Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50
  1. Collapse Details
    New FAA rules in the works
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,901
    Default
    Proposed changes stand to really tighten down on sUAS operations here in USA.
    Too much to try to type out but the video on this page explains it for FAA and EU.
    Sounds like operating a sUAS (drone) is going to become more troublesome and costly in the next couple of years.
    https://www.suasnews.com/2020/01/the...4-pro-is-back/
    This could make an owner operator more inclined to hire a drone op then deal with all the stuff yourself.
    And of course may mean that even more people just operate illegally than try to comply with it all, but that will become harder to do when new aircraft won't let you fly unless you are in compliance


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    8,005
    Default
    These rules are already silly, so I guess it's getting sillier. In the real world, out of scaremonger's brains, drones cause very few accidents. Rational people would ban cars before tightening on drones.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    608
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    These rules are already silly, so I guess it's getting sillier. In the real world, out of scaremonger's brains, drones cause very few accidents. Rational people would ban cars before tightening on drones.
    In the real world sUAS have
    caused major airports to close for several days
    been used to smuggle drugs into prisons (many multiple occurrences)
    been used for illegal surveillance
    flown illegally in urban areas
    etc etc
    Enough for people to get pissed off with it and legislators decide to clamp down before it gets out of hand.

    As has said often enough on drone forums "It only needs a few idiots...."


    The capabilities of modern consumer drones today far outstrips that of the high end drones of only a few years ago (other than some military ones) and that they are in the hands of "everyone".
    Automobiles are controlled to a greater or lesser extent in all countries as are aircraft.
    The difference is that aircraft legislation tends to be unified internationally and as organisations like EASA and FAA are both looking at the same problem at the same time sUAS legislation are likely to be similar globally.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    8,005
    Default
    And on the other side, every year, 40 thousand people die in car accidents in the US, and over 4 million get seriously injured. These don't usually appear in the news anymore, because we got used to that. But really, if you're going to ban one type of machine, start with cars.

    (I understand there are many more cars than drones, actually, around 250 times more; yet, even adjusting for that... I don't think drones killed 160 people in the US last year)


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    608
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    And on the other side, every year, 40 thousand people die in car accidents in the US, and over 4 million get seriously injured. These don't usually appear in the news anymore, because we got used to that. But really, if you're going to ban one type of machine, start with cars.

    (I understand there are many more cars than drones, actually, around 250 times more; yet, even adjusting for that... I don't think drones killed 160 people in the US last year)
    Apples and pears.

    Aircraft have been and are fully regulated as is airspace in the same way internationally. All they are doing is amending the rules for new small aircraft in *their* airspace.
    It seems they are all (all the worlds Civil Air Regulators) implementing similar rules in similar time frames.

    Cars don't come into it that is a completely separate thing that is nothing to do with the civil air regulators.
    Neither are firearms or drugs for that matter except as hand luggage or freight ON an aircraft.
    Come to that they DO regulate cars and trucks as air freight.
    They also have regulations for vehicles air side but not off the airfields.
    Not their problem.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    792
    Default
    To be fair, in the USA the airspace is a public area just like the airwaves. They're regulated, but we the people own them. It's not *their* airspace over here, it's *ours*.

    The truth is, like Samuel H said, drones really aren't a massive problem. Sure there are some idiots running around doing stupid stuff, but the stuff they're doing is already illegal. Making it more illegal (especially when they're little to no chance they get caught) isn't going to help.

    Remote ID is great. I'm all for it, but the NPRM the FAA put out differs significantly from the proposal the working group put together and will cause significant cost increases and pain for operators trying to be legal. Considering how poorly the FAA's enforcement of drone issues currently is (they really don't have the staff to do the kind of large-scale enforcement action that'd be needed to scare people into compliance) they rely on voluntary compliance for a lot of these things. The more restrictive and difficult you make compliance, the more likely someone is to just go rogue... so there's a balancing act there. This is going to cause less compliance and not more. This current NPRM shows the heavy hand of the security apparatus (DHS, FBI, etc.) on it as well as huge industrial players who want to effectively own a big chunk of the airspace to make money (Amazon, UPS, etc.).

    Honestly, the best thing for nearly all of the things you mention is counter-drone tech... and it's being deployed to stop this stuff. Remote ID is also good, but it needs to be done in a way that most people will comply.

    Also, someone who's flying contraband into a prison or illegally surveilling someone (how is that even possible, you have no right of privacy from the air) is going to know enough about it to use a homebuilt without Remote ID.
    JERBCO, LLC
    jerbco.com

    Web | Video | Aerial


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,379
    Default
    I don't need more Big Brother scrutinizing my every move so I will be selling my drone. I'm done, as a hobbyist, the hassles just aren't worth the fun.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    608
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    I don't need more Big Brother scrutinizing my every move so I will be selling my drone. I'm done, as a hobbyist, the hassles just aren't worth the fun.
    I suspect that is partly the intent.
    This legislation will remove a lot of the casual flyers.
    The same thing happened when they started regulation for larger aircraft in the early days.
    At one time anyone (with money) could get an aeroplane and fly no medical, licence or anything.
    Last edited by jamedia.uk; 01-08-2020 at 12:29 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,901
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    I don't need more Big Brother scrutinizing my every move.......
    And that is really what it is about but we can't discuss that here.

    Among other goals of these proposed changes are to reduce the number of sUAS that fall into the hands of wild, reckless individuals who cause problems and peeping toms who cause other problems.

    Those who want to operate illegally still will. Those who want to operate legally such as us doing video production will either have to (1)give up and get out, (2) comply or (3) do it illegally.
    Clients will want the work done and if JoeBob is willing to do the work, "hey it's just a simple 50ft shot, right?" illegally then he may get more work than the guy trying to comply with the ever tightening regulations.

    So I see the result of this being that more people who otherwise are trying to comply will throw up their hands and then try to operate illegally, or give up aerial.

    The catch here for those deciding to operate illegally being the new proposed sytem will stop new sUAS from even being able to take off unless you have complied. So you'd likely have to run with an older one or build your own. And the poor hobbyists of who the drone community owe so much to for helping advance the field, are set to just about not be legally able to fly (hardly anywhere) because their aircraft cannot comply with either proposed ID method.
    And then there are all the problems such as the guy that has a properly ID'd aircraft, with proper clearances, following every rule, to still not be able to fly on the job because of errors and glitches that occur in this proposed system. Yes.

    As the # of sUAS increase this is indeed an interesting situation on what really should be done.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Greater LA
    Posts
    161
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    These rules are already silly, so I guess it's getting sillier. In the real world, out of scaremonger's brains, drones cause very few accidents. Rational people would ban cars before tightening on drones.
    completely agree, this is down right ridiculous at this point.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •