Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Presidential Candidates' Views on Recreational Drones?

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations' started by SoCalDude, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. SoCalDude

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    Warm & sunny Southern California
    I'm not referring to military drones, but what do we know about the U.S. presidential candidates' views on recreational or commercial drones?
     
  2. 42FrankZ

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2016
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Baltimore MD
    It is a very important question that deserves a well measured answer, and while everyone agrees freedom is important we have to weigh the responsibility of the public safety and make reasonable and common sense decisions.
     
  3. Squak1437

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    With all the issues in the US your really not going to base your decision on that are you?


    ATP, CFII, MEI, RPO
    Part 121, 135, and 91 Corporate Pilot
    30 years of exploration.
     
    cfd701 likes this.
  4. BigAl07

    BigAl07 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Western North Carolina

    I guess it depends on where your priorities are, just how much $$ you have invested, and if you're doing it for hobby or as a dedicated full-time business. These criteria could very well sway how important the issue really is.
     
    SoCalDude likes this.
  5. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,519
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Does not matter... the President is not involved in such matters. It's the FAA, land owners/managers and local idiots who matter.
     
    GMack likes this.
  6. 42FrankZ

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2016
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Baltimore MD
    The President can issue executive orders to any agency directing their rules and regulations, unless said rules and regulations are actual law. Once that EO is issued it can take years in court to have it removed.

    Since the parameters for the 107 aren't part of law (the dictate is as I understand it) they could be changed by an EO without you having a chance to sneeze first.

    I think it is a very relevant thing to people who care about flying UAS.
     
  7. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,519
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (issued by the Senate), which governs UAV's in the air.

    Part 107 only applies to commercial use. Why take action against a small minority and not all UAV use in general? It makes no sense for the President to do this.

    If attempting to regulate UAV private UAV use is _anywhere_ on the President's radar, we have bigger issues.

    The FAA is _already_ in charge of UAVs. There is simply no reason for a President to become involved in such a small matter.
     
  8. 42FrankZ

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2016
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Baltimore MD
    And yet they could. Politicians will pander to their constituents simply to look like they are doing something. Never underestimate what any politician will do, or where they might turn their focus.
     
  9. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,519
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    As mentioned above, Senate passed a law governing UAVs. You have stated that the President cannot pass an EO against exiting laws. UAV's are an extremely small "issue" that has _already_ been dealt with, there is no indication from any person running that they would do anything on the matter (even if they could) and no actions have ever been taken by a President om UAVs.

    I guess he/she "could" try. But I think we might want to look at the obvious nature of the answer, that the President is not involved in such matters.