And yet another drone close call

[Jnnyr]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/08/...etts-state-police-lawrence-municipal-airport/

these a******* are ruining it for everyone. 600' over an airport. Sounds like an Inspire.

 

[andyimages]

I do think all drones should have anti-collision lights as standard feature...

 

[tcope]

"“It is against the law for private drone pilots to fly their UASs within five miles of an airport, or to fly at an altitude greater than 400 feet,” State Police said. “Private drones heavier than .55 lbs. must be registered with the FAA.”

Three comments and not a single one correct. These are the people who enforce laws.

 

[gunslinger]

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/08/...etts-state-police-lawrence-municipal-airport/

these a******* are ruining it for everyone. 600' over an airport. Sounds like an Inspire.

There are people on here, and kids, that don't appreciate the language. Please keep it down, okay?

Thanks...
-slinger

 

[jlazz447]

This article has been discussed heavily in a commercial UAS group on facebook. Several people have reached out to WMASS News to "put them in their place" about drone laws and how misleading this article is. There are a lot of unknown variables here...

 

[Jnnyr]

There are people on here, and kids, that don't appreciate the language. Please keep it down, okay?

Thanks...
-slinger

My bad. Sorry.

 

[Jnnyr]

This article has been discussed heavily in a commercial UAS group on facebook. Several people have reached out to WMASS News to "put them in their place" about drone laws and how misleading this article is. There are a lot of unknown variables here...

What was misleading? I saw it on last nights news and they really give no pertinent details. The pilot was interviewed and obviously rattled as he was travelling 125 mph at the time and almost had it go right into his windshield. I saw an early poster saying none of the items in the story were correct. To the best of my knowledge 5 miles, above 400' and above .55 lbs to be registered are all spot on.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

What was misleading? I saw it on last nights news and they really give no pertinent details. The pilot was interviewed and obviously rattled as he was travelling 125 mph at the time and almost had it go right into his windshield. I saw an early poster saying none of the items in the story were correct. To the best of my knowledge 5 miles, above 400' and above .55 lbs to be registered are all spot on.

You no longer have to register your drone, for recreational use.

 

[Jnnyr]

You no longer have to register your drone, for recreational use.

even the $5.00 registration from over a year ago or so?

 

[Jnnyr]

I know the section 107 stuff got thrown out....

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

even the $5.00 registration from over a year ago or so?

They are supposed to refund those charges.

 

[Jnnyr]

They are supposed to refund those charges.

I won't hold my breath on that. lol

 

[jlazz447]

Commercial pilots still have to register for $5 though correct? @Bakersfield Quad

 

[N017RW]

I know the section 107 stuff got thrown out....

Can you cite your source?

I believe your wrong about commercial licensing and registration.

Only Hobby/Rec. registration has been rescinded.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

"“It is against the law for private drone pilots to fly their UASs within five miles of an airport, or to fly at an altitude greater than 400 feet,” State Police said. “Private drones heavier than .55 lbs. must be registered with the FAA.”

Three comments and not a single one correct. These are the people who enforce laws.

400' AGL is correct.

Within 5 miles of an airport is correct unless he had notified the airport operator and tower (LWM has a tower). Given the incident it does not sound like he notified the airport operator and tower as required.

The "registration" issue is the only one he got wrong.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

What was misleading? I saw it on last nights news and they really give no pertinent details. The pilot was interviewed and obviously rattled as he was travelling 125 mph at the time and almost had it go right into his windshield. I saw an early poster saying none of the items in the story were correct. To the best of my knowledge 5 miles, above 400' and above .55 lbs to be registered are all spot on.

No need to be registered unless it's commercial work. Given the incident that seems quite unlikely.

 

[tcope]

400' AGL is correct.

Within 5 miles of an airport is correct unless he had notified the airport operator and tower (LWM has a tower). Given the incident it does not sound like he notified the airport operator and tower as required.

The "registration" issue is the only one he got wrong.

It's all wrong. 400' AGL is not a regulation, it's a recommendation (been beat to death here). It's not against the law to fly within 5 miles of an airport. I do it all of the time. The correct statement would be that it's illegal without notifying the airport. It's like me stating that it's illegal in all 50 states to drink alcohol.....

and not adding in, unless you are of legal age. Completely changes the statement.

There is also no indication that the person who made the statement even knows that you only need to inform. They got 400' and registration wrong so their track record for knowing what's correct is not stellar.

Again, all 3 statements, as they were made, are incorrect.

 

[Jnnyr]

Can you cite your source?

I believe your wrong about commercial licensing and registration.

Only Hobby/Rec. registration has been rescinded.

Hey N,

I was referring to hobbyist. Commercial folks still must do all that

 

[Jnnyr]

It's all wrong. 400' AGL is not a regulation, it's a recommendation (been beat to death here). It's not against the law to fly within 5 miles of an airport. I do it all of the time. The correct statement would be that it's illegal without notifying the airport. It's like me stating that it's illegal in all 50 states to drink alcohol.....

and not adding in, unless you are of legal age. Completely changes the statement.

There is also no indication that the person who made the statement even knows that you only need to inform. They got 400' and registration wrong so their track record for knowing what's correct is not stellar.

Again, all 3 statements, as they were made, are incorrect.

it was a safe assumption he notified no one and that is in fact the case so all regs were violated.

 

[Jnnyr]

It's all wrong. 400' AGL is not a regulation, it's a recommendation (been beat to death here). It's not against the law to fly within 5 miles of an airport. I do it all of the time. The correct statement would be that it's illegal without notifying the airport. It's like me stating that it's illegal in all 50 states to drink alcohol.....

and not adding in, unless you are of legal age. Completely changes the statement.

There is also no indication that the person who made the statement even knows that you only need to inform. They got 400' and registration wrong so their track record for knowing what's correct is not stellar.

Again, all 3 statements, as they were made, are incorrect.

Wrong. Not sure where you are getting your info. As of 2014 the FAA clarified the airport perimeter reg. This isn't a recommendation as you suggest. Google will quickly help your gaps in knowledge.