Judge rules against FAA on comm private drone use.

It seems like a reasonable decision. The problem has always come down to "commercial" use of model aircraft.

I have a friend who is a realtor who has used drones for aerial photography in the past. His complaint is that if he posts a video taken on a listing website, it's a "commercial use" while if he posts it on his personal facebook page, it's "hobbyist" and fine. Same aircraft, same video.

The realtors are starting to lobby on this issue, and I would guess that the other interests involved don't stand a chance compared to them.

 

Drones scare the holy crap out of me.

As a pilot I've been close enough to a mid-air a couple of times, and on one particular event it was in controlled airspace, right past the end of a runway just prior to entering IFR conditions. Just because you have rules in the airspace that doesn't mean that folks won't break them.

Letting any idiot fly a unmanned vehicle that I could hit is a tremendous safety risk. Most people flying models are, in my experience, very understanding of aviation and don't fly their airplanes just anywhere. They are responsible and keep their aircraft away from flight paths and understand that if their model gets hit by a real airplane they can kill someone. If a drone or model gets hit by a typical light aircraft it's going right through the windshield and it is going to kill somebody.

Giving just anyone permission to clutter up the sky with drones (think paparazzi here) is a recipe for disaster. I think the idea of drones is fine, but there needs to be airspace designated for their use, and, since they can't help with their half of the "see and avoid" concept, they need to be kept in restricted airspace where they can't get hit by aircraft.

I think the drone supporters need to be careful because they may get exactly what they wish for. The FAA could very well designate them as aircraft and require that anyone flying one be licensed (not as extensive a license as a pilot for a manned aircraft, but a test that addressed safety concerns would be more than appropriate).

Just wait until somebody's drone gets hit by an airliner and 200 people die and all hell is going to break loose.

 

People have been flying model aircraft since before the Wright Brothers. No one is going to die from a collision with a model-- as long as the size and weight of the "model" is kept reasonable. The quad-copter things which are used for applications like aerial photography and agricultural monitoring are not large enough to do serious damage even to a 172, let alone an airliner.

Unless they're ingested by an engine, I should add... although that's also true of birds, small balloons, volcanic ash, etc.

 

Max ht. - 200' AGL. No flight within 1 mile radius of licensed airfield. Unwanted or intrusive drones subject to shotgun discharge.

that should cover it...

 

As a life-long RC airplane enthusiast, the concern I have is where do politicians who have no understanding of either, draw the line between "RC airplane" and "drone"?

As best I can tell, 99% of the media and politicians refer to anything without a human on board a "drone", mostly because it sounds much scarier.

Look! Behold my terrifying fleet of evil drones!
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It's no different than a bird strike, and those do happen every day. I would argue about how adept birds are at avoiding airplanes... although I wish that were true!

 

First of all, do you think people aren't out there flying remote control airplanes anyway? The decision you posted only has to do with commercial operations-- as the judge points out, it has always been legal for hobbyists to fly "models."

Secondly, yes, I have no problems with remote control airplanes flying, as long as they stay below 400 feet AGL (better yet, 200).

Flying higher than that is a different story...

 

I have had near misses with birds. One time @ 9k over Mt Palomar I saw the biggest bird I have ever seen. Missed it by just a few feet. It happened so quickly, that I had no time to react. It was directly in front of the prop. I must have sneaked up on it from behind.

This discussion brings to mind the old "Tombstone mentality" term, as practiced by the FAA.

Klatu

 

No, actually, it said he operated it "to approximately 400 feet."

As for operating within 500 feet of persons and property, well, duh-- have you ever been around R/C airplanes? How can you avoid coming within 500 feet of persons and property-- especially if you are staying below 500 feet AGL?

 

This is essentially my fear. People (the FAA) who used to only regulate real aircraft now trying to regulate something they don't fully understand, and consequently screwing it up royally.

 

Windshields of most light aircraft, even fairly fast ones are simply 1/4 inch plexiglass. That stuff is brittle, I've seen birds go through them a couple of time. A drone like the DraganFly weighs about 5 pounds. If that hit the windshield of a light twin at over 100 mph it would go right through it. Anybody sitting behind it would get killed instantly.

A prop single might hit the drone with the prop and shatter it, so maybe that is less of a concern, but I've also seen a couple of incidents where birds went right through a prop and through the windshield and the prop apparently didn't touch it. A small dense thing like a battery or electric motor traveling at 100 mph would go right through almost any light aircraft windshield and if it hit you in the face it would kill you.

That's what scares me.

 

So why no outcry in past decades with thousands of people flying normal RC airplanes, most of which were larger than the current popular quad copter type "drones" and carried a large chunk of steel on the nose in the form of a glow fuel engine?

I am asking this honestly, not trying to be difficult. Is it the fear that the new "drones" that don't require any piloting skills will be used in greater numbers because of the ease of use? There is nothing inherently more dangerous about a 16 inch quad copter compared to an old school balsa wood RC airplane with a six foot wingspan and a .60 size engine hanging on the nose.

 

I'm not sure but can I throw the following into the mix makes for flammable combo:

- RC in the past weren't really known for live video whereas lots retail store drones are capable of it

- new situation of costs way down means more "cowboy" with no self-discipline and access to "drones"

- everyone these days go into meltdown over all kinds of stuff that didn't "matter" in the past

 

Oh I totally get the video capability issue...folks worried about their neighbors flying Peeping Tom sorties over their backyard and all. My post was specifically referencing their danger to other real aircraft.

I think you are on the right track with your second and especially your third points!

 

ok. gotcha!

My quadcopter so light and insubstantial I can't imagine it lasting a nanosecond in the face of a real prop, or falling into a million bits if struck by windshield or wing... but then I'd never have it more than tree height and modest distance away as well.

I've seen some monster jet powered RC on youtube but I think only the most dedicated enthusiast would get and handle one and thus also likely be very responsible as to its use as well.

Having said that IF one of those big ones and a small plane collided, somehow, I bet it could get ugly if hit one in a million scenario.

I can only hope a heavy hand doesn't come down and affect the genuine RC guys unfairly if "drone" use becomes abused.

 

I think alexm has it right. Model airplane builders are dedicated aviation enthusiasts. They understand that their hobby can be dangerous to manned aircraft and they have almost universally operated them with care because they don't want to hurt someone and they don't want to have something that they made with their own hands destroyed. It takes skill and dedication to build and fly these models and frankly there are not really that many of them being flown, when compared to how many drones will be in the sky if it becomes totally unregulated.

Compare that with they typical paparazzi who will readily endanger bystanders or the person he is shooting to get a shot that will line his pockets and you have a totally different environment. For a small sum people can buy drones that will take pictures and many operators frankly won't care if they get trashed, so long as they get their shot and make their money.

And you are absolutely correct in that low cost drones that do not require piloting skills will cause an explosion of use by people who have no idea what damage they can do.

What happened to Citizens Band radio when it went viral in the 70's is a good example of what can happen when a controlled "hobby" environment suddenly becomes open to the masses. Before the truckers and folks trying to avoid tickets go on CB you had to have an FCC license. The license was easy to get and all you had to do was list a "need" to be on the radio, so if you simply put "business communications" in the box, you got a license. They also sent you the basic "rules" of CB, which was no foul language, and a few other things and that was pretty much it. At that time it was controlled and was useful for small business or for communications on construction sites and things like that. After the masses hijacked it (if you've ever used a CB radio since then you will know) it became totally unregulated and out of control.

The FAA has the responsibility to insure that the skies are safe. I would feel a lot better if drone users had to have a license of some sort, had to take a test and make sure the rules that the FAA institutes for drones are understood, and if not complied with the FAA could yank their license and take action to insure they don't endanger people.

Technology changes and the rules and regulations have to change with them. I don't see any reason that something as potentially dangerous as a drone shouldn't require a license to fly.

 

Here you have exactly what I fear could well become commonplace without some kind of regulation...

Airline flight had close call with drone in March

Just as idiots with lasers can do damage to a pilots eyes, idiots with drones can be dangerous too.

WTF is a drone doing at 2300 ft in an approach path to a controlled airport??? Other than trying to get it hit there can be no real reason...

 

"Drone" is just the scary new name the media cooked up for radio control aircraft, which have been around for decades. The little quad copter things they keep showing on the news are slower, lighter, and have less endurance than gas powered RC airplanes from the 70's. Idiots have been able to fly RC aircraft too high and too close to airports for 50 years. Why the sudden overwhelming need to ban or regulate them now?

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Not that anyone wants to be confused with facts, but...

FAA: U.S. Airliner Nearly Collided With Drone in March - WSJ.com

It was also at 2,600 feet. Much different than the guy flying his quadcopter at 200 feet, taking pictures of real estate for sale or something.