Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
How many people could be expected to research laws and aviation regulations before going to play with a $50 toy?
This was more like a self-propelled frisbee than a drone.
Drone crashes on Ellipse near White House
- Thread starter gfredrone
- Start date
This was more like a self-propelled frisbee than a drone.
Being oblivious to the law does not preclude you from abiding by it. It's rather shocking that you're a moderator here while espousing that sort of attitude toward drone regulations.
Well, that's so nice of you to say. This is a "forum". It's good to have different viewpoints and good debate in different discussion threads about various topics. No need to be name-calling.
I purposefully didn't quote anyone because this is a 'sensitive' bunch. Suggesting that banning a backyard football catch is next? That is not good debate or a good viewpoint. It's just what it is.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
Actually being oblivious to the law will usually preclude one from abiding by it.
What you mean is .. ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Calm down .. It's not shocking at all and you have no idea what my attitude is.
Look back at what I said .. I didn't advocate ignoring laws.
I simply asked how many people would you expect to research laws when they want to play with their cheap toy.
I'd expect less than 0.001% of owners of something like this to know or care about aviation regulations.
I'd expect a much larger percentage of Phantom owners would.
But for a $50 toy that weighs 1/4 the Phantom's weight and has a range of 100 feet, I wouldn't expect many owners would know or care about aviation regulations.
And very, very few could ever manage to put themselves or their toys in a position that would cause any aviation safety concerns.
Does it matter that someone flew his little toy in a park in Washington?
You shouldn't be surprised that toy owners are oblivious .. and at the bottom of the scale, it's ridiculous to expect them to comply.
The point is not that there are laws, it's that some laws are over bearing, unnecessary and probably born of special interest rather than in consideration of everyone and based on realistic thinking.
In North Carolina, it's against the law to sing "off-key"
In Rhode Island, you may not sell a tooth brush and tooth paste to the same customer on a Sunday.
In Eureka Nevada, it's illegal to kiss a woman if you have a mustache.
Supposedly there are thousands of laws like this still on the books. Some sources are dubious but many seem legitimate.
Again, point is....just because there is a law, doesn't mean it should be a law or that you could reasonably be expected to abide by it.
More specifically, if you missed it, many laws are being passed that downright fly in the face of the US Constitution. I don't care who passes a law if it violates the Constitution it is null and void even though tyrants may enforce it and people in fear will abide by it.
What really bothers me is the drunken government agent who crashed on the White House lawn got off with nary a warning and this guy flying a toy gets a citation. Nothing like double standards to show the power distribution in America.
Pictures help understand and differentiate fact from rabid hype.
White House Ellipse
Look at the Washington Monument and its huge open space area, of nine square blocks in the middle of a metropolis. Nine square blocks of grass, no trees, and little to no people in a wide open park setting perfect for flying toys like kites, frisbees, and model planes bought from the Smithsonian museum nearby.
Look at the map and labeled landmarks.
The guy was flying his frisbee-sized $50 toy in the park, just south of the German-American friendship garden. It weighs 6.2 oz, has no FPV, can't carry anything. Range of 100' or so. ATTI only. Guy got it turned around or in wind--wind is hard on the little quads. Tried to make it come back, went the wrong way over Constitution Ave. Guy chopped power so it didn't fly away in DC.
Bird landed 75 ft away the other side of Constitution in a grassy area near the Haupt Fountains.
At this point, the frisbee sized, 6 oz toy is 5 city blocks away from the White House south lawn.
City blocks aren't uniform, but average about 300 feet. The toy landed in the south of the Ellipse park, roughly 1600 feet (more than 10 times its flight range) from the White House and about 35 feet from Constitution Ave. To use recognizable distances, the average NFL punter would require 11 consecutive kicks to reach the White House from the Haupt Fountains where the bird landed.
2015 NFL Team Punting Stats - National Football League - ESPN
Most owners of 4 inch long toys with a 5 minute flying span and a 150 foot range don't think of them as drones, threats to aviation, or public dangers. Beach kites weigh as much as the toy. Most toy owners never think to consult FAA regulations or measure proximity to Reagan National airport, and if the laws remotely followed common sense, there wouldn't be a need to.
Someone drops a six pound DJI Inspire with FPV and payload capability on the White House South Lawn, that's one thing. That's clearly stupid in a no-stupid zone. Piddly toys the size of a dessert plate and the weight of a nerf ball should not be confused with "DRONES".
I bet most of the people tossing words back and forth about this never looked at a map, or distances, or details on the $40 F182 quadcopter the guy was flying.
JJRC F182 2.4GHz 6 Axis Gyro RC Quadcopter UFO with LED Light
This was not a case of colossal stupidity by the toy owner. It was a case of zealous overreaction nurtured and fed by a sensationalistic anxiety-creating media fighting for market share in a salacious echo chamber.
White House Ellipse
Look at the Washington Monument and its huge open space area, of nine square blocks in the middle of a metropolis. Nine square blocks of grass, no trees, and little to no people in a wide open park setting perfect for flying toys like kites, frisbees, and model planes bought from the Smithsonian museum nearby.
Look at the map and labeled landmarks.
The guy was flying his frisbee-sized $50 toy in the park, just south of the German-American friendship garden. It weighs 6.2 oz, has no FPV, can't carry anything. Range of 100' or so. ATTI only. Guy got it turned around or in wind--wind is hard on the little quads. Tried to make it come back, went the wrong way over Constitution Ave. Guy chopped power so it didn't fly away in DC.
Bird landed 75 ft away the other side of Constitution in a grassy area near the Haupt Fountains.
At this point, the frisbee sized, 6 oz toy is 5 city blocks away from the White House south lawn.
City blocks aren't uniform, but average about 300 feet. The toy landed in the south of the Ellipse park, roughly 1600 feet (more than 10 times its flight range) from the White House and about 35 feet from Constitution Ave. To use recognizable distances, the average NFL punter would require 11 consecutive kicks to reach the White House from the Haupt Fountains where the bird landed.
2015 NFL Team Punting Stats - National Football League - ESPN
Most owners of 4 inch long toys with a 5 minute flying span and a 150 foot range don't think of them as drones, threats to aviation, or public dangers. Beach kites weigh as much as the toy. Most toy owners never think to consult FAA regulations or measure proximity to Reagan National airport, and if the laws remotely followed common sense, there wouldn't be a need to.
Someone drops a six pound DJI Inspire with FPV and payload capability on the White House South Lawn, that's one thing. That's clearly stupid in a no-stupid zone. Piddly toys the size of a dessert plate and the weight of a nerf ball should not be confused with "DRONES".
I bet most of the people tossing words back and forth about this never looked at a map, or distances, or details on the $40 F182 quadcopter the guy was flying.
JJRC F182 2.4GHz 6 Axis Gyro RC Quadcopter UFO with LED Light
This was not a case of colossal stupidity by the toy owner. It was a case of zealous overreaction nurtured and fed by a sensationalistic anxiety-creating media fighting for market share in a salacious echo chamber.
Last edited:
What part of the constitution prohibits the federal government from making rules about drones? What part of the constitution would prevent the states from doing so?
The other asinine laws you quotes? Please. The highly publicized increasing regulations on drones are not quite the same thing.
And what part of the Constitution says we are to be the world's "Regulation Nation" ?
In case you're unaware, regulations are strangling the life out of this once indisputable greatest nation and handing it to China. Thanks for your desire to hasten the pace.
The intent of the Constitution was NOT to empower the Federal government, but actually to LIMIT it's power and reach.
So by your logic, all we need is 1000 more gun laws and there will suddenly be peace and brotherhood from sea to shining sea......
I strongly suggest you read this...and the 10th Amendment carefully with an open mind if possible. You have lost your way.
Our Republic - The Constitution
ohhh gettin' schooled on the constitution all 'cause Johnny can't fly his toy on the White House lawn.
(or in the huuuuuuge field around the Washington Monument).
"First they take this freedom, next they'll take our ability to choose scrambled or sunnyside up- we must fight!"
#rollseyes
(or in the huuuuuuge field around the Washington Monument).
"First they take this freedom, next they'll take our ability to choose scrambled or sunnyside up- we must fight!"
#rollseyes
You may think it's all a big joke..... until it affects you personally. And it will.
Not sure why you are so eager to have government pass more unnecessary regulations against this hobby. As pointed out by others, it's not a safety issue what this guy was doing.
And Yes, there are powerful people who would love to tell you you cannot have eggs the way you like. So fast you forget.....
Bloomberg's ban on big sodas is unconstitutional: appeals court
Bloomberg's ban on big sodas is unconstitutional: appeals court
I'm well aware of the intent of the Constitution. It's not a document that says what the Federal Government can do, but rather what it can't do. The rest of the powers are conferred to the states, which is where the majority of drone regulation is occurring. The Federal government is however, free to regulate the property that belongs to it, like airspace and national parks. Take the tin foil off, stop waiting for the world to end, and get a grip.
You two need to chill out on this subject immediately. I'm not going to issue an actual warning here, but you're both running very close to the line. Let's stop the name calling and personal attacks or you're both going to take a short vacation from this forum...
Thanks...
-slinger
Thanks...
-slinger
Dude, mellow out. Stop calling everyone a troll who has opinion different opinion.
Your posts are getting silly.
The only threat to our hobby is those who fly unsafe, and those who encourage that behavior.
Last edited:
Haven't called "everyone". Just one. And I removed that.
As far as what I said....it's not opinion. The Federal Government doesn't "own" property.
It collectively belongs to the People. I resent when someone implies that the Feds "own" property.
It's flies in the face of the US Constitution.
As far as the only threat to our hobby...think about it...
The vast majority of drone complaints and sightings are unsubstantiated. It appears the media is in fact attacking the hobby. The question is why? People do need to act responsibly, but it's such a small number that the media is feeding off of and usually no evidence whatsoever. Sensationalism?
And please don't call my posts "silly". That's your opinion just as calling someone a troll is.
Now then, I'm chillin. At the pool, sippin on a Margarita...listening to tunes...deciding when to fly
Last edited:
Similar threads
