British Pilots: Poll Data Says Public Wants Strict Rules For Drones

According to the Guardian, a survey of members of the British public conducted on behalf of the British Airline Pilots Association reveals support among those surveyed for strict rules governing drone flights in urban areas, and (probably less surprising) calling for serious consquences in the form of jail sentences for those who endanger passenger aircraft with drone flights. A slice: The study, which will be presented on Monday at a drone safety summit organised by UK pilots, revealed that about a third of those polled think no one should be able to fly drones over urban areas.

Comments

What was the survey verbiage?

[JimMcc]

Without knowing how the questions were phrased, the survey is pretty much meaningless. For example:

1) The pilot's association believes that drones present a real and tangible threat to air safety. Do you think they should be permitted to fly in areas where airplanes may be flying?

2) Do you believe that drones which have been proven to be safe should be allowed to be flown by trained individuals in urban areas?

Those two questions essentially ask the same question but will illicit opposite answers from most survey takers.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[thesupraman]

Exactly.

I would be almost certain these are "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" style questions.

Still, the media will love it.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[Anonymous Coward]

The pilots association has a vested interest in restricting replacements to their jobs in the fields of remote sensing and photography.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[Trongy]

Classic Yes Prime Minister scene on survey rigging.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every public survey ever has had someone's vested interest behind it. If there was no interest, no one would bother conducting a survey. People have better things to do than conducting meaningless surveys, so it is obvious that if they do it, then the survey must mean something to them.

Coming back to the main topic, I'd put "yes" next to that question as long as it concerns low-altitude flights, not because I think drones are safe or not safe, but because they are simply annoying. Anyone who has had a civilian drone buzzing outside their window when they're trying to do work knows what I'm talking about.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[h33t l4x0r]

Not to mention location, if you ask me while I'm seated on the plane how I feel about drones interfering with passenger safety, I'll be against it. If you ask me while I'm in the park playing with my drone, probably not so much.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[cjonslashdot]

The problem is, airplanes fly everywhere. Sport aviation pilots often fly at low altitude, and not necessarily with a fight plan. E.g., one might fly an amphibian plane from one's ranch to a lake a few hundred miles away and land in the lake. Many people also fly for recreation, doing loops and just enjoying the experience of flying. This is a longstanding activity, since the birth of aviation. This is especially true in rural areas. The problem with drones is that you can't see them - they are too small. It would be like having tiny drones on highways going in all directions - with the risk that you are driving along and one smacks into your windshield, except that a real drone is large enough that it would smash your plane's windscreen and kill you. Those using drones are basically saying, No more sport aviation for anyone: something people have done for 100 years is now off limits.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[tehcyder]

one might fly an amphibian plane from one's ranch to a lake a few hundred miles away and land in the lake

This is while one is not driving one's Ferrari to meet one's supermodel girlfriend at one's town residence, one assumes.

Re:What was the survey verbiage?

[cjonslashdot]

In many cases yes, but in many cases no. People who live in rural areas have things like this that are accessible. In Alaska, for example, it is not unusual for people to own sea planes and be bush pilots. Small planes are not unaffordable to a successful doctor or rancher. E.g., the Icon A5 is coming out soon and it lists for $140K. That is not cheap but it is affordable to most professionals.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the public give a s... Seems like way beyond something the public cares about.

Re:Seriously?

[multimediavt]

You are so very wrong, and/or are so very young. The rules for RC aircraft (in the U.S.) have been around for a very long time. One of them has always been that flying over property that doesn't belong to you is illegal, as well as flying over streets, flying within so many miles of an airport, or in non-designated for RC use public places. The reason you don't fly over property that isn't yours is you have to trespass if it crashes and you need to go get it, along with if it hits something (or someone) and damages something on that property it's your ass! Then there's flying over streets--similar logic and safety concerns involved, only you have a much higher risk of causing a fatality because your RC aircraft crashes on a busy street. Those are the very reasons the FAA made the rules to begin with and made them so simple that even children could understand and remember them.

Re:Seriously?

[AK Marc]

One of them has always been that flying over property that doesn't belong to you is illegal,

I've never heard that, and I've seen larger RC craft only on public property. Large parks that are flat, open, and large enough to fly complex patterns without leaving the park boundary or going out of sight.

Even your FAA link doesn't mention anything about who owns the land you are flying on, or over. There are even RC clubs that meet at public parks. Sure, they don't fly on the days when there are soccer games are going on in the fields, but when there aren't that many people out, they are out, in public parks, cutting corners across private land sometimes, as the park is a big L.

Re:Seriously?

[the_bard17]

The only "rules" I've ever heard of are the safety guidelines put in place by the Academy of Model Aeronautics: http://www.modelaircraft.org/f.... Better follow those guiidelines if you're a member, so you'll be covered by their liability insurance: http://www.modelaircraft.org/m.... Then it's "not your ass".

Even your referenced link points to "Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012)": https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/.... Did you catch the date on that? Unless you're ten, I would call three years a "very long time." The majority of points listed in your post are not contained within SEC. 336. The only one that is valid is flying a model aircraft within five miles of an airport... and even that can be done, when " the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation"

You're spreading incorrect information.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

RC clubs have to make reservations for public spaces and therefore have approval from the "owner" (the council).

Re:Seriously?

[joneil]

The rules are the same here in Canada.

    Check out M.A.A.C - The Model Aeronautics Association of Canada, full rules and safety data can be found here:

    http://www.maac.ca/en/document...

  MAAC has been around since shortly after the end of World War II. They work hand in hand with Transport Canada.

    Articles like the one quoted seem to completely ignore these facts. Either that , or they have no similar rules in the UK to begin with, with I find hard to swallow.

Re:Seriously?

[6ULDV8]

Where do you live? We just show up and after a quick survey of the area, we fly. Occasionally, the police show up, but they just seem interested in watching. Occasionally they'll come over and ask questions just as other bystanders do. We also have one police officer who flies with us at the same parks. He doesn't come to spy or curb our flying. He comes because he enjoys the company.

Re:Seriously?

[slimjim8094]

The FAA and the model aircraft folks have an understanding - they have worked with the FAA for many years and kept their members in check (using, among other things, the carrot/stick insurance approach). Before the 2012 law that explicitly orders the FAA to work with the model aircraft folks to come up with reasonable rules, there's been an advisory circular ("this is our interpretation of the rules, just a heads up because we'll enforce them this way") since 1981 that's still basically the rules: AC 91-57. You'll note that they're hardly onerous and really there's been very few problems with the "traditional" model aircraft folks. An advisory circular isn't a rule as such - and in fact one of the court cases over the drones was the judge saying "you can't enforce an AC as an official rule" - but it is broadly speaking "intent to rule". The actual federal air regulations are quite nonspecific and allow a tremendous amount of leeway for the FAA to say exactly what the rule means - and unless the interpretation is deliberately capricious the administrative law judge (basically a trial for regulations, not laws) is bound to their interpretation so they almost always win. Best not to violate the AC, since that's how you know what this interpretation is that they'll hit you with.

The FAA trusts the AMA guys to do this right, and really they've done a remarkably good job and have a many-decade long track record. It's hard to build and fly model aircraft, and if it's a hobby it's much easier to do things "right" by joining a club and using their field and following the rules.

They're not the problem. No, the problem is the drone idiots who go on Amazon and buy a "point and fly" DJI Phantom or something and go to the park and fly it up to check out a police helicopter, or the planes in a major airport's approach path. They have no training, no sense, and no community that will keep them in line. They don't care about being accredited and having insurance - their level of commitment is a few hundred bucks and a couple hours' time.

Irresponsible drone use is ruining it for the rest of the hobbyists. There is responsible use, but since drones are so easy to use, there's a lot more irresponsible use than there was with traditional model planes. It's really that simple. They are causing a safety hazard and forcing the FAA's hand to more proper regulation than their laissez-faire "the AMA seems to be doing this properly" approach of the last 30 years until now.

I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. Birds are bad enough, but at least they're not metal and we can't really control them. I trust the model aircraft guys to stay low and in their traditional fields and away from my airports. I don't trust the drone guys.

As for incorrect information... the GP was more accurate than you on balance, so maybe look a little deeper next time?

Re:Seriously?

[AsmCoder8088]

Public law 112-95 and the Special Rule for model aircraft does not have any altitude restriction, the AMA Safety code does not have an altitude restriction, AC91-57 does mention 400ft, but it is a guideline, not a must.

Ultimately the FAA does not have a law prohibiting model airplanes from anything. AC91-57 suggests some operating parameters that are good to follow, but this is far from anything enforceable. Stay within the AC's guidelines and they won't even look at you. Go outside of them and you have to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your operation. Glider guys do it all them. So do rocket guys. The AC is just advisory.

For now they are stuck to looking the other way, simply because they do not have the legal authority to prevent it given (among other things) the special rule for model aircraft. The most they can do is invoke air safety to prosecute an FPV flyer (and in that area they do have some authority) . Good luck with that in 99.99 % of cases where we are talking foamies, small drones, etc ... at low altitude and at AMA open fields.

As you probably know the only time ever when the FAA invoked its authority on model aircraft is in Huerta v. Pirker, with their only argument centered on safety. And in that case a federal judge sided with Pirker and against them. They then appealed to the NTSB, who sided with the FAA essentially stating that anything that flies, including say your 100g nano copter two feet off the ground in your backyard, is an aircraft in the national airspace and as such subject to FAA regulations. The case ended when the FAA and Pirker agreed to settle, with the FAA ok with Pirker recognizing no guilt whatsoever and a 90% fine reduction. In my opinion the FAA avoided some serious future embarrassment with that settlement, and Pirker showed the FAA had no case. But others have interpreted it as an FAA win.

The best victory would be for everyone to just use common sense. I for one would like to continue recreational flying.

Re:Seriously?

[ShanghaiBill]

The reason you don't fly over property that isn't yours is you have to trespass if it crashes and you need to go get it

I am not sure where you live, but in America, it is not trespassing to go onto someone's property unless "no trespassing" signs are posted, or they specifically ask you to leave. My neighbor's kid has an RC helicopter, and has gone into my backyard many times to retrieve it. That is not illegal, nor should it be.

Re:Seriously?

[AK Marc]

Part of the problem is also language. It is trespassing, but may not be an illegal trespass. You don't need to have "no trespassing" posted. Ever. And in most cases, the sign carries no legal weight. If someone climbs a fence or locked gate to access the property, it's likely illegal trespass (without sign). "No trespass" "posted" and "private property" are all the same thing, and are legally interchangeable, at least in most cases.

If you are opening a closed (but not locked) gate, or wandering on unfenced property, it's hard to commit a trespass.

Also note the wording of your example sign. "No Trespassing" That implies that being there without the sign is trespassing, but not illegal.

Re:Seriously?

[aXis100]

You can get away with that using smaller "park flier" planes as they are less able to cause damage, but there is risk involved. If you hurt someone you will be personally liable and wont be insured.

By comparison any official club will register with international model aircraft organisations. They train their members in the rules of safe flying, and provide insurance if something goes wrong. A few years ago my local club was $180 per year, not cheap but not too bad considering they have to maintain grounds as well.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

The police constantly exercise discretion and don't intervene in all activities that are technically illegal. Many - often but not always harmless - activities are illegal so that the police have the authority to intervene if they deem it necessary but not the obligation to (unlike more severe crimes).

Re:Seriously?

[bluescrn]

The rules for model aircraft were made in the days when big, heavy, dangerous models with IC engines were the only thing you could fly. These days we have sub-20g 'toy-grade' quadcopters and very light foam RC planes powered by small electric motors.

One-size-fits-all rules don't work any more. We need different weight/risk classes. IMHO, the smallest/safest of toys should be pretty much unregulated (max 100g at 100ft altitude, maybe?). Then we've got the medium sized consumer/hobbyist drones (usually under 1kg or so) - which start to pose more of a risk, then there's the higher-end aerial photography rigs (up to 10kg?) - potentially very nasty if it crashes into somebody. And of course, beyond that, we've got much larger military drones, which are more-or-less unmanned full-sized aircraft.

Re:Seriously?

[fred911]

"I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. Birds are bad enough, but at least they're not metal."

  How often do you fly in uncontrolled airspace at less than 800' agl without major focus on your field of travel? Because if something "flies through your window at 140mph" in uncontrolled airspace, I would have to blame that on pilot error. And, surely that something could not be a DJI Quadcopter because their flight control systems won't allow function in ANY airports controlled airspace (much less approach path). In addition, within a 5 mile ring they limit altitude to 500" agl http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/ca....

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am a fixed-wing pilot, anything that can fly through my window at 140MPH pisses me off. "

Which means you're pissed off at airplanes too, then, who all fly at or well above that speed,right?

Because unless you're landing, you're well above the drone ceiling. If you're landing, you'd better be doing it near an airport.

And if you're near an airport, the OP you ignored but HAD to silence said: The majority of points listed in your post are not contained within SEC. 336. The only one that is valid is flying a model aircraft within five miles of an airport... and even that can be done, when " the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation"

But you didn't see that because you're raging, because you MIGHT be inconvenienced, and the possibility is an affront to your exalted status of pilot.

Fuck you.

Re: Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and you'd play 'blame the pilot' too, when a polair heli gets a drone thru its tail rotor?

Grow up.

Re:Seriously?

[delcielo]

Fixed wing commercial pilot and flight instructor here. See and Avoid is an important concept and it's everybody's responsibility. But, it's hard enough to see full sized airplanes. Birds and small drones can appear very quickly with no time to react. The odds are that they would hit somewhere on the airframe and not right through the windshield, but... It's a risk I don't want to have. It's a risk you don't want to have if you're on board my aircraft. And whether they realize it or not, it's a risk the drone flyer doesn't want to have.

The "No Fly" zones they describe in the link cover only the largest airports in the nation. There are many more that have significant amounts of traffic. Atlanta isn't even on their list, much less smaller but very busy airports like Peachtree DeKalb, or the very small but very busy Grand Canyon airport. The list goes on and on.

What they're doing with those No Fly zones is a good thing, but it's not comprehensive, and it's proprietary to their devices.

Re:Seriously?

[multimediavt]

So, you think that these rules were created without the FAA's input or consultation? You think that they haven't been revised over the years and the revision dates updated? I started flying model aircraft in 1984, and the basic set of AMA rules was out then, referenced in the instruction manual for the aircraft and your responsibility to look up, not the manufacturer's to publish. FYI, my referenced link was to today's rules as I was not able to find a copy of the rules from 1984.

Re: Seriously?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Since when does not being ignorant matter for forcing your opinion in our society ? They don't call it Democracide for nothing.

Re: Seriously?

[the_bard17]

The poster above was able to link to AC 91-57, which does "outline, and encourage voluntary compliance with" some safety guidelines. I'd hardly consider that to be regulations and rules worthy of files and punishment should they be broken.

That said, those rules you mentioned are a good practice; but they are not codified as such.

Re:Seriously?

[6ULDV8]

You can get away with that using smaller "park flier" planes as they are less able to cause damage, but there is risk involved.

In this case, size does indeed matter. AMA defines a park flyer as less than 2 lbs, less than 60 mph and electric only. Many of our fit into that category, but others do not. My heaviest plane is around 5 lbs., with a 60" span and some of my faster planes will fly in excess of 80 mph. We don't have many that fly larger craft in these spaces on a regular basis, but we do have internal combustion craft. If we need more room, we find an adequate location. We always work to ensure that everyone is safe, even those in surrounding areas. We also stay below 400' AGL when flying LOS for practical reasons. Most often, I'm under 150' AGL. FPV is another matter altogether.

If you hurt someone you will be personally liable and wont be insured.

There is a question of liability, but your comment seems a little broad. I may not be insured by the AMA (I'm never quite sure what that policy covers), but I certainly carry insurance in addition to AMA membership.

By comparison any official club will register with international model aircraft organisations. They train their members in the rules of safe flying, and provide insurance if something goes wrong. A few years ago my local club was $180 per year, not cheap but not too bad considering they have to maintain grounds as well.

As for fees, $180 would be high in my area. Most are between $50 and $75 annually. The advantage is apparent the first time you fly at one of their fields. Still, I'll fly at the local parks whenever I can and avoid the 20 - 40 mile commute. All of the AMA sanctioned fields are a good distance away.

We always select the venue with the aircraft requirements in mind.

Re:Seriously?

[StikyPad]

AC 91-57: Outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance [emphasis mine] with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.

The FAA has some tough-sounding language on their website about enforcing compliance with these guidelines, but they go on to say "the agency has a number of enforcement tools available to address these operations, including a verbal warning, a warning letter, and an order to stop the operation."

It's not clear what could happen if someone violated an order to stop the operation, or that there is anything they can actually do beyond making a fuss.

As long as you don't own one

[Whiteox]

I bet the people who are against it are the ones who don't own one.

More elucidation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: As long as you don't own one

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like British gun control, because only allowing people to own a shotgun or bolt action rifle makes the world so much safer.

Re: As long as you don't own one

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the world, but certainly Britain.

Re: As long as you don't own one

[DrXym]

Just like British gun control, because only allowing people to own a shotgun or bolt action rifle makes the world so much safer.

Yes as the death / murder statistics in countries with firearm controls would show.

Poll data

[Anonymous Coward]

"Poll Data Says Public Wants Strict Rules For Drones "

Poll data also showed no Conservative majority.

Re:Poll data

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see. So because political pollsters that often get it very wrong (e.g. YouGov that was about by 10% in the 2010 election, out by 8% in the Scottish independence referendum) unsurprisingly got it wrong again, we should never ever trust any polling data from anyone ever again? - YouGov's polls have been outside any sane margin of error relative to real results in British politics since is came about as a polling organisation. That should tell you something, that companies like YouGov are NOT real polling organisations. They're PR companies dressed as such.

Political polls in the UK have long been about selling a story in the paper, and nothing to do with actual results. You think that poll showing majority support for independence a week before the election ever had any grounding in reality? Of course it didn't, it just made for a great well timed story to sell more papers a week before the actual poll.

In contrast, there were a number of academics in the field of statistics who did call this election result correctly. That's the difference between paying companies to get a result that makes a great story about a tight race, and letting an academic with no commercial interest provide something of their own back.

Polling is an important and useful statistical tool. It provides us data that can be used to help drive decision for a best possible outcome. Yes, it's abused, just like almost every area of statistics, but this is wholly the fault of public ignorance and apathy towards the topic than anything. If you have even a basic grounding in statistics it's fairly easy to see where it's being used to lie to you.

Ban it all

[Anonymous Coward]

You can walk your doggie. You can ride your bicycle.

Everything else is banned.

Re:Ban it all

[myowntrueself]

You can walk your doggie. You can ride your bicycle.

Everything else is banned.

'Everything not forbidden is compulsory' or 'Anything that is not compulsory is forbidden.' take your pick...

Re: Ban it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs can bite and you can fall off bicycles or run into people with them. Ban them too. Stay home and watch telly. I'd say you could go to work but unemployment will soon reach 100% so don't bother. Stay home, watch telly and starve.

RC Rules

[multimediavt]

When I was a youngster I had RC cars, boats and planes. I got to aircraft last in the lineage and didn't get an RC plane until I was about 13. I had a few friends that were avid fliers and one that was a competition RC helicopter pilot who was nationally ranked. When my parents bought me my first RC plane I immediately read the rules of operation that were available at the time because my friends had told me what some of them were, but also told me where to find the FAA rules. Fly over your own property (or someone's large field that you got permission from, or an abandoned airport that was designated for RC flight), fly below 400 feet, stay 3 miles or more from airports were the three main rules. AFAIK, until idiots started violating these rules (mostly because they never bothered to find out what they were) those rules were still in place and governing the operation of RC air vehicles.

Now these nimrods have ruined RC aircraft for everyone because they never bothered to find out what the FAA rules were for operating such craft. I see YouTube video of people flying over active streets, other people's property, well above 400 feet and even in public places like parks. Those were all no-no's that would get the cops on you and possibly get you charged with a felony when I was a kid, and we avoided doing that not only to keep our parents from having to get us at the police station, but because it was the best way to keep doing something we loved doing.

So my question is, when did everyone decide that they could do whatever they want wherever they want thinking there were no consequences? I'm 43 and I see people my age and older doing some of this stupid stuff and it blows my mind. Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices? They've existed for longer than I've been alive so I just don't get why no one knows or bothered to ask about them and now everyone gets the shaft. It's sad that my children won't be able to do the fun things that I used to do, all while playing within the rules. The new rules are almost certainly require RC pilots to have full FAA pilot licenses in order to operate them. That's just outrageous, and it's because of ignorant, selfish assholes that did whatever they pleased and spoiled a hobby for everyone.

Oh, and get off my effing lawn!

Re:RC Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices?

Yes actually, and it's not that surprising. If you get a new toy are you really going to think that there are laws written specifically for a TOY? I mean you said it yourself, you only thought to look up the rules for these TOYS because someone told you about them. What if you hadn't had friends who played with RC toys when you first got one?

Re:RC Rules

[myowntrueself]

The thing with drones today is that its at a bit of a cusp in the technological capability.

Personally, I see 'drones' which you have to control manually, with joysticks, as 'RC toys'. Whereas the new generation of programmable drones (fly a loop at this orientation, this diameter and centered at this altitude) are flying robots. Its this later generation thats going to (er) take off. Likely to be MUCH safer, more precise.

One very interesting application I read about was 3d printing; quadrocopter drones with cans of foam which can be sprayed at programmed points building structures.

Re:RC Rules

[R3d M3rcury]

quadrocopter drones with cans of foam which can be sprayed at programmed points building structures.

Foam? Spray paint!

I'm totally tagging the 91st floor of the Freedom Tower...

Re:RC Rules

[thegarbz]

Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices?

Yes. People are. Hobbyists aren't. There's the key difference. I bet you could count on 2 hands the number of people who were hobby flying RC aircraft in your city when you were young. These hobbyists take an interest, they read rules, they want to expand their hobby.

RC toys nowadays are just that. Toy drones, highly capable, cheap, disposable, and every idiot has one.

Re:RC Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

So my question is, when did everyone decide that they could do whatever they want wherever they want thinking there were no consequences?

It has been my experience that most everyone nowadays (at least in the US) considers themselves to be "entitled" and feel that the rules were made for "other" people. Even, as you say, older people that should know better.

Re:RC Rules

[Rinikusu]

I can't wait until the peeping toms start posting videos all over youtube captured using their remotely piloted quad+ copters.

Re:RC Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is exactly the sort of thing that provokes regulation, you get a couple of douchelords that ruin it for everybody. These sorts of people actually need to be told "don't be fuckwit" because they can't figure it out on their own.

Re:RC Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Every toy comes with an instruction printed, are you saying there are some secret instructions published somewhere decades ago which we must find ourselves? And they have only restrictions, right? Not many people own enough land to fly big airplane. Only few are ready to join RC club and fly their small toy only once a month. Like it or not, millions are flying all sorts of toy things everywhere where _they_ think it's safe. You can call them idiots, but that tells more about you then about them. Incidents are rare, afaik in US there were only two deaths, they killed themselves with their own helicopters. I don't know the details, they most likely even followed the rules. And that didn't help.

Re:RC Rules

[Ozoner]

> I bet you could count on 2 hands the number of people who were hobby flying RC aircraft in your city

Utter rubbish.

When I was a kid (rural Australia, in the 1950's and 60's), RC modeling was a huge hobby. Most of us progressed from Free-Flight, to Control Line models, to RC flying. Not to mention RC boats and cars.

Admittedly the gear was rather basic with only one or two channels. We could only dream of owning the expensive USA gear, hence our homemade Valve (Tube) Transmitters, Receivers, servos, tone decoders, etc.

Surely you've seen the many DIY magazine articles and books from back then?

http://www.singlestickstuff.co...

Re:RC Rules

[DrXym]

I see it another way. If you have a RC drone then chances are you won't let it out of your sight because if you can't see it you can't control it. So you are naturally more cautious about where you fly it, how you fly it and to what distance you allow it to fly.

Conversely these "set it and forget it" drones can be programmed to fly miles. You set a course, off it goes and you'll see it again 20 minutes later. Assuming it hasn't hit a tree, power / cable line, or a bird, or a plane, or been flipped by the weather, or simply suffered a fault and fallen out of the sky. The drone is also likely to be programmed to fly over points of interest which may be roads, buildings, cities etc.

That's where the danger lies. The risk for the operator has disappeared and a laissez faire attitude which could put other people at greater harm.

Re:RC Rules

[AK Marc]

When I was a kid, miniaturization was a big thing. There were some tiny piston engines, and miniature turbines. Well, at least as small as they can make it. The electric ones were more limited in the '80s because the batteries were a bit heavier than now. So people were pushing the envelope for IC engines in RC then.

Re: RC Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the little narcissist syndrome. Parents don't teach their kids to deal with failure, always rushing to their side and attributing blame to someone else. This combined with being repeatedly told they are special (reinforced by movies and TV) turns them into little narcissists.

It is delusional and nothing more than a form of dishonesty to oneself. This is how people like Lance Armstrong were able to thrive. When you have mastered lying to yourself, reality doesn't matter anymore.

Re:RC Rules

[thegarbz]

I have. Now how many people do you know now with RC toys who buy into the books etc.

I remember clearly a time where you could only buy RC kits from hobby stores and stores dedicated to the hobby. As opposed to now where you can buy them at hobby stores, online, at electronics stores, at ToysRus, and a myriad of other places including small ones at general stores like BigW.

If you think that the RC users from 20 years ago weren't a small fraction of what they are today then you're living with your eyes closed.

Re:RC Rules

[multimediavt]

I bet I could name more than I have fingers and toes, or did you miss the part where I said I had friends that were competitive RC flyers? I went to club gatherings and competitions and got to know A LOT of local people that flew RC planes and choppers. There was an abandoned airport not five miles from my home where competitions were held, and club meetings were every week until the land was sold and a housing development went in. I was, and still am, a very avid aviation fanatic from a very early age.

Re:RC Rules

[multimediavt]

No, AC, I'm saying that the AMA and FAA rules were either referenced in the instructions and it was your responsibility to go read them, just as it is today.

From page 25 of the DJI Phantom User's Manual: (emphasis is mine)

Flight Environment Requirements
(1) Do not use the aircraft in severe weather conditions. These include wind speed exceeding category 4, snow, rain and smog.
(2) Fly in open fields as high buildings or steel structures may affect the accuracy of the onboard compass.
(3) Keep the Phantom away from obstacles, crowds, high voltage power lines, trees or bodies of water when in flight.
(4) Reduce the chance of electromagnetic interference by not flying in areas with high levels of electromagnetism, including base stations or radio transmission towers.
(5) The Phantom cannot operate within the polar areas.
(6) Do not fly the aircraft within no-fly zones specified by local laws and regulations.

Item six clearly makes it your responsibility to find out what those laws and regulations are, not DJI's. The RC planes I used to fly referenced the AMA and any FAA rules of flight at the time. So, no, same thing today as thirty years ago.

Re:RC Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I immediately read the rules of operation that were available at the time because my friends had told me what some of them were, but also told me where to find the FAA rules.

and then

Are people really that unaware to think that there aren't rules and regulations for these devices?

Yes. If nobody clued you in, you wouldn't have known.

Re:RC Rules

[thegarbz]

I bet I could name more than I have fingers and toes, or did you miss the part where I said I had friends that were competitive RC flyers? I went to club gatherings and competitions

I was speaking figuratively, but you also suffer from observer bias. You have friends and know people from clubs?

I know colleges who are engineers, administrators, web designers, photographers, people who don't do this as a hobby or for racing, people who never gave it another thought other than the fact you can buy an out of the box ready to fly (shit I don't think anything was ready-to-fly back 20 years ago) for under $400. These people are very different from aviation fanatics, racers, or other people who take their hobbies seriously.

Just like I as a hobby photographer knew lots of people with film SLRs I'm under no delusion that SLRs were anywhere near as prolific as they are now.

Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

People want to be free to make their own choices and live according to their own values. However, nobody wants their neighbors to be free to do things that are threatening or disturbing. That second inclination tends to override the first, driving most people to want more laws that further restrict freedom (rather than fewer laws, or more laws that protect freedom). The end result is a steady trot towards a police state.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[TWX]

Or maybe the technology has outpaced our ability to responsibly use it.

There's an old concept called The Ring of Gyges, as an idea from Plato that essentially boils down to one's good behavior is dependent on one's likelihood of being caught, and should one have the ability to get away with things, one would probably do things that are not acceptable. This idea has been expounded upon with stories like The Invisible Man.

The drone concept has finally reached a point where one can anonymously violate the privacy of others and those others might not even know that it's happening, and the burden to do this is so low that nearly everyone in western society can afford to do it. This required significant advances in both radio-controlled aircraft and in camera technology, and we're now there. The development of the technology has outpaced the ability to detect it at the same casual level.

It's a tough call. The US federal rules that prohibit the use of radio controlled aircraft for anything short of recreational use has meant that there could be penalties for using them to spy on people for profit from taking pictures. Unfortunately it doesn't mean that there aren't other abuses already being committed.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[Barsteward]

yes, i want to be free to be able to take out any drone that flies over my property, break it into little pieces and throw the bits into my neighbors garden (even if its not their drone). Is that the kind of freedom you are asking for?

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[AmiMoJo]

I never really bought that idea. Outside my girlfriend's place of work in Japan there is an unofficial bike parking area. There are maybe 100 spaces. None of the bikes are locked, and people move them all the time to make a bit more space. Anyone could easily take one and there would be almost no chance of getting caught.

People don't for some reason. It can't be fear of getting caught.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never really bought that idea. Outside my girlfriend's place of work in Japan there is an unofficial bike parking area. There are maybe 100 spaces. None of the bikes are locked, and people move them all the time to make a bit more space. Anyone could easily take one and there would be almost no chance of getting caught.

People don't for some reason. It can't be fear of getting caught.

I believe that reason is called, "respect". For oneself and for others. It's in remarkably low supply in most of the world.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[houghi]

one would probably do things that are not acceptableThis might be true for some and is often used as basis of religion.

Sometimes you do things, even though you know you wil be caught. And sometimes that is even the reason you do them.

The thing here is that the people doing the spying do not believe they are doing something wrong and that what they do should be acceptabel.

So this is not about getting caught at all. This is about what you should be caught for.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[multimediavt]

Or maybe the technology has outpaced our ability to responsibly use it.

Morality and ethics seem to have disappeared as our technological dissemination increases, and I'd have to agree. Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you should; whether someone complains or not.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[multimediavt]

yes, i want to be free to be able to take out any drone that flies over my property, break it into little pieces

Check your local laws. You might be allowed to. All but the illegal dumping thing, that is.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[Fortran IV]

This xkcd could hardly have been better timed for this thread.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

"that essentially boils down to one's good behavior is dependent on one's likelihood of being caught"

This is true in as much as a society has an honor-based (aka shame-based) culture. In honor cultures, an act is wrong only if other people know about it. Most cultures are honor-based, and in such cultures corruption is rife.

More modern cultures, particularly many Western European and East Asian cultures (and especially the Nordic countries and Japan), are principally guilt-based. That is, something can be wrong even if only you know about it. (You get the same effect if your god's knowledge of the act produces similar shame, but in most Judeo-Christian cultures people tend not to worry about their god's judgement regarding petty acts of misbehavior. The academic theologians might, but the bulk of practitioner's don't.)

As somebody steeped in a guilt-based culture it can be difficult to understand the difference. But think about politics. Most Americans, for example, assume that all politicians are corrupt. However, we are especially scornful of politicians who get caught. Why are politicians who get caught treated worse? That's a vestige of honor-based morality. (You can try to rationalize it all you want, but in reality few people really consider rationalizations when they judge politicians. The judgement is instinctive.)

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[TWX]

For politicians, it probably comes down to the innocent-until-proven-guilty mentality. We can personally not trust them, but without evidence they're simply a member of a class of individuals that may contain at least a few innocent people. When we're vindicated in our suspicions through evidence or through criminal proceedings we are free to express our judgements, and the echo chamber amplifies the effects across groups of people.

Re:Paradoxical attitudes towards freedom.

[tehcyder]

I never really bought that idea. Outside my girlfriend's place of work in Japan there is an unofficial bike parking area. There are maybe 100 spaces. None of the bikes are locked, and people move them all the time to make a bit more space. Anyone could easily take one and there would be almost no chance of getting caught.

People don't for some reason. It can't be fear of getting caught.

Unfortunately, this would not be the case in most parts of the worlds, including the UK where I live. Japan is obviously the exception that proves the rule.

Consider the source

[bengoerz]

In other news, a survey of members of the American public conducted on behalf of the United Auto Workers Union reveals support among those surveyed for buying new American-made cars.

BullShit

[MrL0G1C]

The British public don't give a flying fuck about drones, just because some people picked the answers in a quiz that sounded good doesn't change this.

Re:BullShit

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are out of touch. Drone operators are becoming a real public nuance and people have very strong opinions about them.

Re:BullShit

[Hognoxious]

Drone operators are becoming a real public nuance and people have very strong opinions about them.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that.

please tick the box that sums up the way you feel

[MrL0G1C]

Please tick the box that sums up the way you feel about drones:

[ ] People should be able to fly drones near airports where they can crash into planes.

[ ] People should be able to fly drones at night causing a noise nuisance.

[ ] Drones should be regulated so they can't fly near my house at night or crash into planes.

One day soon

[YrWrstNtmr]

One of these things operated by some idiot, flying it where he shouldn't, is going to go down the intake of an airliner. Obviously you shouldn't fly them where this might be a possibility. Hence the FAA rules. But some fool will.
Just like laser pointers. 'Toys', right?.Obviously you should not point them at aircraft. Yet asshats still do it. On purpose.

Re:One day soon

[GumphMaster]

Like this asshat example: Near miss with rc plane and virgin jet at perth airport

Re:One day soon

[StikyPad]

Idiot or malicious person. Honestly I don't think that's even thinking far enough outside the box. Unmanned drones could be used to wreak all kinds of havoc with low risk of getting caught, especially as lifting capacity increases. They're already being used for smuggling operations, but I suspect they will be used for offensive capabilities in the near future, targeted or otherwise. Hell, they could use the devices themselves as a weapon, or drop heavy objects on unsuspecting persons below, where "heavy" is basically anything over a few ounces. Small meteorites still manage to crash through houses, and that's just at terminal velocity. IEDs would make them even deadlier.

I doubt we'll do anything until something actually happens, though, at which point we'll promptly freak the fuck out and probably invade some third world country.

Unenforceable?

[AtomicSymphonic]

The impression I get from some of these smartphone quadcopter "pilots" that any and all of these rules are believed to be largely unenforceable in most areas of the country except for extremely dense public spaces... maybe.

Airports shouldn't be a problem for enforcing these rules, but in other places... I don't think they will fare well.

Admittedly, it would be pretty difficult without the right tech and a good set of eyes on the skies all the time in the city, countryside, and every other place around the country. Many people can probably get away with breaking these rules frequently without much, if any, consequence.

Re:Unenforceable?

[Anonymous Coward]

The impression I get from some of these smartphone quadcopter "pilots" that any and all of these rules are believed to be largely unenforceable in most areas of the country except for extremely dense public spaces... maybe.

Dense public spaces are really the only places they might need to be enforced. They exist because of those few people that actually need to be told "don't be an asshole". Most people know not to fly them around over peoples' houses or through city streets or near airports or buzzing people at the beach or snowfields and that doing it once is probably no big deal but there are those who can't come to the conclusion on their that doing this repeatedly is just being a nuisance or dangerous. So then a law has to be created to spell this out to those mouth-breathers.

Re:Unenforceable?

[multimediavt]

So, your argument is that if no one sees it, it's ok? Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Pun intended. That's a rather juvenile justification, don't you think?

Humans suck at risk quantification

[thegarbz]

"We need the government to protect us form terrorists, hobby pilots with their killer drones, 3D printers, GMO foods, hold on a minute..... Yes officer? What do you mean I'm not allowed to talk on my phone while driving? Why should I put on a seatbelt? ..... Hey mate I'll need to call you back."

Humans suck at risk quantification, news at 11.

Pick me! ...

[CaptainDork]

... the answer to you question is because, "cameras."

The only time

[koan]

The only time the public is asked prior to legislation, is to use their ignorance to further the agenda of someone already intent on banning "drones".

Polls are useless for factual data, they are however handy for manipulating public opinion.

Public Opinion: http://www.teebweb.org/media/2...

Red Flag Trafic laws

[ASDFnz]

Does anyone else think this is a bit like the the Red Flag Traffic laws from over 100 years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Re:Red Flag Trafic laws

[EzInKy]

Not really. These drone proponents seem to want to be able fly over everybodies head with impunity. I remember reading a post the other day where someone had a dream of ruining other bather's peaceful enjoyment of the beach just to have a towel delivered to him.

and everyone's worried about 3d printed guns

[superwiz]

When they should be worried about 3d-printed propellers. That's that's the only component of a drone that can actually be improved. The rest can be built with cheap consumer parts. Single drones will get out of the communication range of most hobbyists though before reaching any place where they can do any harm to any passenger plane.

Re:and everyone's worried about 3d printed guns

[Anonymous Coward]

I build all of my drones out of balsa wood, plywood and monokote (plastic shrinkwrap film).. The largest has a mass of about 80N with a 2kw motor.

Re: and everyone's worried about 3d printed guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you mean a weight of 8N (or more appropriately, a mass of 8kg) and 2kW power.

There are some laws all drones must follow

[davidwr]

The laws of physics for starters.

Re:There are some laws all drones must follow

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws of physics for starters.

Unless you happen to be using an EmDrive...

Drones

[tquasar]

They are not going to go away. Establish rules and regs and let the technology grow.

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

2/3rds think that drones should be allowed in urban areas. Majority wins.

1984 Asbo The Queen

[Anonymous Coward]

Out-of context quote from George Orwell. Something about UK law that I heard on Fox News. Complete misinterpretation of Westminster electoral system.

Mod me up!

Why is this suddenly a hot topic?

[ArylAkamov]

This reminds me of the recent outcry of "3d printed guns".

There have been radio controlled planes for AGES. Why is this suddenly a big deal?

Because the military now uses them, so they're scary now? Because the media buzzword "Drone"?

Why is a subject that was a complete non-issue a few years ago suddenly so scary and must be regulated more?

Re:Why is this suddenly a hot topic?

[EzInKy]

Why is this suddenly a big deal?

Because these idiots want to have these things flying over everyones heads without regard for their rights. Whatever happened to your rights end at my nose?

Re:Why is this suddenly a hot topic?

[PPH]

There have been radio controlled planes for AGES. Why is this suddenly a big deal?

Because ages ago, the various regulatory agencies left rule making up to the hobbyist groups themselves. And with the only people building and flying RC aircraft being a small group of people with an interest in actually flying and doing so well, that solution worked.

Fast forward to the newer, cheaper 'drones'. More accurately, RC aircraft with some stability enhancements, making them easier to fly. Now, lots of people are buying these things, not so much for the thrill of flying them, but because they can hang a camera from them. The flying skill, and adherence to 'rules of the road' are only secondary to their actual goal. And many newer drone (RC) flyers view any sorts of rules as nothing more than an inconvenience. So now rules and strict enforcement are the only way to go.

Also, electric engines. Back in the gas engine days, its not likely you were going to sneak one of these things over a residential neighborhood without people noticing.

Re:Why is this suddenly a hot topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of big corporations with visions of drone deliveries to your front door, balcony, roof-top, etc. We will go from RC aircraft being a very limited hobby to tens of thousands of the things operated autonomously filling the skies.

No need for new regulations?

[bradley13]

Is there really a need for new regulations? Or are government bureaucrats just feeling their oats?

Endangering a commercial aircraft? There are already laws covering that. Spying on your neighbors? "Peeping Toms" are nothing new. Flying over other people's property? Existing trespassing laws can be applied, since people have rights to their airspace immediately above their property. As other posters have pointed out, there are also all of the old rules for model aircraft and model rocketry.

"The new rules are almost certainly require RC pilots to have full FAA pilot licenses in order to operate them. That's just outrageous"

Yep, that's outrageous. But it's not really the fault of all the idiots out there. I mean, sure, they are idiots - but they are already violating existing rules. There's no need for new rules. The more serious problem are the bureaucrats who take every opportunity to create even more regulations.

In other news: Butchers want to bann vegetarianism

[gweihir]

Really, ask the wrong group that has an interest only on one side of the issue and get a grossly unbalanced answer. Although I think I am probably being unfair to the butchers.

Of course the same applies to police choppers

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it was probably worded so as to make people think "they're noisy and can see me in my bedroom or garden". However, this would not be allowed to be used to get police helicopters greater restrictions, since that's not a problem for government.

Pilots just be pissed off.

Like they are with laser pointers, making up scare stories about how the plane could crash (as if pilots aren't completely able to crash planes without help) so as to get the inconvenience of thinking that there MIGHT be some bright spot (what about the landing lights, huh?) that will distract them because people out there may want to troll them. And they're far too important to be trolled.

What is the future?

[jbmartin6]

I was just thinking about this the other day when I realized a know four or five guys who just got one of these drones for their sons (supposedly). How long until any public event is ruined by swarms of camera drones? Things like fireworks, public music or theater performances, beer festivals, and so on? This will probably be the next generation of 'people talking in the movie theater'.

The Other Guy's

[Anonymous Coward]

Any drone that is good for my life should be permitted but nobody else should be allowed to benefit from drones. Trust me. That is how most Americans will think. It is a variant on the notion that sex is only dirty when the other guy does it.
                  In essence Americans do not vote on what is right or what is wrong. They tend to vote for what they want.

Do we really need our Amazon fix this badly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't bad enough already having to dodge traffic in 2 dimensions on our streets and sidewalks. Do we really need to start scanning the skies overhead lest some drone barely supervised by another (minimum wage) drone has a fault or an accident and comes tumbling down on our heads? Can no one see what kind of mess millions of autonomous or semi autonomous aerial vehicles are likely to be?

Re:Seriously? Edit

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I see their visual map doesn't match their text list. It looks like they do cover Atlanta Hartsfield; but it is still true that it seems only to cover Class B and C airports, and not all of them. It doesn't seem to cover any Class D or smaller, despite there being many such airports that are very busy.

Able vs. Allowed

[StikyPad]

about a third of those polled think no one should be able to fly drones over urban areas.

It's much easier to disallow something than to disable it. It's all well and good to disallow people from flying unmanned aircraft in urban areas, but is there any way to actually stop it? If not, it's useless to disallow it, and the best you can hope is to regulate it. Perhaps a more practical solution is required, and one day we will have nets covering all of our streets and houses.