Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Sep 9, 2014.
I'm thinking of learning how to use a slingshot and taking the annoying little electro-critters out of the air. At times they are becoming worse than a slew of lawnmowers for ruining a peaceful Sunday afternoon.
Hopefully it is phase that will pass when the terminally stupids get bored of them.
I still fail to see the jumping-on-the-bandwagon logic of all of this. We finally have an easy, affordable way of getting pictures and video from aspects that many of us always WISHED we could get, without risking life or limb.....and people go on whining about a one in a million chance of one flying close to your home for the sole purpose of invading YOUR privacy.
Keep up at the back Chris. this topic is already here, and in your own thread.
Indeed, "insane" is a good word for maiming people without bothering with insurance or observing statutory requirements about distances from people. Read the articles, for heaven's sake. It's not about privacy. It's about chopping people up with rotors.
Farmers can now buy one of these devices and fly it over their property eliminating the need to constantly pay some self-described "professional" photographer to do it. Where is the harm in that? Unless of course one of the main motives for regulating these things is to keep them out of the hands of hobbyists, forcing them to pay someone fortunate enough to afford to get some stamped piece of paper saying he or she is a "professional" and therefor allowed to do this.
I suspect that many people who make their living via photography only object to these things because they are trying to preserve their livelihood, all the while shouting SAFETY and PRIVACY.
A person's portfolio of pictures should never be a prerequisite to being able to purchase or use certain equipment. I don't want to have to show any kind of license while trading in my D90 to purchase a D4S with the inheritance I just got from my grandfather.
Aye, or dropping a brick on them!
I expect it's why the local flying club go up on the moor to fly their planes and have been doing so for as long as I can remember...they have to do it away from people and even if they didn't have to it's just common sense to do it in a safe environment. It's about courtesy not privacy.
In the UK we have a little thing called the Air Navigation Order (ANO) and associated regulations. Well worth a read, even if it only cures your insomnia, as it also lists the penalties. There are also EASA regulations that may apply, I am no expert, drones aren't something we operate. I know we have members in other jurisdictions so I will mention that the FARs have regulations on drones as do the Canadian equivalents.
Aviation legislation is serious, I am in contact with it every working day, don't mess with the regulator!
Read the next two posts after yours. It's nothing to do with being a professional photographer -- amateurs can take out the requisite insurance and are bound by the same regulations. It's everything to do with safety. I'd certainly hate to think of anyone who can't understand that simple point being in charge of a potentially lethal drone.
They can SAY all they want....it doesn't mean they are telling the truth(that their objections are purely safety oriented). And again....why would the Air Navigation Order or the FAA have any business regulating what amounts to an off-the-shelf toy. If these things cannot fly high enough to get to commercial air traffic then they have no business getting involved.
They have every right to be involved, in theory, if it is man made and can fly the regulators have the jurisdiction. Not so long ago there was a fatal accident between a radio controlled plane and its pilot. Even relatively small objects can cause serious injury. As I said before, Don't mess with the regulator!
Sad for the family but served the bugger right. Rejoice that no innocent bystander was damaged in the incident.
FAA can’t regulate small RC aircraft as “drones,” judge rules.
Mar 7 2014
But yesterday, NTSB administrative law judge Patrick Geraghty ruled in favor of Pirker, stating in his decision that at the time Pirker recorded the video, “there was no enforceable FAA rule or [Federal Aviation Regulation], applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as [an unmanned aerial system, or drone].” By the FAA’s interpretation of regulations, he wrote, “The extension of that conclusion would then result in the risible argument that a flight in the air of… a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider, could subject the ‘operator’ to the regulatory provisions of FAA [regulations].”
Ars could not reach Pirker or an FAA spokesperson for comment on the case.
*Just as I said....the FAA has no business trying to regulate an off-the-shelf toy. Where does it end? A kid can't throw a paper airplane off of the top floor without some sort of license that he/she needs to pay for?
(1) The USA is not the UK
(2) This is a fairly low-level court
(3) You are quite happy for any cretin who can afford a drone to fly it low over the heads of crowds, regardless of the virtual certainty that sooner or later there will be a serious accident.
(4) Why do you think motorists are required to pass a driving text and to carry insurance?
That isn't actually what the judge said. What was actually said was “there was no enforceable FAA rule or [Federal Aviation Regulation], applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as [an unmanned aerial system, or drone].”
That doesn't mean that there either couldn't or shouldn't be such a regulation, it means that there wasn't one at the time. Coming from the NTSB that may be taken as a hint that such a regulation is required. You can be sure that had the aircraft caused damage or injury the NTSB would have investigated and issued formal recommendations.
Which brings me to the stupidity that goes on here in Germany:
If you do something stupid on a bicycle, someone gave the police the right to take your car/auto drivers license, add penalty "points" to it and possibly fine you......while on your bicycle.....a bicycle that requires no driving text(test?), no insurance, no registration...nothing. Pay cash, no ID required, ride it home.......purchased "off-the-shelf" as they say.......like buying a liter of milk.
Same exact scenario. If these things cannot get high enough to get in the way of commercial aircraft and there is no license required to purchase one, no "regulatory authority" has a right to be involved.
It doesn't matter. The FAA and the UK version of them regulate commercial airspace. If these things cannot get high enough to enter commercial airspace then they have no right to stick their noses in it.
The European equivalent of the FAA is the EASA, the European Aviation SAFETY Agency. Their job is to ensure that ALL forms of aviation are safe and carried out in a safe manner. Even an "off the shelf" toy can reach a sufficient speed, and has sufficient mass, to cause serious injury or worse. If you believe that such lethal hardware should be flown in a completely unregulated manner that is your business however, the regulators don't agree with you. In the UK there is very light regulation around small models and toys but above a certain mass, and I haven't the time to check what it is, regulation becomes tougher.
As for not getting high enough to affect commercial aviation; I have seen several air prox reports detailing close encounters between airliners and radio controlled models, usually on approach. A second consideration is light aviation, which is predominantly carried out in uncontrolled airspace, needs to be protected against encounters with model aircraft. Some friends were out flying yesterday and they reached a maximum of 3,500 ft, well within the scope of many off the shelf kits, I take their safety seriously as does the regulator hence the need for regulation of what you are calling "toys".
How high can these things fly? I was once warned off by air traffic control for flying a kite near Cardiff airport, as we were on the flightpath. I think you are getting your knickers in a twist over this. The point surely is that these things may be seen to be dangerous when flown near people, so some form of regulation is needed. As for bicycles, unless you are ET you aren't going to be flying high enough to worry the air traffic controllers
Why is it ridiculous? If someone is too stupid or careless to ride a bicycle safely, where there's a much greater risk of injuring themselves than other people, it's probably quite good evidence that they're too stupid or careless to drive a car safely, where there's a much greater risk of injuring other people than themselves.
Apart from that, as others have pointed out, aircraft take off and land, and the concern is SAFETY. Have you no imagination? And never mind aircraft: people can be injured or killed if they are hit by a drone -- and there are plenty who are too stupid or careless to fly a drone safely. Any sane person would want some regulation of where drones can be used, and how close they should be allowed to go to crowds.
Separate names with a comma.