http://www.newsday.com/news/new- ... faa-says-1.10487600

An American Airlines flight crew reported a close encounter with a "Drone" requiring them to pull up 200 feet to avoid a collision. I'm not familiar with LaGuardia airport or the area where this took place, but every encounter that makes the news is one more nail in the coffin of UAV flight.

All its gonna take is one idiot to ruin it for the rest of us.Either that or a bunch of idiots slowly putting nails into the coffin. 2700ft it probably wasn't a P3 since they have a 1500ft limit on it at the moment.

regulations, they are a coming.

Arrrrgh.  They'll ban them altogether the day I receive my 2nd battery....

mswall@mac.com Posted at 2015-5-30 08:03
Arrrrgh.  They'll ban them altogether the day I receive my 2nd battery....

I doubt the truth of some of these reports.

No fly zone maps USA.   https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/?embed=true#5/38.651/-96.504

FAA developing app for no fly zones. http://www.popsci.com/faa-spend-430000-developing-drone-rules-map

Complain all you want about DJI blocking access to some locations you wish to fly, but with or without your input, it's coming.  Now stop your bitching and apply to be a beta tester. The more responsible people involved the better we'll be better off.

lightpanther Posted at 2015-5-30 08:19
I doubt the truth of some of these reports.

I have access to the 2014 FAA aircraft near miss report. If I recall, there were 193 reported sightings. You can complain and doubt all you want, but the people filing the reports are licensed pilots not amateurs.

Search for 2014 DRONE NEAR MISSES.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-30 09:40
I have access to the 2014 FAA aircraft near miss report. If I recall, there were 193 reported sigh ...

Well, I did say *some* of the reports. I'm quite sure there are real near misses too. But I also think there's a lot of paranoia. Also, there's not really anything to stop someone with an agenda filing a "sighting" of a drone.

This is exactly why DJI has implemented the "no fly zone" feature.

Otherwise ALL drones will be BANNED in the USA.  (Thanks to irresponsible drone pilots.)

lightpanther Posted at 2015-5-30 09:44
Well, I did say *some* of the reports. I'm quite sure there are real near misses too. But I also t ...

There will always be some people with an agenda. Nothing you can do with them.

Reports filed with the FAA aren't anonymous. If you have one person filing multiple reports, they'll be investigated.

I've posted two stories in the last three days on near misses or in one case a drone strike.

Sitting back and saying this will never happen to me is the surest way to have a problem. Don't let that person be you.

Fulgerite Posted at 2015-5-30 09:51
This is exactly why DJI has implemented the "no fly zone" feature.

Otherwise ALL drones will be BAN ...

Fulgerite, I would sincerely put it to you that there is no relationship between DJI loading no fly zones into their software and the continuing behavior of (a few) irresponsible people. So with a ban, as with crippleware, the only people affected will be responsible flyers...not irresponsible ones.

lightpanther  The ratio of DJI owners to "other brands" is like 100,000:1.   And the average DJI owner is not the most experienced of drone fliers...   

So DJI adding a feature to keeps millions of drones from adding to the problem is a major help.

If you want to join all those irresponsible pilots who insist on flying in positive air traffic zones... I suggest you look for another brand of drone.

Fulgerite Posted at 2015-5-30 10:04
lightpanther  The ratio of DJI owners to "other brands" is like 100,000:1.   And the ave ...

It's zero help...you've already got threads here of people talking about taping aluminium foil to the Phantom, and I doubt that these are even irresponsible flyers. As to irresponsible flyers, these will pay the same amount of attention as "irresponsible drivers" do to drink driving limits.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-30 09:59
There will always be some people with an agenda. Nothing you can do with them.

Reports filed wit ...

I'm not saying it will never happen. I'm saying that overall it's a *trivial problem* when compared, for example, to the amount of deaths caused by drunk teens behind the wheel of a car every year.

So in other words it is really an anti-drone hype that is being created. Such hype needs to be debunked where it arises, imo.

New Yorkers may not like this idea, but basically they should not allow any flight of any type within perhaps 10 miles of the center of that city - too many people, cars and airports....
Maybe they could issue some licenses for low altitude stuff - but I'm 100% certain that thousands of new yorkers are buying drones and feeling entitled to fly them...

Just as having dairy cows and manure piles does not go with a million people per square mile, neither do drones.....

droneflyers.com Posted at 2015-5-30 11:05
New Yorkers may not like this idea, but basically they should not allow any flight of any type withi ...

Droneflyers.

Maybe there should be a legal ban on teens within 10 miles of NYC...since they are more of a hazard?   

lightpanther Posted at 2015-5-30 11:39
Droneflyers.

Maybe there should be a legal ban on teens within 10 miles of NYC...since they are mo ...

Your "debunking" arguments just don't hold water.

Flying drones near airports is simply NOT safe.   (I speak as a former pilot.)  Most amateur drone operators have no idea about how air traffic works nor what hazards they may be creating.  Unless you have training as a pilot and understand the regulations.. You cannot possibly image the hazards that a simple toy drone flying into a traffic pattern can create.  How air traffic patterns work near airports is NOT common knowledge and the layman's "common sense" is NOT enough to avoid a problem.

The FAA has established guidelines and laws to regulate this.  I think that the zero altitude limit within the no fly zone may be a bit overkill.  But I do think it's within reason to allow limited altitude flying within the no fly zones software.  And I do believe it reduces the likelihood of air traffic conflicts significantly.  And I believe that if more companies like DJI implement some limited safeguards it will help ensure we all get to keep flying our drones safely.   Vs a total BAN on all drones being sold or operated within the US...  Which is going to happen if people keep flying drones into airport traffic.

droneflyers.com Posted at 2015-5-30 11:05
New Yorkers may not like this idea, but basically they should not allow any flight of any type withi ...

We already have enough manure piling up in our cities.....Now If we could just get rid of the politicians....
All the laws and rules in the world aren't going to stop the idiots that have no regard for anyone but themselves.

I think it's really depending on how sensitive the public reacts to such a hype. In Germany hype won't instantly lead to a ban ... at least not without a detailed examination by bureaucratic specialists. I remember a drone flying around chancellor Merkel's desk during a public speech... The first thing  around here could be driving-license and number-plates for UAVs.

So I think the best solution would be an electronic one. The No-Fly-Zones or limits in height are a good start. Maybe one could add sensitive spots like areas of high traffic or places of large public assemblies in order to protect e.g. The Times Square or St. Peter's Cathedral.

Fulgerite Posted at 2015-5-30 14:08
Your "debunking" arguments just don't hold water.

Flying drones near airports is simply NOT safe. ...

"Your "debunking" arguments just don't hold water.

Flying drones near airports is simply NOT safe.   (I speak as a former pilot.)  Most amateur drone operators have no idea about how air traffic works nor what hazards they may be creating.  Unless you have training as a pilot and understand the regulations.. You cannot possibly image the hazards that a simple toy drone flying into a traffic pattern can create.  How air traffic patterns work near airports is NOT common knowledge and the layman's "common sense" is NOT enough to avoid a problem."

Unfortunately, you are under a misapprehension of what my argument is. To wit, it is not that people should fly near airports (though many times as many geese have been doing it, and for much longer) but that software companies should not implement nannyware and crippleware. if you don't find it absurd, for example, that someone cannot fly a Phantom 3 inside their warehouse business, because they are three miles from an airport, then I recommend a strong coffee.

"The FAA has established guidelines and laws to regulate this.  I think that the zero altitude limit within the no fly zone may be a bit overkill.  But I do think it's within reason to allow limited altitude flying within the no fly zones software.  And I do believe it reduces the likelihood of air traffic conflicts significantly.  And I believe that if more companies like DJI implement some limited safeguards it will help ensure we all get to keep flying our drones safely.   Vs a total BAN on all drones being sold or operated within the US...  Which is going to happen if people keep flying drones into airport traffic."

But what I think you don't understand (in my humble opinion) is...the people who fly drones into airport traffic **ARE** going to continue to fly them into airport traffic, whether or not DJI implements software to turn your Phantom into a birthday cake. I'm not sure most of these near misses even are Phantoms (many of them may be home built bespoke drones that aren't going to have any limits and whose owners certainly aren't going to self-cripple) but even if they are Phantoms, they will be firmware-hacked or aluminium foiled or whatever their users will want to do, because as I say, you cannot "coerce" responsibility, and irresponsibility is platform-neutral.

sheinisch@headl Posted at 2015-5-30 15:57
I think it's really depending on how sensitive the public reacts to such a hype. In Germany hype won ...

"I think it's really depending on how sensitive the public reacts to such a hype. In Germany hype won't instantly lead to a ban ... at least not without a detailed examination by bureaucratic specialists. I remember a drone flying around chancellor Merkel's desk during a public speech... The first thing  around here could be driving-license and number-plates for UAVs.

So I think the best solution would be an electronic one. The No-Fly-Zones or limits in height are a good start. Maybe one could add sensitive spots like areas of high traffic or places of large public assemblies in order to protect e.g. The Times Square or St. Peter's Cathedral."

I repeat my case for these things to be properly integrated into aviation. It's the only long term solution that will be satisfactory to everyone. Yes, drone pilots will have to have software (or something) that gives alerts of the presence of local aircraft and a beacon (or something) on the drone that sends alerts to those aircraft in turn. Likewise, private pilots are going to have to stop whining about "the skies already being too full."

Another problem with the Crippled Nanny ethos, imo, is that it actually *fosters* the mentality it is seeking to avoid. We poor dummy-sucking kiddults can't be trusted to be responsible for ourselves, so someone has to do it for us, thereby reinforcing the notion that we are naughty and incontinent with our intentions and could break out into a rash of felonies at any second. Seriously, why not a finger-wagging icon like Dennis Nedry from Jurassic Park, that pops up on your pilot app and goes "uh uh uh, UH UH UH!"

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-30 09:40
I have access to the 2014 FAA aircraft near miss report. If I recall, there were 193 reported sigh ...

Must be the same pilots that used to file UFO sightings.

sofagbem Posted at 2015-5-30 19:59
Must be the same pilots that used to file UFO sightings.

Possibly.

Look at the number of people here that have posted recently about having crashed their Phantom 3. How many more crashes go unreported due to not wanting to get teased.

All it's going to take is one aircraft either on final approach or take off hitting a unmanned aircraft and crashing into a populated area and you can kiss this hobby goodbye.

The media loves red meat stories. Look at recent past on the AR-15 or AK-47 stories for proof. Every shooting became an assault weapon.

Now they're on a kick of every remotely operated air vehicle is a drone, whether it's a quad, airplane or helicopter.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-30 20:39
Possibly.

Look at the number of people here that have posted recently about having crashed their  ...

Even if that were to happen, it won't stick. They will become smaller and the problem will solve itself. Also, there are too many vested interests for them to be shelved plausibly.

I do think that regulations will come, but they probably won't be as prohibitive as some people think.

This is a whole new thing.

Every time a new technology appears, regulators are confused about what to do.  Back when "horseless carriages" first started appearing, nobody did anything.  Remember that there was no such thing as a "horse license" so at first people just thought cars where like that.  It turns out that  few "irresponsible" drivers motivated laws, traffic signals, licensing, inspections...

As with automobiles, you originally didn't need a license to fly airplanes, drive motorcycles, use ham radios, or a load of other things that everyone takes for granted.  You still don't need a special license to drive/sail boats in most US states (horrifically).

Listen folks, it's just a matter of time.  Personally, I won't mind needing a license to fly a multi-rotor.  I'm also in favor of individual registration (i.e. whatever replaces a tail marker [maybe even transponders]) in case there *is* an incident.  I don't know what the big deal is.  The minute that high-quality flying machines started getting mass produced was the day that regulators *needed* to get involved.

Too many people are treating these high quality copters as toys.

We're only at the beginning.  Imagine what it's going to look like in 10 years.  First off, they're going to be waaaaaay cheaper.  There's all sorts of cool "drone uses" that people will come up with.  (Personally, I'm waiting on my single use emergency drone that flies out and establishes a two way communication line for when cell phone coverage is spotty, and reports back my GPS location to authorities.)  Delivery drones?  What about a farmer or rancher that wants to send his fleet to check out the back 40?  Rangers looking for fires.  And it's only a matter of time before criminals start using them for more nefarious uses.  There are so many things that come out of either the ability to fly something easily, or the ability to fly remotely/automatically (or both) that drones, in some form or another, are going to begin to saturate some airspaces.

So for me, I'd rather have regulation on the *people* rather than the devices.  Let the machine do whatever the users tells it to do and hold the pilot responsible.  "Quads don't fly near airports, people do."

I can also see a licensing scenario coming into play.

When you look at the statistics on first year aircraft pilots, motorcycle riders, passenger car drivers or for that matter commercial truck drivers, it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

The problem you'll have is enforcement. With the possibility of millions of these units flying in the next few years, how do you determine who's licensed to fly verses who isn't?  You can purchase a car and don't need a license, same for an airplane or just about any other item that isn't restricted by the Federal Government. With regulation and registration comes fees. Cash strapped governments like nothing better than taxes and fees. We don't need to give them any ideas.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-30 09:40
I have access to the 2014 FAA aircraft near miss report. If I recall, there were 193 reported sigh ...

I am new to this hobby, but would like to be able to continue it for some time! I have no doubt that most of these reports are real. Just look through You Tube at all the videos of people flying at high altitudes or flying over crowds at the beach. It makes great video but is irresponsible IMO. If you don't want software imposed limits don't support these actions and stress to other flyers to be responsible.

That's my 2 cents worth.

brendaterese@ya Posted at 2015-5-30 23:03
I am new to this hobby, but would like to be able to continue it for some time! I have no doubt th ...

Frankly, I think it's going to be a bit like "downloading." Yes, attempts will be made to make it illegal, but as Brenda says, it's going to be awfully difficult to make it enforceable, especially for home made drones, which will become more frequent. The size of the things, the lack of idents on rogue drones, and the increasing range of transmitters, will make "offenders" almost impossible to catch. Also, I predict that people will start finding ways to post rogue drone videos anonymously or through servers in other countries, thus avoiding  FAA searches.

I sympathize with the desire to 'encourage people to be responsible' but that isn't really living in the real world. Again, look at downloading. The temptations are too large and enforcement is too hard. The same (or similar) ecology exists here. In one sense it doesn't matter whether they are "banned" or not (illegal downloading was "banned" just prior to it increasing by about tenfold). Drones can't be uninvented.

I live on 5 acres about 5 miles outside of a small town. A larger city with major hospitals is about 25 miles away from my property. The HeartFlight helicopter from our local hospital flies directly over my property several times almost everyday on the way to the major hospitals or returning back to our local hospital. Often it is much lower than 400 ft. as it flies over. I worry about this each time I fly and have my max altitude set at 300 ft. I have notified the hospital of my flying altitude and location but still have the helicopter flying low over my property. Who would be at fault if this caused an accident? I always use a screen recorder on my Android and have flight log details from each flight. Yes I do keep an eye out for the helicopter but there is not much time to react by the time I can hear or see it.

jonnied2010 Posted at 2015-5-31 00:02
I live on 5 acres about 5 miles outside of a small town. A larger city with major hospitals is about ...

I would not want to find out who is responsible if I were you. I think it's silly you would even ask.

Fulgerite Posted at 2015-5-30 09:51
This is exactly why DJI has implemented the "no fly zone" feature.

Otherwise ALL drones will be BAN ...

our RC aircraft hobby has been in existence for almost 80 years, then the drone came! chucks

btw LGA is next to  flushing meadow park, remember where the expo held and "men in black"  was film.. so the "drone "pilot  este the quad no need to fly at 2,500 or even 1,500 ft to be hazard

cascadeflyer Posted at 2015-5-31 00:48
I would not want to find out who is responsible if I were you. I think it's silly you would even a ...

Provided you're flying below 400 feet, you'd be in the clear. Not that you wouldn't have feelings otherwise.

The Hollyweird stars while having outdoor events typically fly tethered balloons to keep helicopters out of the area.

You might want to make contact with the FAA so they can issue an airmans alert for your area. The hospital has no say in emergency helicopter transport.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-31 01:24
Provided you're flying below 400 feet, you'd be in the clear. Not that you wouldn't have feelings  ...

Great idea, contact with the FAA so they can issue an airmans alert for your area.

I fly in legal and relatively safe areas, but still have to listen closely for planes and helicopters. Yesterday 3 helis (looked like nat'l guard) must have been fiddling around at the local small airport...they came right over where I was flying. I descended from 300 to 200 feet (trees were 75 feet) - the helis looked like they were 500-700 feet, but it's hard to judge.

In the evening I flew at another location and a small plane was sightseeing - probably at 500 feet, but again it was close and loud so I descended.

Maybe we need radar feeds from the local airports on our devices...

But back to NYC - it simply can't support 10's of thousands of locals flying drones without endangering others.  That's not a  slight against NYC - you wouldn't want ATV's carving up Central Park either....dense cities have their perks and their downsides also.

A big diff with motorcycles is that, in most cases, it's yourself that you end up hurting.  

It's hard to imagine JFK and these massive airports taking regular calls from hobbyists about flying in the area...

droneflyers.com Posted at 2015-5-31 03:09
I fly in legal and relatively safe areas, but still have to listen closely for planes and helicopter ...

Cities aren't equally dense at all areas at all times. Again, I think it should be an issue of personal responsibility and common sense. No one is really in much danger if a drone pilot is flying over a (populated but uncrowded) and pictuesque city  square, fountain, monument or garden area and is under the level of city buildings. Be careful what you are ask for. Bad regulations are hard to get rid of once they are in place.

lightpanther Posted at 2015-5-31 06:04
Cities aren't equally dense at all areas at all times. Again, I think it should be an issue of per ...

To attempt to put some visual common sense on this. I would never fly in this first situation:




or this (beautiful though it would be):




However, I don't see anything wrong with flying in this (general) situation:




or this:



or this:







The following, however, are near to the safety edge (imo):






Hope that clarifies my view   

Good luck with that. Any thing voluntary won't work. Wish it would, but it won't.

When I did photography semi-professionally, a lot of the locations that I went, required a million dollar surety bond to photograph there. Are you willing to pay for insurance?

Your city square photo with the pigeons. There's no way that I would ever fly around that many flying rats. Take one of them thru the props and it will all be over.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-31 07:29
Good luck with that. Any thing voluntary won't work. Wish it would, but it won't.

When I did photo ...

Gregg...you frankly puzzle me. You seem to have a psychology of seeking problems rather than solutions.

Okay on the pigeons (though the main risk is to the drone). I wasn't really allowing for that, but for the density of people. As to the insurance thing, again, somewhat far fetched in the hobby context imo. You pose a greater threat to pedestrians, as a driver, whenever you are near a traffic crossing.

I look to mitigate problems before they occurred.

I worked in the aerospace DOD field for many years. Any flight safety items had to be discussed before action. That's why I have concerns about safe operation.

Whether accidental or not, losing control of a vehicle brings consequences. Hitting someone like at the Boston parade sends chills up my back. We live in a world full of lawyers advertising for their next client.

Risk mitigation is the first thing you have to look at. If you lose comms with the quad, where's it going to go. You have to have contingencies in place. That's why I brought up insurance. Just like the Boston incident, what happens if someone loses an eye or worse. Do you have the means to pay a judgement.

You want solutions? They're not popular. Require licensing operators. Minimum age requirement. Require training both practical and written. Place limits on kids toys on both speed and elevation that they are designed to fly.
I'm not a fan of government intervention , but self controls haven't been shown to work. We've got folks here talking about blocking the GPS signals so they can fly in restricted air space. These controls were instilled after government and industry got together to fix a real problem.
You'll read more airspace breaches thru the year. Everyone will make the national news and it's not going to be good.

If you'd like to discuss, pm me and we'll take it offline.
I don't care about the pigeons, just where the quad would land.

gregg1r@mindspr Posted at 2015-5-31 08:38
I look to mitigate problems before they occurred.

I worked in the aerospace DOD field for many yea ...

I think that's well overkill, to be honest. I posted some reasonable suggestions on another thread. Not that I *really* anticipate the FAA taking them up, but that doesn't mean that advocacy shouldn't exist. I don't have a problem with voicing what I think is right (or wrong) about a proposed situation with regulations.

"I don't care about the pigeons, just where the quad would land. "

Empty space is where it would land, 999 times out of a 1000.