Rant time

[sar104]

Where does the FAA say if you don't follow the guidelines you are no longer a hobbyist and thus (according to you) operating commercially (107)? Can you cite any case where anyone has been prosecuted for flying BVLOS other than into NFZs and National Parks etc.

In the link that I provided above. The one that you didn't read.

Does the new Small UAS Rule (part 107) apply to recreational UAS operations?
Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95). Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational UAS operations. The small UAS rule codifies the provisions of section 336 in part 101 of the FAA's regulations, which will prohibit operating a UAS in manner that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System.​

 

[AlecW]

In the link that I provided above. The one that you didn't read.

Does the new Small UAS Rule (part 107) apply to recreational UAS operations?
Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95). Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational UAS operations. The small UAS rule codifies the provisions of section 336 in part 101 of the FAA's regulations, which will prohibit operating a UAS in manner that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System.​

I see what you are saying now but still it says guidelines. I guess we just have to wait and see if they start prosecuting people for flying a couple miles from their backyards. Guess I'd better be careful what I post

 

[sar104]

I see what you are saying now but still it says guidelines. I guess we just have to wait and see if they start prosecuting people for flying a couple miles from their backyards. Guess I'd better be careful what I post

Just to be clear and to answer your other question - I'm not aware of any prosecutions for such things, but that wasn't what I was addressing.

The "guidelines" issue is the subtlety that I was referring to. They cannot get you for not adhering to the guidelines, so instead they define that you are no longer under the protections of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft if you don't follow the guidelines. At that point, you fall under regular FAA laws - in this case Part 107. Part 107 is now the general law governing all non-recreational UAS operations - it doesn't just apply to Part 107 certified remote pilots.

 

[42FrankZ]

Dupe:

My thoughts on breaking the rules.

 

[Vzr1]

Rules are made to be broken,if everyone obeyed the rules regarding anything in life the government would go down the toilet cause they'd make no money!

 

[42FrankZ]

Rules are made to be broken,if everyone obeyed the rules regarding anything in life the government would go down the toilet cause they'd make no money!

Are you kidding me? They would find a way to tax lawfulness...

 

[Vzr1]

Are you kidding me? They would find a way to tax lawfulness...

 

[V tail]

Dupe:

My thoughts on breaking the rules.

This was my point in previous, "move along...nothing to see here" posts. This topic has been discussed at nauseum.

It is threads like this that bring all of the legal experts out.

We might as well debate Roe V. Wade or whether the egg or chicken comes first.

Come on people......

 

[dlxr6p3p]

This was my point in previous, "move along...nothing to see here" posts. This topic has been discussed at nauseum.

It is threads like this that bring all of the legal experts out.

We might as well debate Roe V. Wade or whether the egg or chicken comes first.

Come on people......

It was the chicken ! Now whether it was Churches, Popeyes or KFC. Now there's a debate!!

Sent from my SM-G930R7 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[BigAl07]

This was my point in previous, "move along...nothing to see here" posts. This topic has been discussed at nauseum.

It is threads like this that bring all of the legal experts out.

We might as well debate Roe V. Wade or whether the egg or chicken comes first.

Come on people......

V tail If you don't wish to read/participate in this/these topics you can simply ignore it completely.

Please understand that every day we get new members here who don't know these things as well as existing members who are new to Rules & Regulations who need enlightenment. This is the nature of forums and at times it can seem to get old to those who frequent the forums. Keep in mind we all started not knowing anything about this industry and others have been kind enough to help and teach us along the way.

Let's place nice and "pay it forward" ever chance we get.

 

[Suhail78]

V tail If you don't wish to read/participate in this/these topics you can simply ignore it completely.

Please understand that every day we get new members here who don't know these things as well as existing members who are new to Rules & Regulations who need enlightenment. This is the nature of forums and at times it can seem to get old to those who frequent the forums. Keep in mind we all started not knowing anything about this industry and others have been kind enough to help and teach us along the way.

Let's place nice and "pay it forward" ever chance we get.

Sure we get new members, and thats fantastic. But they should know that this is not a place to come rant and rave and complain about what other people are doing though!

If you come here to learn, and ask questions, and participate in a constructive way, then awesome!

But why come here to "RANT"? if you dont like what other people are doing then fine, tell them! Dont come and create a post just to complain about something you dont like.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[dwallersv]

First of all, break the rules, accept the consequences. If you're going to push the margins, do it like an adult, and don't whine when you get caught and have to pay.

That said, not all rules are equal. I follow the rules most of the time, and there are some I will never push the edges on. One example is flying over crowds of people. There's never a situation where it is "safe" to fly over large numbers of people. Mechanical failure can happen at any time (not to mention DJI "software bug" failure).

On the other hand, LOS rules are ridiculous out in the remote desert. I see nothing wrong with having fun trying for distance records, or even just to see what it's like to fly a mile or few away and back. Especially if the area is very accessible, and a crashed drone can be easily recovered and removed. Similar arguments regarding night flying.

The justice system generally is reasonable this way too. If you got caught distance-flying over some remote plain, my guess is the LEO's reaction is likely to be one of the following, in descending liklihood:

• Fascinated by the drone and the technology, amazed it can be flown so far, wanting to watch the FPV video, lots of questions of interest.
• Warns you that this is technically in violation of regulations so turn it around and bring it straight back. Since there's no harm, simply issues a written warning.
• Cites you with a violation. You go to court, make your case, get a small ($50) fine.
• Arrests you and hauls you down to the jail, where you pay bail (probably $250 thereabouts), go to court, make your case, pay a small fine or are let off with no additional punishment due to the arrest being enough itself

Rules are there for a reason. If you bother to understand the reasoning behind laws and rules, you can function well within the intent while have a bit of flexibility in how they constrain you, if you're willing incur small slap-on-the-wrist response when you're well within the "spirit" and "intent" of the law, but not strictly in compliance.

 

[BigAl07]

Sure we get new members, and thats fantastic. But they should know that this is not a place to come rant and rave and complain about what other people are doing though!

If you come here to learn, and ask questions, and participate in a constructive way, then awesome!

But why come here to "RANT"? if you dont like what other people are doing then fine, tell them! Dont come and create a post just to complain about something you dont like.

Thats my 2 cents.

Again, if you don't like the topic (Which happens to be RANT TIME) then keep on going down the list. No need to take this thread any further off topic.

 

[V tail]

Again, if you don't like the topic (Which happens to be RANT TIME) then keep on going down the list. No need to take this thread any further off topic.

My quote of, "Move on...nothing to see here" was designed to, "keep (others who have arrived on the thread) on going down the list."

Topics like this one bring out comments from people who are not legal experts. Thus posts interpreting FAA regulations and or US Code. Not good in my opinion. I am a line Sergeant at a suburban Chicago Police Department. I can say from my own experiences at work, I have been called to locations three times where people were flying quads within two miles of O'Hare. In each instance, the pilots who were adults said, "I read on the internet that I can fly here if...."

I'm not one normally to have to have the last word. So feel free to slap me again and I will not reply.

No disrespect to staff.

 

[Clipper707]

What's wrong with flying at night?

You should NEVER fly at night.

• There are usually less people to fly over
• Longer VLOS - you can see your drone for much longer distances.
• You can see other air traffic for longer distances.
• You can see your drone's and other air traffic's orientation more easily.

For these reasons, you can see it's unsafe. Please think of the children.

 

[AlecW]

You should NEVER fly at night.

• There are usually less people to fly over
• Longer VLOS - you can see your drone for much longer distances.
• You can see other air traffic for longer distances.
• You can see your drone's and other air traffic's orientation more easily.

For these reasons, you can see it's unsafe. Please think of the children.

Yeah, night flying is really bad . I also read somewhere that less small planes fly at night because many of the pilots don't have the right certification or equipment for it. I maybe wrong on that but hardly ever see helicopters or small planes flying after dark.

I enjoy night flying, it's relaxing to send the phantom up above all the trees around me and fly around

 

[Monte55]

I posted the original post to see what others reactions were. It's obvious that the rules or suggested behavior means different things to many. This may be the problem. Some remarks were sound and some were just dumb. I haven't responded to anyone because I think it would just become another forum war. I think all should read all the posts to see how others think although we are reading the same rules or suggestions. As in my first post, it seems many will comply with safe flying unless it doesn't fit with their agenda . I think the mods are treating this with fairness. For that, I thank you.

 

[Clipper707]

First. If so many of you claim to follow the rules....why are you so concerned about flying totally beyond your ability to see the craft with VLOS.. Many fly at night. ...over crowds of people...busy roadways. ..sporting events....still wanting info on FPV equipment etc. so you can fly with no VLOS. Do the rules not apply to you if you don't like them? I'm not trying to be a drone cop but some of you have no intention of really following the rules. I judge this by the videos and posts made on this forum. With the suggested rules by the FAA, it seems the manufacturers don't care as they constantly offer equipment that lets you break the rules. I'm just trying to understand this.

As one who doesn't claim to follow the rules, I'd like to give it a shot at answering Monte55's questions.

I break the rules for the same reasons I drive 66 mph or more on the freeway, jaywalk, swim 29 minutes after eating, and push my Phantom up through the cloud cover from below.

• The rules are often written by bureaucrats for the lowest common denominator.
• Following the rules isn't always safe.
• Breaking the rules isn't always unsafe.
• I know my equipment. I know my abilities. I know how to calculate risks.
• I set goals and find ways to achieve them safely. These goals include range, specific subjects to photograph, and weaponizing my Phantom with sharpened, stainless steel propellers dipped in frog poison.

I have no intention of limiting my flights to open grass fields. I'm in this hobby to photograph/video and challenge myself to get better. Safety is always paramount. Following the rules...not so much.

Sometimes you have to get off the bunny slope and ski the black diamond. Just kidding about the frog poison and the steel props.

 

[tcope]

The way that the FAA has crafted the current situation appears to be quite clever. Fundamentally, there are no binding laws at all when it comes to recreational flying - only guidelines. What happens though, is that if you do not follow those guidelines then they deem you no longer to be flying recreationally, and then Part 107 applies, and then you are then in breach of legally enforceable provisions - not least starting with not being Part 107 certified.

Close. They do an end run around their specific restriction not to create regulations that apply to hobby flying by simply moving those regulations over to "safety"... where they can create these regulations. So they _are_ regulations but they are done under different authority.

 

[sar104]

Close. They do an end run around their specific restriction not to create regulations that apply to hobby flying by simply moving those regulations over to "safety"... where they can create these regulations. So they _are_ regulations but they are done under different authority.

That is certainly another option for them to pursue operators breaking guidelines, but I don't think it is fundamentally as powerful as their ability to say "you failed to follow model aircraft rule guidelines, therefore you are not protected by the model aircraft rule, therefore you fall under Part 107 rules, which you broke".