Would you shoot one down for invading your privacy ?

i that will followbeen flying them now for over a year,and i have insurance to cover me and any damages i cause. they have them that will follow you where ever you go and can operated with a smart phone,you can get one that will land in water and take pictures under water,all in all i enjoy flying them thats my hobby.what about model airplanes????

Just like with jet skis, the moron class will screw it up for responsible operators. I suspect there will be an incident with serious injuries that will result in significant restrictions to drone operations. The cretins with the green lasers are finally getting police attention and I expect drone operators will come under increased scrutiny also.

Or, you could always train your pet hawk to do it!

The other week the news helicopter from KOMO-TV in Seattle was hovering about 500 feet covering a news story. The pilot happened to glance up and there was a quad-copter hovering just above the helicopter. The chopper pilot reported this to the FAA who became extremely concerned. I don't recall if they found the drone pilot or not.

While a drone might damage a turbofan engine on a jetliner it would not cause the jetliner to crash. However, if a drone hit the main or tail rotor of a helicopter, it could cause a momentary unbalance bad enough to damage the chopper and cause the pilot to lose control.

Marin said:

The other week the news helicopter from KOMO-TV in Seattle was hovering about 500 feet covering a news story. The pilot happened to glance uip and thiere was a quad-coptere hovering just above the helicopter. The chopper pilot reported this to the FAA who became extremely concerned. I don't recall if they found the pilot or not.

While a drone might damage a turbofan engine on a jetliner it would not cause the jetliner to crash. However, if a drone hit the main or teil roator of a helicopter, it could cause a momentary unbalance to damage the chopper and cause it to lose control.

Click to expand...

Clearly right to air space, rules for flying, are going to have to be defined. The current rules didn't anticipate every kid on the street flying a plane like thing high above.

knotheadcharters said:

So why is ok for the individual to invade my space but not ok for me to defend my space? In other words why is he afforded greater protection than I?

Click to expand...

This statement got me to thinking.
Say for instance I own riverfront property. neither me or any boater own the river. Heck, I don't even like boats, I like the river view. A boat comes by playing music and 'ruining' my view. Can I shoot at his boat?. After all, he is invading my perceived airspace because I can see and hear him from my property.
Why should he be afforded greater protection than I?

Slightly different scenarios ... space immediately above vs land/water around which is owned by somebody/public. The second scenario is well defined by law and regulated, the first one not yet ... do you own the first 3 feet, ten feet, height of your structure and then some space above it? This is where there is a legal vacuum as of now.

FF said:

"When one gets sucked into an engine and brings a commercial jet down, then the FAA will step in"

The simple loss of an engine will not bring a commercial jet down.

Click to expand...

Maybe for a sharp pilot that knows his engine out procedure. One last month over in Asia knife edged it into a bridge on the takeoff roll which the FAA believed to be due to loss of power in one of the engines (it was a twin).

Planes have enough reasons to crash, a drone shouldn't be one of them.

Lets not forget the one that needed the Hudson to land, could have been a drone instead of a bird. That sounds like I'm a nut but as someone that flies planes and runs boats, I take operating stuff seriously. Unfortunately drone operators (I refuse to call them pilots) are mostly on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Airspace for drones really needs to be defined not only for public safety (densely populated areas cannot have aircraft flying below 1000') and for privacy. It's almost unnecessary because as soon as something comes out, GoPros will be equipped with telephoto lenses

Why would anyone think it was OK to operate what is essentially a flying buzz saw within a few feet of an unwilling participant?

The same people that want you to see their new $1200 flying camera. I've witnessed so many people flying them around crowds of people in parks and beaches...quite comical. Hovering over people with 5-10' to spare. If something failed...someone is getting a haircut

Skinny said:

The same people that want you to see their new $1200 flying camera. I've witnessed so many people flying them around crowds of people in parks and beaches...quite comical. Hovering over people with 5-10' to spare. If something failed...someone is getting a haircut

Click to expand...

i have to find out what kind of a Anchor i can use just in case of a problem LOL

I think drones are going to end up with some very strong rules. Just to give you an idea of how the FAA feels in general, look at the approval to test Amazon just got for their certificate to test:

Under the provisions of the certificate, all flight operations must be conducted at 400 feet or below during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions. The UAS must always remain within visual line-of-sight of the pilot and observer. The pilot actually flying the aircraft must have at least a private pilot’s certificate and current medical certification.

I believe there was also another provision that limited the buildings it could fly over. Rumors are that Amazon may go to Australia for their testing as Google did. But just seeing the concerns here from a few drones, imagine Amazon's drones everywhere instead of UPS, Fedex, USPS trucks.

I think ultimately height will be very restricted as will be proximity to homes, buildings and people. Also I think to do it commercially will require licensing.

Wifey B: News Flash

The FAA announced flying drones to require drone air manning licenses, hence forth referred to as Dam licenses. Even current pilots would require a dam certification. Requirements will include at least 360 Air Days to get a 50 lb. drone license with further requirements for 100 lb., 200 lb., 500 lb. and unlimited. Other drone crew, such as watchkeepers and stews who maintain the drone operating centers will also have training requirements with all undergoing minimum safety requirements. Also, based on experience one can be licensed for inland only, for coastal or to cross oceans. Detailed requirements for Dam licenses and operation of drones will be written by a cooperative of 133 nations and will be called Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW).

In a separate release, the Maritime Yacht Training Hosts (MYTH) led by all maritime training schools worldwide has applauded the decision and assured all involved that they will make sure they can provide the necessary courses to meet the implementation date.

Sophia Lo Wren, spokeswoman for MPTIPT in Fort Lauderdale stated, "While we have increased our size dramatically to accommodate the requirements of USCG licensees to conform to STCW, we will quickly expand by many times more. Average course prices will be $1000 for each level. We project our annual revenues growing from $300 million to $1 billion within two years and $5 billion within five years. We thank all the IMO signatory countries for making what could be simple as complicated as possible and insuring our success forever.

The writer of this, Ms. Chime Delicious, closely follows the yacht and drone worlds as a writer for both the Fort Lauderdale Obvious Sun Sentinel (FLOSS) and the Snafu Herald. (SNAFU).

I doubt that the little ones the public fly fall into that category. I'm sure there are stipulations regarding non-commercial activity as well.

Skinny said:

I doubt that the little ones the public fly fall into that category. I'm sure there are stipulations regarding non-commercial activity as well.

Click to expand...

Fall into what category?

I think Skinny just got "punked" by Mrs. B.

Nsail said:

I think Skinny just got "punked" by Mrs. B.

Click to expand...

Wifey B: Not lil innocent me....

FF's point was a single engine failure on a commercial jet, in which he is correct - not normally the cause of a crash.

Skinny said:

Maybe for a sharp pilot that knows his engine out procedure. One last month over in Asia knife edged it into a bridge on the takeoff roll which the FAA believed to be due to loss of power in one of the engines (it was a twin).

If you're talking about the TransAsia flight, it is strongly believed that neither engine was performing properly, and, it was not on the takeoff roll, but several mile from the airport.

Planes have enough reasons to crash, a drone shouldn't be one of them. Absolutely!

Lets not forget the one that needed the Hudson to land, could have been a drone instead of a bird. That sounds like I'm a nut but as someone that flies planes and runs boats, I take operating stuff seriously. Unfortunately drone operators (I refuse to call them pilots) are mostly on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Again, a dual engine failure, not single. And not by a single bird, but a flock of Canadian Geese (Canada Geese to the PC people). Big difference.

Airspace for drones really needs to be defined not only for public safety (densely populated areas cannot have aircraft flying below 1000') and for privacy. It's almost unnecessary because as soon as something comes out, GoPros will be equipped with telephoto lenses

Click to expand...

Your point about drones, privacy, and operating stuff seriously is spot on, I just wanted to confirm my agreement with FF's point.

And, look up Sophia Loren, er... Lo Wren. Hot Stuff!

CASA here is Australia have already started fining drone operators CASA drone fine: Queensland man fined for flying drone

crashley said:

CASA here is Australia have already started fining drone operators CASA drone fine: Queensland man fined for flying drone

Click to expand...

Fine should be doubled for the stupidity of posting it on You Tube.

Reading this thread has convinced me of one thing. I want a camera equipped drone to fly around now.

Has anyone actually looked at the law that now covers drones (known to the FAA as UAS, less than 55 lbs) or the latest proposed regulations? Under current law, drones are treated the same as model RC aircraft. First distinction is that they cannot be flown for a business purpose, recreational purposes only. Thus a photographer cannot legally use a drone for his photography business. They must be flown away from any populated area and cannot be flown over people.

If you want to use a drone for a business purpose, the current law requires quite a lot. first, the aircraft must have an Airworthiness Certificate and the operator must have a Pilot's Certificate. All responsibility for accident avoidance, being away from airspace and the like are the responsibility of the operator. All operations, recreational or business, are line of sight only, the operator must be able to see the drone without any visual aids.

The proposed regs make no changes to the recreational use provisions. For business use, daylight only, line of sight, cannot flyover people except the operators, 500' altitude limitation. The biggest change is that there would now be an operator licensing scheme. Must be over 17, pass an aeronautical knowledge test to get a UAS Operator Certificate. Still total responsibility for accidents avoidance etc lies with the operator.

From my experience so far, there is not much enforcement going on. I know at least four photogs using drones and I have seen them flying over people several times. If and when new regs come into effect, wonder who will be responsible for enforcement? Maybe we will have FAA cops driving around chasing drones?

THD said:

Has anyone actually looked at the law that now covers drones (known to the FAA as UAS, less than 55 lbs) or the latest proposed regulations? Under current law, drones are treated the same as model RC aircraft. First distinction is that they cannot be flown for a business purpose, recreational purposes only. Thus a photographer cannot legally use a drone for his photography business. They must be flown away from any populated area and cannot be flown over people.

If you want to use a drone for a business purpose, the current law requires quite a lot. first, the aircraft must have an Airworthiness Certificate and the operator must have a Pilot's Certificate. All responsibility for accident avoidance, being away from airspace and the like are the responsibility of the operator. All operations, recreational or business, are line of sight only, the operator must be able to see the drone without any visual aids.

The proposed regs make no changes to the recreational use provisions. For business use, daylight only, line of sight, cannot flyover people except the operators, 500' altitude limitation. The biggest change is that there would now be an operator licensing scheme. Must be over 17, pass an aeronautical knowledge test to get a UAS Operator Certificate. Still total responsibility for accidents avoidance etc lies with the operator.

From my experience so far, there is not much enforcement going on. I know at least four photogs using drones and I have seen them flying over people several times. If and when new regs come into effect, wonder who will be responsible for enforcement? Maybe we will have FAA cops driving around chasing drones?

Click to expand...

Thank you for the real info and not speculation!
I couldnt stand all the droning on and on of "what ifs"...

I just got punked...total frowny face

You can't expect much from me past 10pm!

I'll agree to disagree on the engine thing. Regardless I would like to keep them from bouncing off the cockpit window or turbine blades the next time I'm sipping my coffee and reading the paper on takeoff

I guess living out in the middle of nowhere I was not aware of what a nuisance these things have become.
I was actually thinking of buying one for photography purposes on my boat. I got the idea from when I was working offshore. I was working on a platform when the flame coming out of the flare boom didn't look quite right. It was too dangerous for anyone to actually investigate so they hired this small company with a helicopter to come out and check it out. They brought out a small helicopter with a camera and this was quite sophisticated. The pilot and the cameraman wore these helmets and they could see what the helicopter and the camera could see. The photos were quite detailed.

wow, step outa the room for a few days and things get busy

Skinny said:

I just got punked...total frowny face

You can't expect much from me past 10pm!

I'll agree to disagree on the engine thing. Regardless I would like to keep them from bouncing off the cockpit window or turbine blades the next time I'm sipping my coffee and reading the paper on takeoff

Click to expand...

I never pull out the newspaper until the gear handle is up.

Skinny said:

I just got punked...total frowny face

You can't expect much from me past 10pm!

I'll agree to disagree on the engine thing. Regardless I would like to keep them from bouncing off the cockpit window or turbine blades the next time I'm sipping my coffee and reading the paper on takeoff

Click to expand...

Wifey B: Sorry, skinny.....some smart..s girl trying to lighten things up a bit. And the comparison to STCW and the change in USCG regulations was in regards to the licensing changes currently taking place. For those not aware, the USCG has enacted the new rules necessary to be in compliance with STCW. This is requiring all captains and engineers to take additional courses, some a few, some many. The maritime schools are expanding to accommodate and can't even get the classes set up fast enough to handle all the demand. Deadline on compliance is 1/1/17. MCA and RYA have some changes as well.

Regardless of how justified the changes may or may not be, definitely a windfall for all the schools.

Sofia Loren still sexy at the age of 78.

I thought the newspaper names sort of summed it up with Floss and Snafu as I do believe it will become Snafu. As to the writer's name, first name a synonym for mine....

No punking intent, just predicting this is going to get complicated and be more of a mess before it's resolved.

Belle?

Nsail said:

Belle?

Click to expand...

Wifey B: Ding, ding, ding, ding.....goes the trolley.