https://www.google.com/url?sa=t& ... lqlLycNb_m6z0JAwkJw
For the folks out there that think flying in controlled airspace or night or other operations that are against the FAA regs but dont think its a big deal.  Must read!

I am getting a little worried now, I think we are going be to over regulated soon.

timbo Posted at 2017-1-19 11:33
I am getting a little worried now, I think we are going be to over regulated soon.

Unfortunately, with so many units in the field and in the hands of 10's of thousands of people that do not bother to even learn the regulations or restrictions and just fly anywhere and everywhere no matter the dangers, additional regulations will definitely continue.  While it may be a while for the FAA to catch up, I think that we will continue to see more state and local bans enacted or attempted.  The more people that violate regulations and pose danger to either other manned aircraft or persons or property on the ground will only accelerate more regulations and bans.  

There have been posters that have flown over 400', in Class B airspace and people have said, "well it was only above 400' for 1 minute as justification.  Never mind the airspace violation near a Major airport.  Yes, violations are hard to catch due to short duration of flights and lack of records of the flights, but as a Professional Pilot, I can tell you that when the FAA gets involved in an illegal flight the offender will end up facing a microscope of past flights that would bring more violations to light causing the one infraction to turn into 100.

Canada here. ;-)
We have our own set of restrictions...
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/drone-safety.html

RedHotPoker

RedHotPoker Posted at 2017-1-19 13:34
Canada here. ;-)
We have our own set of restrictions...
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/drone-safety.html

So basically its illegal to fly near airports, highways and in national parks? And its strongly recommended not to fly around buildings and people?

PaulMV Posted at 2017-1-19 13:42
So basically its illegal to fly near airports, highways and in national parks? And its strongly recommended not to fly around buildings and people?

Got to love government overreach! Now they will try to find a way to make money with taxes or fees.

PaulMV Posted at 2017-1-19 13:42
So basically its illegal to fly near airports, highways and in national parks? And its strongly recommended not to fly around buildings and people?

& to Mind our P's and Q's.  National Parks is a real No No!!

Yes, so far, we're doing pretty good. ;-)

Hope it remains as such too. Haha


RedHotPoker

National Parks are a no-no in the US as well. Getting caught flying your drone in a National Park can net you a hefty fine and a ban from all National Parks.

I'm telling you mark my words....

Over the coming years you will see the FAA take the same road as the FCC did with Amature Radio and the radio spectrum.

ALL Drone Operators will require a license.

Be it for commercial or Hobby. One set of uniform rules for all UAV pilots and the ability to track and enforce.

It's going to happen.

http://www.backpacker.com/news-a ... rom-national-parks/

https://www.nps.gov/fire/aviatio ... -aerial-systems.cfm

I sure hope not. Our drones aren't all that dangerous. A Canadian goose weighs a lot more than a Phantom and the government doesn't impose any flight restrictions to the geese. Not that they would listen.

That fine will pretty much put SkyPan out of business.

Apparently some guys take off from outside the parks boundaries and fly over. Thinking it's within the law. Haha

It happened near here just last summer. Then the warnings went out and up. Now it's a serious crime.
Officials warn against flying drones above Elk Island National Park
Elk Island National Park, communications officer, Janelle Lane holding a sign that are posted in the park banning drones, actually in all parks, in order to protect the sensitive environment like Elk Island west of Edmonton Monday, September 12, 2016. Ed Kaiser/Postmedia

Drone operators dreaming of bison-spotting from the air need to get their feet back on the ground, Elk Island National Park officials say.

This summer saw an increase in Elk Island visitors attempting to fly unmanned aerial vehicles inside the park boundaries, and — as Elk Island staff reiterated on Monday — unless you're a bird, flying in the airspace above national parks is not allowed.

Drones are treated as aircraft by both Parks Canada and Transport Canada. The National Parks act includes restrictions on aircraft taking off or landing in the parks without permission.

Elk Island is best known for its bison population, and Janelle Lane, spokeswoman for Elk Island, says overhead buzzing could be disruptive to the mammals.

"We strive to provide a natural setting for the bison and the rest of the wildlife in the park, which means a natural airspace above them as well," Lane said.

Lane said drones are still a relatively new technology so have not been a concern for the park up until now, Lane said. But, she added, "They're becoming more and more popular."

In addition to bothering the bison, drones may also stir up trouble for the 250 migratory bird species that often use the park as a stopping ground on their journey south.

"Elk Island is one of those big islands of green where they can stop and rest properly," she said.

In the winter, Parks Canada itself uses aircraft to fly over the park and do animal counts. Drones could also interfere with that.

"I think a lot of people don't realize the impact that drones can have on wildlife and park operations."

Unlike hikers and drivers who are restricted to trails and the parkway, drones leave no quiet, all-natural spaces for wildlife to take refuge, she said.

"To have that airspace interrupted and to have that uncontrolled ... there's no trails to hike in the sky."

Parks Canada is trying to educate visitors who attempt to fly drones in the park; typically people are let off with a friendly warning.

One person has been charged following an incident in August when they allegedly operated a drone in the park. Lane said the individual was served with a provincial court summons. If found guilty, they could be fined up to $25,000.

A corporation charged and found guilty of the same infraction could be fined up to $250,000.

Though permits are occasionally issued for research or film purposes, Lane said the applications go through heavy consideration and that they are often rejected.

RedHotPoker

P4P+ Posted at 2017-1-19 18:27
I sure hope not. Our drones aren't all that dangerous. A Canadian goose weighs a lot more than a Phantom and the government doesn't impose any flight restrictions to the geese. Not that they would listen.

If you have ever seen an airplane that hit a Canadian goose you wouldn't think it wasn't such a big deal.  I have seen airplanes that hit ducks that punched holes the size of bowling balls through the tail leading edges or completely blew out a windshield of airplanes.  If an airplane were to hit a phantom, it the right spot, it could most certainly cause catastrophic damage.  If it were something bigger like inspire of matrice, it would be even worse.  

The hard part is trying to get uneducated people to be responsible and also realize that the regs are not just for small quadcopters flying but also bigger fixed wing drones or vehicles weighing up to 55 pounds.  Would any of us want to be standing under a 54 pound drone falling out of the sky on our head or through the windshield of our cars at highway speed, or god forbid a passenger jet or helicopter.  

These regulations are not cases of government overreach but unfortunately are being written because there are individuals that think, "its just a toy, I paid for it, I can do whatever I want...besides it's cool to see how high I can fly or how far I can fly or how low I can fly over a outdoor event crowd."  We are ALL responsible to try to self police these types in order to safeguard the hobby or business that we enjoy.

I read somewhere were someone in China was arrested for flying his Drone in the approach and departure lanes of a major airport.

These drones are not toys there semi/fully autonomous flying machines and have service ceilings that put them in direct conflict with manned aircraft in the NAS. It's only a matter of time before we have one smack a plane and cause a accident. This is going to get more likely as we start to fly them BVLOS.

Right now unless you fly commercial there is no way to reliability track drones and there operators. Thus there is no way to enforce the rules set in place.


Simply regestering your drone on a web site is not enough. Commercial operators take it a step further and can be tracked via there certificates, but even this is not enough.

I think you will see a structure where Drones will require a transponder and a system of licensing and registration that allows tracking and enforcement of all Drones and their pilots that fly in the NAS.

I think that in the near future the Drone community and manufacturers are going to need a MASSIVE Education/Public Service Campaign to educate newcomers to the community and others that do not read this type of forum and bother to try to educate themselves before going out to fly.  RC flying has been around for decades but the barrier to entry was the learning curve required to develop the flying skills to necessary to control the aircraft to even remedial levels.  With the advent of smart flight capabilities, autonomous flight capabilities and the ready to fly out of the box with no prior training has opened the floodgates to the masses.  In the past you would spend months and hundreds or thousands of dollars painstakingly building their aircraft that was anything but stable or flyable without proper training and practice.  Now, if you have the money, you can go out and buy your quad, and fly today.  Common sense often does not enter into the equation.

Unfortunately, regulations and licensing isn't really going to solve the problem.  For the most part, the people that are taking the time to register or get licensed are not the ones to take chances or risk doing something stupid or dangerous.  The uneducated, irresponsible, or immature are not going to bother to license or register and care when or where they fly.  Possibly more software restrictions will curb some of the problems but I think we should all hang on for a bumpy ride over the coming years.

Not being a smart arse or anything but what was the rationale for banning drones in the National Parks?

sky wombat Posted at 2017-1-19 21:09
Not being a smart arse or anything but what was the rationale for banning drones in the National Parks?

I think some idiot crashing a drone into a geyser in Yellowstone had a big impact.

if the part 107 rules didn't go into effect till sometime in 2016, then under what rules are they being fined for flights that happened prior to the 107 rules?

RicknCovington Posted at 2017-1-20 20:35
if the part 107 rules didn't go into effect till sometime in 2016, then under what rules are they being fined for flights that happened prior to the 107 rules?

The FAA prohibited UAVs in commercial operations

As a former licenced pilot, prior to lifting off the ground, I read up on the flight restrictions on the Transport Canada website. The FAA has similar regulations in the US. Those who choose to circumvent the rules jeopardize the hobby for everyone, not to mention putting lives at risk. have you ever contemplated what would happen if your drone hit the windshield of a small aircraft or got sucked in to a jet engine? Drones are not easy to see from a distance.

Johnnyv Posted at 2017-1-21 05:40
As a former licenced pilot, prior to lifting off the ground, I read up on the flight restrictions on the Transport Canada website. The FAA has similar regulations in the US. Those who choose to circumvent the rules jeopardize the hobby for everyone, not to mention putting lives at risk. have you ever contemplated what would happen if your drone hit the windshield of a small aircraft or got sucked in to a jet engine? Drones are not easy to see from a distance.

I do understand the need for basic rules, but the faa will go too far. For example what if the government decided the automobile was too dangerous. They decide that too many people are getting hurt by cars so they make a mandatory 25mph speed limit. Driving at night is more dangerous so we will just make that illegal. You can drive at night but you will need written approval from the dmv in advance.

timbo Posted at 2017-1-21 09:16
I do understand the need for basic rules, but the faa will go too far. For example what if the government decided the automobile was too dangerous. They decide that too many people are getting hurt by cars so they make a mandatory 25mph speed limit. Driving at night is more dangerous so we will just make that illegal. You can drive at night but you will need written approval from the dmv in advance.

The government did decide cars were dangerous and limited speed  limits to 55mph.  Those rules have since changed in most places, but safety was the reason

As a person on both sides of this issue. I do fear flying an approach to an airport, break out of the clouds at low altitude, only to be greeted by a phantom in my windscreen flown by some idiot that thought the rules were not important or even should apply to him.