Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I bet the people who are against it are the ones who don't own one.
More elucidation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
"Poll Data Says Public Wants Strict Rules For Drones "
Poll data also showed no Conservative majority.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
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.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
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.
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.
"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.
... the answer to you question is because, "cameras."
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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...
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
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...
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
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.
Pull my finger for my public key.
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?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The laws of physics for starters.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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.
They are not going to go away. Establish rules and regs and let the technology grow.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
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.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
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.
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.
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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'.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Yeah, and you'd play 'blame the pilot' too, when a polair heli gets a drone thru its tail rotor?
Grow up.
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.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
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.
Since when does not being ignorant matter for forcing your opinion in our society ? They don't call it Democracide for nothing.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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.
Pull my finger for my public key.
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere