lightpanther
 lvl.3
United States
Offline
|
Treat the IDIOTS like idiots…don’t treat the rest of the population like them.
I hear you. Philosophically in many respects I agree with you.
“At the same time - I am also a pilot. I have dealt with the FAA and understand the bureaucracy, which is to a level you have never in your life imagined if this is your introduction into the national airspace. This is the same FAA that tried to fine a guy $10,000 for flying a nearly weightless Styrofoam model with a tiny camera on it through a college campus, deeming it reckless operation of an aircraft - the same FAA that went before the NTSB to get said Styrofoam model ruled "an aircraft" for purpose of federal regulation, a precedent that makes ALL UAS "aircraft" as a matter of law. He was eventually allowed to limp away with a $1,100 dollar settlement (this is FAA v. Pirker, if you enjoy doing research).”
Unless I’m mistaken though Pirker was flying commerically, which is another bee in the FAA’s bonnet. Yes, bureaucracies will be bureaucracies, and there are even situations where they are needed. I don’t quite think he “limped away” though.The FAA’s case would probably have failed on appeal if pressed to court, because they cannot make new laws on their own. Congress does that. They settled for $1,100, with a condition from Pirker's lawyers that he did not admit to any wrongdoing, and I suspect he settled due to the likely drawn out length of an appeal case.
“We can debate what "should be" all day long. We might even agree. Our federal government does not, so I'm dealing with what IS, not what should be.”
Well, the world changes though. The right way for things to work is that what “should be” has an influence on what presently “is”and especially on what “shouldn’t be.” Now there’s a force in favor of photographic quads here. At present, and unless they turn out to be a “skateboard” fad, people want them, a lot of people want them, and they want them a LOT. It begins to become a sticky matter for government agencies to restrict or ban things that represent new opportunities, commerical and recreational, for human beings, and which are not *intrinsically* harmful. That rarely ends well. Quads are no more intrinsically harmful than manned aircraft (though the tech is still evolving of course).
“I actually have much greater concerns than altitude being forcibly limited to 400' AGL. My concern is that these craft are likely to be outlawed altogether, and I'm not at all sure there's a way to stop it from happening. With a private plane there's a significant investment coupled with a sense of self-preservation, given that your ass is aboard said private plane. With a UAS, on the other hand, the only thing you risk is the aircraft, not your life. Consequently we're already seeing people doing really, REALLY stupid things with these craft.”
Right. That brings up a couple of things though. There’s the aforementioned thing of a (hypothetical) company altering the device you are buying with later “limits” unbeknownst at purchase time. Imo, that is not commercially acceptable, no matter what the legal status. How would you feel if your drone company (let’s not make this/limit this to DJI) wheel clamped your quad altitude to 400’ 3 months or 6 months after you bought it? How about if quads were made illegal altogether and the quad company “updated your firmware” effectively leaving you with a $2000 paperweight? Do you think that is commercially or ethically acceptable? I certainly DO NOT. That doesn’t mean I would break the law and/or risk a heavy fine or jail (under such circs) by flying it. It’s about buying a car and having the car company remotely disable the engine. That’s not acceptable behavior, imo, because what I paid for (and through the nose) was a flying technology. Unless there was a substantial refund that reflected it down to the real value of an interesting paperweight, I would call out any such corporate act as essentially criminal. I own the device once I purchase it. I am not leasing it or “purchasing a subscription” as I might do for a web-served software program.
The second thing is this: for the best part of a century manned flight has had the air to itself. I have been a full-sized aircraft pilot in my time too (gliders in my case)…and I can understand the nervousness. Yes, quads would make me nervous if I was flying gliders or any full sized aircraft (I no longer do). And it is understandable that pilots would want to preserve that status quo and not have the skies flooded by these upstart “drones.” But that, again, is where their case starts to get iffy. This is perhaps clearest, and least complicated, with recreational flying (of which there is a lot). A great many places presently called “airports” are in fact not airports at all, but private recreational airstrips, operated, for example, for the leisure of local, reasonably affluent homeowners. When one recreational group, however, starts to argue that another (equally) recreational activity is giving them grief, I don’t think they really have much of a plausible case that their activity is somehow more worthy over the other. A similar case can be made for the commerical use of quads, which in many ways would be risking life a lot less than the use of full sized, manned aircraft…even for regular photography. I don’t think there’s any a priori argument that settles a case that the future should not consist of widespread “aerial traffic” involving both manned and unmanned “aircraft” for both recreational and commercial purposes. And if that makes the skies busier, well “tough”…perhaps it will have to be rationed equally for everyone.
“San Francisco is having an enormous problem because there are so many UAS flying around the Golden Gate Bridge that it apparently resembles a swarm of bees. The craft are intruding into sensitive DO NOT ENTER areas that would subject a person to arrest, and allowing operators to see security-related things that they could not normally see but for the use of a UAS. Not to mention that if two craft collide and drop onto the bridge they could cause quite an accident. These things don't have license plates. Good luck finding the idiots when the accident happens.”
Although all that a license will do is milk money from those who are unlikely to break the law in the first place. Building a quad, now, is not that hard. Anyone with a little bit of engineering skill and determination could do it…and not put anything resembling a license plate anywhere on it. Given the increasing range of these things…and one assumes that they will eventually be controllable over much greater distances using cellphone technology…good luck finding the pilot of a “wild” drone who is operating the thing even from a mile and a half away…or in five years time, from halfway across the country.
“Now multiply this by all of the good visuals in the nation. Bridges, parks, the Statute of Liberty (which is already surrounded by manned aircraft). The list goes on nearly endlessly.”
See I think all of those things are perfectly legitimate subjects for recreational (photographic) quads. Indeed, they are *exactly* what they are best at, and “laws” which wheel clamp those are in an oppressive and ill-conceived direction that is actually quite antagonistic to change and progress. I suggested a potential solution to the problem earlier. Put transponders on quads. There are other possible solutions. Partitioning the days on which aircraft and quads might be able to use the sky over busy areas. Again, no one goes on about the fact that aircraft fly over busy areas all the time.
“And consider how many times these things have had near-misses with aircraft. Apparently there have already been a bunch. You say that only an idiot would do that - well, true, but you may need to broaden your definition of the word idiot. Many people who acquire a Phantom know nothing about controlled airspace, or where they might encounter low-flying aircraft, or what altitude they can safely fly at. Two news helicopters recently found a Phantom flying ABOVE them (because the operator was flying way above 400'). Unlike other aircraft, most UAS are so small that pilots really can't see them, making the "see and avoid" rule of VFR flight impossible to obey.”
Hence transponders. Or partitioning the days on which quads can fly. However, also partitioning the days on which manned aircraft (especially manned, light aircraft, non-emergency) can fly. What it will come down to is how much Americans want this tech. If they really really want it, restrictions won’t stand legal pressure from all sorts of vested interests who would like to use this technology to innovative ends (just think of Amazon, for instance…and they aren’t *done* with this subject just because they’ve run into some snags; not by a long way).
“Because any jackwagon with a little bit of money can buy one (unlike the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars involved in passenger planes), these things are proliferating so quickly that no one can possibly go after idiots in any meaningful way. There are far too many idiots and their behavior is far too idiotic. And many of them don't even REALIZE they're being idiots because they bought something whose implications they didn't even consider.”
I think you are overstating that. Media tends to emphasize the most headline-grabbing fool stunts from ACROSS THE NATION, which can give an entirely false impression that every second day someone is landing a quad for a touchdown during a football game, or hovering it over the White House Lawn, or taking pictures of the latest top secret submarine. Sure, these things are happening…but I’d venture that tens of thousands of people are using their quads *pretty much safely* every day and without incident. There are certainly some people on youtube flying too high in the present safety environment, but I think that itself is a sign that Airspace XP needs to be updated to Airspace 7, if not Airspace 8 ;)
“And yes, I PROMISE you that if a Phantom or Inspire gets sucked into the engine of a 767 or A320, it WILL cause catastrophic engine failure, and if it happens at a critical time it could very well cause a disaster. Likewise if one encounters the blades of a helicopter it will almost certainly cause a crash.”
It could *conceivably*, but it would be much more likely to cause a failure of a single engine, and almost *infinitely* more likely to shred the phantom to melted plastic while the aircraft sails on to its destination. Don’t get me wrong…I’m not claiming that what you are saying is *impossible*…but I also think it’s a boogeyman that some people (not necessarily you) are holding up, as well as a double standard. Again, aircraft have been flying over busy areas and residential districts all of my life. Is that “dangerous”? You BET it is. It just happens to be convenient to us human beings for a number of reasons, and to certain vested or legacy interest groups for that to continue. Whenever one of those comes down, and they do, it causes a whole bunch more damage to life and limb than a phantom is going to do.
“So with all that said - and recognizing the truth of your observation that idiots will be idiots no matter what anyone tries to do - I think it is only a matter of time before one of these things, in the hands of an idiot, causes an incident that kills a lot of people. And I think within 30 days of said incident they will be completely outlawed.
And BOY, I hope I'm wrong.”
Completely outlawed would be a bit extreme. Hurried through and probably ill thought out regulations, that would likely have to be entirely overhauled through the court system just 2 to 3 years later…is more likely, imo.
And there’s another thing. At present, these delicious adult toys are approximately the size of basketballs. While the future is hard to predict in the fine grain, it is not too far fetched a scenario to posit that in just 5 years time they may be approaching the size of tennis balls…in seven to ten years time, operational models the size of large insects (dragonflies, yellowjackets) may appear. Eventually (20 years plus) camera bearing aerial devices the size of fruit flies may be a real possibility. But let’s hold the thought at the dimension of large insects just now (yellowjacket size). The idea of having a "pilot's license" for such an aerial device would be unenforceable, not to mention knee-slappingly hilarious right out of the box. Good luck with reading the FAA license plate on a wasp that is more than three inches from your face. Nor is anyone going to be shooting down a wasp with a rifle in their backyard because it was invading their privacy…since it will be hovering 30 feet away in the bushes and they won’t even know that it’s there. Again, unenforceable. To set in concrete laws and legislations that are (dramatically and effectively) going to render themselves obsolete in just a few years time could best be described as a ticket to a comedy show.
|
|
Core User of DJI
lvl.4
New
lvl.2
