they don't know any better and Amazon and other vendors are making no attempt to educate them.

 

[Rushie]

Probably the same answer as if everyone who got a radio controlled car decided it would be more fun to operate them on public highways. There'd be some sort of restriction, and penalties for violations.

You mean a regular sized car or one of those little things we used to chase around our dog with? On a highway the little radio operated cars would just be smushed but in the sky a little bitty drone could bring down a commercial jetliner. Big difference.

 

[flyingron]

It's going to take congressional action. The FAA got slapped pretty hard that they do NOT have the authority to regulate these across the board.
The Constitution is a pesky thing to the current administration.

 

[Brad Z]

You mean a regular sized car or one of those little things we used to chase around our dog with? On a highway the little radio operated cars would just be smushed but in the sky a little bitty drone could bring down a commercial jetliner. Big difference.

I mean there would be a willingness to regulate them because they are out of place distraction and hazardous. While a four pound radio controlled car may not do much to a truck, it would be hazardous to a motorcycle. Regardless,

 

[Rushie]

There is a legitimate problem with consumer use of drones - and high-end use of drones by operators that are supposed to know better. The southwest has a number of fires right now. In Colorado, two arial fire drops had emergency terminations or early drops because unknown drones got in the way. This jeopardizes both life and $millions of property because someone thought it was a good idea to get a closeup view with the drone they got for Christmas. At this point it's not "bad guys" but stupidity because they don't know any better and Amazon and other vendors are making no attempt to educate them.

That's my point, the biggest threat is from ordinary stupidity. "Bad guys" are statistically very rare. And up until now no one could occupy the sky without going through training which put a big limit on how many stupid idiots could be up there. Of course there were always birds. But now, removing the expense of flying lessons and access to a plane, this opens the skies to being physically occupied by (an extension of) virtually every human on the ground.

 

[Rushie]

I mean there would be a willingness to regulate them because they are out of place distraction and hazardous. While a four pound radio controlled car may not do much to a truck, it would be hazardous to a motorcycle. Regardless,

Good point.

 

[paflyer]

It's going to take congressional action. The FAA got slapped pretty hard that they do NOT have the authority to regulate these across the board.
The Constitution is a pesky thing to the current administration.

Which administration??

 

[Rushie]

It's going to take congressional action. The FAA got slapped pretty hard that they do NOT have the authority to regulate these across the board.
The Constitution is a pesky thing to the current administration.

And being pretty much a constitutionalist I agreed with that. But it leaves me conflicted about how to handle this because I think there is a virtual 100% certainty we will have a major disaster caused by one of these things.

 

[pmanton]

Here in AZ, a chap was arrested for flying his drone in a TFR that was in place for a fire.

 

[Axtel4]

It's going to take congressional action. The FAA got slapped pretty hard that they do NOT have the authority to regulate these across the board.
The Constitution is a pesky thing to the current administration.

And it wasn't a pesky thing to the former administration(s)?

 

[F01LA]

I agree that drones are (or can be) a problem. That being said, the article claims that the highest near-miss was at 12,500 feet over Heathrow. Really?? I would love to see the drone that flies that high. On the extremely off chance that it was a drone, it certainly wasn't one Joe Sixpack bought off Amazon.

I don't know what percent of "drone sightings" are actually drones, but I'm guessing it's pretty low. Not saying they aren't a problem, but most drones bought off Amazon are going to be either a) Toys that barely go above the treetops, or b) Sophisticated drones with no-fly zones built in.

 

[1600vw]

I agree that drones are (or can be) a problem. That being said, the article claims that the highest near-miss was at 12,500 feet over Heathrow. Really?? I would love to see the drone that flies that high. On the extremely off chance that it was a drone, it certainly wasn't one Joe Sixpack bought off Amazon.

I don't know what percent of "drone sightings" are actually drones, but I'm guessing it's pretty low. Not saying they aren't a problem, but most drones bought off Amazon are going to be either a) Toys that barely go above the treetops, or b) Sophisticated drones with no-fly zones built in.

I have a friend who purchased a few drones off Amazon. These are GPS guided drones with on board screens built into the hand held remote. This gives data like altitude and heading ect you see all this in the recordings it makes. I have seen footage of this at over 5000'. We live at 550'. I have warned him about this. One night a cop warned him and he sold all his drones. But don't think you can not buy something like this off amazon. These are hobby grade drones not some toy.

These come with altitude holds built into them. But all it takes is a computer and internet connection to remove these holds. My buddies did this to everyone of his drones.

Tony

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I agree that drones are (or can be) a problem. That being said, the article claims that the highest near-miss was at 12,500 feet over Heathrow. Really?? I would love to see the drone that flies that high. On the extremely off chance that it was a drone, it certainly wasn't one Joe Sixpack bought off Amazon.

I don't know what percent of "drone sightings" are actually drones, but I'm guessing it's pretty low. Not saying they aren't a problem, but most drones bought off Amazon are going to be either a) Toys that barely go above the treetops, or b) Sophisticated drones with no-fly zones built in.

https://www.amazon.com/DJI-Quadcopt...words=drone&refinements=p_36:1253564011&psc=1

Max ceiling for these 16,000 to 19,000 feet (http://www.dji.com/products/compare-phantom )

As for no-fly zones, it is possible to "unlock" these areas for drone flight (http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo-system).

This doesn't count the "DIY" drones, or the older models. Radio control airplanes and free-flight planes are under the "drone" name now and can certainly get that high.

 

[Ravioli]

The Constitution is a pesky thing to the current administration.

Only took 4 replies to get political.

 

[Tantalum]

On a highway the little radio operated cars would just be smushed

Depending on the type of driver I could see someone swerving and causing a massive pile up..

Drones are a problem, but it is because I feel in large part it is due to the type of people who get them. Classically RC airplanes were purchased by enthusiasts who would meet up at a field with a few other buddies and fly their model Spitfires, P-51s, etc. around for a bit, these folks are aviation nuts and were cognizant of the airspace they operated in... sort of like model rocket clubs. Drones are an entirely different kind of flying... people buy these things and either fly them out of their backyard or drive out somewhere near a city or beach (which are typically near congested airspace) and see how high their toys will fly

**I know there are people on this board who have and fly drones, and I trust that they do so responsibly, so this isn't an indictment on *all* drone operators or a call to ban them through regulation. BUT, I do think there is a genuine concern here about their responsible operation. The analogy of taking your RC car out and driving it down public roads is a fair one

My solution? Educate these folks and program the drones to stay at 400' agl or under, or to at least to stay clear of B, C, and D airspace... with the amount of GPS capable technology on them it would not be hard at all to put some rules in the coding on them. Will people find ways to break them and "hack" their drones? Sure, but that's on them at that point

 

[Shopshirt]

There will always be idiots everywhere, even in other airplanes. The cat is already out of the bag and getting the word out via education is the only thing you can really do because pre-ban drones are still out here. Which a lot of the articles act like the skies are swarming with drones. It's still a big sky out there and my guess is that out of all of the drones out there most end up collecting dust in a closet within a few months of purchase.

Not to come off pro-drone, it makes me laugh at how the reports make it sound as though the drones are out there looking for aircraft or the people flying drones are actively looking to cross an aircraft flight path.

 

[Palmpilot]

I agree that drones are (or can be) a problem. That being said, the article claims that the highest near-miss was at 12,500 feet over Heathrow. Really?? I would love to see the drone that flies that high. On the extremely off chance that it was a drone, it certainly wasn't one Joe Sixpack bought off Amazon.

I don't know what percent of "drone sightings" are actually drones, but I'm guessing it's pretty low. Not saying they aren't a problem, but most drones bought off Amazon are going to be either a) Toys that barely go above the treetops, or b) Sophisticated drones with no-fly zones built in.

They would have to design consumer drones to be capable of at least moderately high altitudes, because if they didn't, people who live at high elevations wouldn't even be able to get them out of ground effect.

 

[ktup-flyer]

I agree that drones are (or can be) a problem. That being said, the article claims that the highest near-miss was at 12,500 feet over Heathrow. Really?? I would love to see the drone that flies that high. On the extremely off chance that it was a drone, it certainly wasn't one Joe Sixpack bought off Amazon.

I don't know what percent of "drone sightings" are actually drones, but I'm guessing it's pretty low. Not saying they aren't a problem, but most drones bought off Amazon are going to be either a) Toys that barely go above the treetops, or b) Sophisticated drones with no-fly zones built in.

My phantom 4 pro would easily get that high. Battery life is the limiting factor when it comes to altitude

 

[Rushie]

Depending on the type of driver I could see someone swerving and causing a massive pile up..

Drones are a problem, but it is because I feel in large part it is due to the type of people who get them. Classically RC airplanes were purchased by enthusiasts who would meet up at a field with a few other buddies and fly their model Spitfires, P-51s, etc. around for a bit, these folks are aviation nuts and were cognizant of the airspace they operated in... sort of like model rocket clubs. Drones are an entirely different kind of flying... people buy these things and either fly them out of their backyard or drive out somewhere near a city or beach (which are typically near congested airspace) and see how high their toys will fly

Well put, this is what I was trying to articulate. Some small percent of the population are pilots or model airplane "nerds". Presumably this population is of higher than average intelligence and hopefully higher than average general sense of responsibility. But drones bring in a much wider range of people, so not only are the numbers of potential incursions greater, but the people controlling them probably are less, on average, of the characteristics that make pilots safe.

 

[F01LA]

My phantom 4 pro would easily get that high. Battery life is the limiting factor when it comes to altitude

I suppose it's possible. However, Phantom 4/Pro is software limited to 500 meters above launch point (You could fly at 16,000 feet, but you need to launch at roughly 14,500 feet or above). As for older Phantoms, the highest I could find on a Youtube video was 4,921 feet (except for one with a dubious claim of nearly 12,500 feet).

I find it extremely unlikely that there was a drone 12,500 feet above Heathrow.

You can unlock "Authorization Zones" on DJI products, but these are generally at smaller or non-towered airports. Major towered airports have Restricted Zones that you can only unlock with proof of airspace authorization sent do DJI.

 

[Sundancer]

Like CB radio, the fad will fade. Until then, it's just part of the risk matrix. Someone(s) will get killed, outrage will sound, gov't will muck up a reg/law. I'm fairly sure someone else will get killed (not me!), just 'cause it's a big sky and I fly a slow airplane. It's not raining airliners into orphanages. Yet; and, apparently, hosing up fire-fighting efforts doesn't reach the critical mass necessary for action.

 

[Rushie]

Like CB radio, the fad will fade. Until then, it's just part of the risk matrix. Someone(s) will get killed, outrage will sound, gov't will muck up a reg/law. I'm fairly sure someone else will get killed (not me!), just 'cause it's a big sky and I fly a slow airplane. It's not raining airliners into orphanages. Yet; and, apparently, hosing up fire-fighting efforts doesn't reach the critical mass necessary for action.

That kind of puts it in perspective.

 

[CT4ME]

 

[JonH]

People that fly drones irresponsibly are a problem. In other news, drones are actually very useful and serve purpose.

Personally I loved drones until the problems started, but I do feel bad for legitimate operators. Unfortunately their needs don't outweigh the safety of people in the sky. It annoys me they can sit on the ground with minimal risk to themselves.

 

[avongil]

That is super fake. Not terrible, it would pass one of those so called Hollywood films.

 

[Lindberg]

I wonder how long it will take for drone deaths to catch up with green-laser-pointer deaths.

 

[Palmpilot]

That is super fake. Not terrible, it would pass one of those so called Hollywood films.

Which makes sense, since its creator is in the special effects business.

 

[denverpilot]

It's going to take congressional action. The FAA got slapped pretty hard that they do NOT have the authority to regulate these across the board.
The Constitution is a pesky thing to the current administration.

Not sure what the Constitution has to do with it. The exemption for RC aircraft from FAA authority was specifically written into a 90s era law by Congress.

Congress can change that exemption at any time.

But FAA proceeded to regulate and lost at trial because the law said "no". That's it.

It's got nearly nothing to do with any Administration or the Constitution, and more to do with a law written with lack of foresight long ago about where technology would go, which is fairly common.

I seriously doubt Congress will maintain this ban on FAA regulation of the things for long. They just need to figure out how to re-write it to match the current tech and attach it as a rider to something. Won't take that long in the overall typical D.C. timeframes.*

*Current inability to get much of anything done, tacked on for good measure. However long that adds.

That's my point, the biggest threat is from ordinary stupidity. "Bad guys" are statistically very rare. And up until now no one could occupy the sky without going through training which put a big limit on how many stupid idiots could be up there. Of course there were always birds. But now, removing the expense of flying lessons and access to a plane, this opens the skies to being physically occupied by (an extension of) virtually every human on the ground.

Ummm ... no.

There have always been untrained people in the air, legally. Ultralights (Not smart, but you can fly one without training -- fixed or rotary wing or whatever you like...), paragliders, paramotors, all sorts of stuff.

I've shared runways at both controlled and uncontrolled airports with ultralight folks many times. The smart ones have training and radios and all brain cells firing, but it's not required. And I'll admit to being somewhat ignorant of what their requirements are to operate at controlled fields, but I've seen them there. Usually look like they're having quite a bit of fun, too.

Only took 4 replies to get political.

Because regulations and regulatory agencies are created by and authorized by politicians.

(Added emphasis: DUH.)

 

[James331]

Lol, y'all crack me up.

You got a MI/stroke time bomb of a gut and you're worried about "drones", something which has been around for a while yet not even killed a single person.

 

[denverpilot]

Lol, y'all crack me up.

You got a MI/stroke time bomb of a gut and you're worried about "drones", something which has been around for a while yet not even killed a single person.

Who's worried? "Y'all" is a bit much in this case.

Plus, we all know ADS-B fixes all of this! It's going to make us all safe from everything inside our "hockey puck of safety". LOL.

 

[KA550]

Drama queens are a much bigger problem.

 

[Rushie]

Ummm ... no.

There have always been untrained people in the air, legally. Ultralights (Not smart, but you can fly one without training -- fixed or rotary wing or whatever you like...), paragliders, paramotors, all sorts of stuff.

I've shared runways at both controlled and uncontrolled airports with ultralight folks many times. The smart ones have training and radios and all brain cells firing, but it's not required. And I'll admit to being somewhat ignorant of what their requirements are to operate at controlled fields, but I've seen them there. Usually look like they're having quite a bit of fun, too.

Um... yes. Ultralights, again, are a very small percent of people. You need a commitment of some kind to aviating to go to the expense and trouble of an ultralight. We aren't giving dads all over the U.S. cheap ultralights delivered by Amazon prime for Christmas.

 

[Lachlan]

That's my point, the biggest threat is from ordinary stupidity. "Bad guys" are statistically very rare. And up until now no one could occupy the sky without going through training which put a big limit on how many stupid idiots could be up there. Of course there were always birds. But now, removing the expense of flying lessons and access to a plane, this opens the skies to being physically occupied by (an extension of) virtually every human on the ground.

Radio controlled airplanes have been around for decades. Stupidity has been around way more than 10,000 years.

 

[Rushie]

Lol, y'all crack me up.

You got a MI/stroke time bomb of a gut and you're worried about "drones", something which has been around for a while yet not even killed a single person.

No, they haven't been around in the quantity they are now. And it's not just about disaster, which you are right, the odds of you dying from a drone midair are very small. But if you read the article I linked, they can and are creating inconvenience. That might end up being the bigger problem.

 

[wsuffa]

Gatwick in the UK was shut down for a bit in the last few days due to an unknown drone in their airspace.

There is a lot of work being done in the area of drone identification and neutralization. A shotgun will work but get you in trouble in most places....

 

[Rushie]

Radio controlled airplanes have been around for decades. Stupidity has been around way more than 10,000 years.

I think the difference between radio controlled airplanes and drones is that radio controlled airplanes appeal to those interested in aviation, a small percent of people. They don't have video cameras and you don't send them off on Eye of Kilrogg missions. Well maybe they do now but they didn't traditionally. (Eye of Kilrogg = disembodied Eye that the caster can then direct, transmitting its view to the caster).

 

[flyingron]

Not sure what the Constitution has to do with it. The exemption for RC aircraft from FAA authority was specifically written into a 90s era law by Congress.

That's exactly what the Constitution has to do with it. The FAA can't make regulation nor have enforcement authority that isn't specifically enacted by Congress. The rules for this are set up BY THE CONSTITUTION which delineates what the EXECUTIVE BRANCH can do independent of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

 

[denverpilot]

That's exactly what the Constitution has to do with it. The FAA can't make regulation nor have enforcement authority that isn't specifically enacted by Congress. The rules for this are set up BY THE CONSTITUTION which delineates what the EXECUTIVE BRANCH can do independent of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

The Executive branch could issue an Order and trigger the FAA to do something, just fine. The Legislative might be mad about it, but it would go into effect anyway until a Judge decided whether it was a lawful Order. All the Legislative could do about it would be not to fund it.

There's very little connection between the Constitution and Federal agencies other than telling them what they CAN'T do as a portion of "government". Many contend that Constitutionally, federal agencies shouldn't exist. (Although I'm not in that camp. The Constitution lists some things that government must do, and that it must not do, but it's not a limit on other things.)

This particular FAA law was not Constitutionally challenged. It was challenged on the basis of a specific law enacted by Congress that exempted remote control/hobby aircraft. FAA was well within it's Constitutional limits and Charter to regulate drones however they saw fit, OTHER than the limitation placed on them by Congress. Congress was protecting traditional "RC" hobbyists from overbearing regulation with the limitation.

Technology changed, it takes nearly no skill whatsoever to fly these things, they're not limited to serious hobbyists anymore, and the proliferation of them will cause Congress will flip on this one, eventually. Because typical Americans are terrified of anything that flies. (The Congress flip won't have any basis in reality or real safety numbers, but they never do. See 1500 hour rule.)