Drone Hobbyists Find Flaws In 'Close Call' Reports

An anonymous reader writes: The people and agencies pushing for strict drone regulation have no trouble coming up with a list of dangerous drone-related incidents. This includes not only the recent drone crashes that have been picked up by the media, but also reports of "close calls," where drones have allegedly approached full-size aircraft. But a new study by drone hobbyists finds that most of these "close calls" were anything but. Of 764 such incidents reported to the FAA, only 27 were actually described as "near misses" by the pilots involved. None of the incidents involved mid-air collisions, and some have involved military drones rather than hobbyist ones. The people who did the study suggest that we should find a better way of classifying these drone-related situations so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations.

Comments

From whose point of view?

[Puls4r]

A operator running a drone that can hover near motionless may not consider things a 'near miss'. On the other hand, an airline pilot flying a jumbo jet that can not be maneuvered travelling at several hundred miles an hour is something completely different. At the speeds Jumbo jets travel, by the time they see something as small as a drone it's already passed by them. That's a near miss. They saw it. There's no time for them to avoid an object like that. So while the drone operators are bitching that - hey I was near a half mile or a mile away. Or even two miles away. The airline pilots are saying - get the hell out of my way. I can't turn and by the time I see your little hobby I'm either running it over or passed it putting my entire crew and my passengers at risk. It's not even an argument.

Re:From whose point of view?

[bobbied]

I have just finished the article and where I don't fully agree with the previous poster, his point is valid.

The operator of the drone and the Academy of Model Aeronautics are hardly unbiased observers of what's happening in the air. What seems to be totally safe for the drone operator is downright dangerous incursion to even small aircraft. Where it is obvious that the FAA is being alarmist here, that's how the organization works, that's how the FAA has made air travel as safe as they have, and I don't think we should change it.

The FAA looks at any avoidable risk, especially one that has zero impact to the cost and efficiency of aviation operations, as a risk that should be avoided. This is how it should be. The FAA's work is about saving lives and if flying your drone endangers the lives of those flying around in some aircraft, they rightfully conclude that your drone needs to go away.

IMHO, being a pilot AND an AMA member who flies radio controlled aircraft, drones (and RC aircraft) need to be operated as far away from full sized aircraft as possible. They also need to be operated away from people and structures for safety's sake. Those who don't realize this and insist on pushing the separation between models and real aircraft are going to ruin this for everyone. Heaven forbid that some "I have my right to fly my drone anywhere I want" yahoo causes an accident and kills somebody, because you can bet there will be a huge push for some serious regulations and fines. But the FAA is going to be forced into making some rules here and going after the nut cases with huge fines, just like they do with the laser pointer wielding idiots blinding pilots for kicks.

Idiots are why we cannot have nice things without oppressive regulations...

Re:From whose point of view?

[khallow]

Please understand.... The FAA does what it does for a good reason in most cases. Elimination of risk in aviation is their mandate and they literally have absolute authority over anything that flies or could affect something that flies starting at the ground and up from there.

Please understand, I already knew that (though their authority does stop at space).

The FAA won't hesitate to remove a risk factor like this.

Which is why we have to curb their authority here.

IF the FAA finds that letting the hobbyist have and operate these small aircraft constitutes a risk to their main mandate (aircraft safety) you can be sure as the sun rises in the east they will put regulations in place to limit that risk.

They already have such regulation in place. We're not operating in a regulatory vacuum here.

A drone carries nothing that the FAA traditionally cares about, they are not airplanes carrying people and there are no companies that have any financial interest in things that have traditionally driven the FAA's decisions.

Actually, that's probably already false with the presence of military and police drones out there.

Re:From whose point of view?

[sjames]

They are basing their complaint on a comparison between what the FAA is saying vs. what the actual pilots reported. That makes the commercial pilots the observers, not the drone operators.

Some of the reports the FAA claimed bolstered the need to do something about drones included objects seen at 51,000 feet, according to the pilot that filed the report.. That would be well beyond the capability of any hobbiest drone.

Other sightings as described by the commercial pilot described drones operating within the rules.

Accuracy?

[bughunter]

so legislators have accurate information from which to design regulations

Pfft! Since when have legislators ever cared about the accuracy of information when drafting bills? If Congress decides it wants to demonize hobbyist drones, it's going to do so regardless of what the FAA reports.

Since 9-11, concresscritters on both sides of the aisle have habitually either knowingly and willingly consumed disinformation, or ignored accurate information when it didn't support their predetermined goals.

Who?

[HornWumpus]

Who are these hobbyists?

Did anybody think to ask the AMA? The organization that kept RC hobbyists out of these kinds of troubles for 50+ years before RTF quads became the latest craze.

Quad hobbyists need only pay attention to the god damn rules that were set before they were born, not get all self righteous about things they apparently don't care to understand.

It's really pretty simple: Don't fly near airports, stay under 400 feet, if you see _any_ traffic, land, don't fly directly over crowds

They could be doing something productive like me, flying a scale predator drone near paranoid groups protesting.