New law may pass that ...

[Dpanetta]

Come on man... the sky isn't falling and that's a grossly broad brush you're trying to paint with. If you aren't doing something wrong then this law won't pertain to you. If you are doing something wrong why should your sUAS not be disabled? No different than the PIT MANEUVER to stop a fleeing suspect of (you insert the name of crime).



So you're comparing our hobby grade aircraft with almost zero redundancies (on many different systems BTW) to Certified Aircraft with multiple levels of redundancies and that have been rigorously tested for years?

Also you're comparing operators who have passed the most basic BOOK test and have demonstrated absolutely ZERO flying, judgement, safety skills to pilots that have hundreds of hours IN aircraft, experienced a very in-depth in person testing phase, and performed a Flight Demonstration to demonstrate technique, judgement, decision making skills and so much more?

Now toss into the fold hobby operators who often times don't have a clue what they are flying or it's capabilities/limitations until after there is a problem.

Let me just say.... you're comparing apples to kangaroos across the board.

So there’s the solution then! Piloting an aircraft is piloting an aircraft. No matter if it is for hobbyists, private pilots, stunt pilots, commercial, or even military. The danger to the public is the same. Something falling out of the sky and hurting someone. Before the hobbyist drones, all pilots had to get trained and certified to take to the skies. The bigger or more dangerous the aircraft or circumstances were, the more in-depth the training and certifications were. A pilot that owns a Cardinal Cessna and gets his very first VFR cannot even fly at night or into a cloud. For that, the pilot needs to get the next step up certification, their IFR.

I know this is going to rub a LOT of you the wrong way for even suggesting it, but why not have the FAA take a good look at drone pilots vrs private pilots and come up with something similar?

 

[N017RW]

So there’s the solution then! Piloting an aircraft is piloting an aircraft. No matter if it is for hobbyists, private pilots, stunt pilots, commercial, or even military. The danger to the public is the same. Something falling out of the sky and hurting someone. Before the hobbyist drones, all pilots had to get trained and certified to take to the skies. The bigger or more dangerous the aircraft or circumstances were, the more in-depth the training and certifications were. A pilot that owns a Cardinal Cessna and gets his very first VFR cannot even fly at night or into a cloud. For that, the pilot needs to get the next step up certification, their IFR.

I know this is going to rub a LOT of you the wrong way for even suggesting it, but why not have the FAA take a good look at drone pilots vrs private pilots and come up with something similar?

Hmmm,

Where have you learned that night flights require an instrument rating?

Might want to check that.one!

 

[Dpanetta]

Hmmm,

Where have you learned that night flights require an instrument rating?

Might want to check that.one!

I never said I was a private pilot, and in fact I am not. But I have friends that are, and I know they have gone through classes and certifications for every change in how and what they fly. Even transitioning from the Cessna to the two prop Piper required additional training. I can see similar differences between something like a P4P and a racing drone costing less than $500 and weighs ounces, or a commercial drone that costs over $10k and weighing over 10 pounds.

Frankly, I am surprised that something like this has not been introduced to congress already. But I will surf the hobbyist train for as long as it lasts.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I am a 107 licensed pilot who does mostly recreational drone flying. I've had a P4P, a Mavic Air, and now a Mavic 2 Pro. I do mostly photography. The issue we are trying to deal with is building a regulatory environment in lock-step with the changes in technology. Technology is changing exponentially. So the process of developing regulations will be a significant challenge, especially in seeking the balance between doing what is necessary and fair. For one, I am happy an effort is being made to do so. I personally feel all drones should be registered and ALL drone pilots should have a "driver's license", just as they do when they drive a car (recreationally or professionally), so that they must exhibit a minimum level of knowledge about drone rules and safety guidelines. I applaud the government's desire to be able to track ALL drones to assess, in real time, whether drone pilots are flying within the regulations. What I do propose is a "three strikes and you are out" approach to fines or other penalties. This will give a mechanism for more interaction between pilots and regulators so both sides get educated as to the regulations and to what degree they are reasonable. There will be many swings back-and-forth as to the definition of "over regulation" and "needed regulation" as the regulations are developed.

 

[BigAl07]

.....A pilot that owns a Cardinal Cessna and gets his very first VFR cannot even fly at night or into a cloud. For that, the pilot needs to get the next step up certification, their IFR......

Just to clarify Night Flying does not require IFR (unless it's IFR conditions).

So there’s the solution then! Piloting an aircraft is piloting an aircraft. No matter if it is for hobbyists, private pilots, stunt pilots, commercial, or even military. The danger to the public is the same. Something falling out of the sky and hurting someone. Before the hobbyist drones, all pilots had to get trained and certified to take to the skies. The bigger or more dangerous the aircraft or circumstances were, the more in-depth the training and certifications were. A pilot that owns a Cardinal Cessna and gets his very first VFR cannot even fly at night or into a cloud. For that, the pilot needs to get the next step up certification, their IFR.

I know this is going to rub a LOT of you the wrong way for even suggesting it, but why not have the FAA take a good look at drone pilots vrs private pilots and come up with something similar?

I fully support license requirements for just about any type of flight. If we are going to play in the NAS with manned aircraft then we ALL need to know the basics of the rules. If everyone isn't on the same page then how in the world can we even remotely expect to be able to integrate and play together SAFELY?

From my point of view (and take this for what you paid for it) the only sUAS flight that shouldn't require training, testing, and proficiency demonstrations would be hobby flight of non-autonomous aircraft that are flown at a designated flying field/site.

 

[Melvoid]

Don't do stupid things with a drone and your chances of losing it go down exponentially.

Agreed. It all goes back to common sense. It's "pilots" who don't exercise common sense that get these laws made in the first place. If I fly my airplane over a protected area, I can expect consequences, so why not a quadcopter with a hi-def camera? I've said it before: I get permission when I fly over ANY private property, so if you just do that, you're pretty much safe.

Like most anything, if you have doubts, don't do it. easy