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.
"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.
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.
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.
Not the world, but certainly Britain.
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.
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 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.
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.