Regulations WILL come...

[semaj]

ALL...

after reading through many posts, including my own, I realize that we spend a lot of time Bitching about stuff we really have no control over... I like this forum because it allows me to share and get advice from others regarding our collective hobby...

Now, I'm the opposite of "Must follow ALL rules", however, I do my best to make good decisions while flying, although I have made poor ones, I have never crashed my P2V or P2V+...

That being said... Will Regulations REALLY happen? Should they happen?

I'm 100% for the airport restrictions simply because I know how high I fly mine at times... It will suck for those who live near airports, but would you rather fly your UAS further away or risk ANY chance of causing an accident that could take lives?

This technology is really cool and will ONLY GET BETTER... Eventually, the cost will get down low enough where those OTHER than many of us enthusiast will be flying these things everywhere... I bet many of you know someone that if they had a UAS like the P2V+, they would be pretty reckless... Imagine when the cost to buy one of these hits $299 or $199 on ebay :!: :!: :!:

People will fly these things ANY and EVERY way they want without worrying about a significant $$$ lost... "It was just $200 bucks, I'll just get another"... That day will be bad for all of us...

Please enjoy NOW while we can, before the Regulations hit and "ground us all"...

 

[ResevorDG]

ALL...

after reading through many posts, including my own, I realize that we spend a lot of time Bitching about stuff we really have no control over... I like this forum because it allows me to share and get advice from others regarding our collective hobby...

Now, I'm the opposite of "Must follow ALL rules", however, I do my best to make good decisions while flying, although I have made poor ones, I have never crashed my P2V or P2V+...

That being said... Will Regulations REALLY happen? Should they happen?

I'm 100% for the airport restrictions simply because I know how high I fly mine at times... It will suck for those who live near airports, but would you rather fly your UAS further away or risk ANY chance of causing an accident that could take lives?

This technology is really cool and will ONLY GET BETTER... Eventually, the cost will get down low enough where those OTHER than many of us enthusiast will be flying these things everywhere... I bet many of you know someone that if they had a UAS like the P2V+, they would be pretty reckless... Imagine when the cost to buy one of these hits $299 or $199 on ebay :!: :!: :!:

People will fly these things ANY and EVERY way they want without worrying about a significant $$$ lost... "It was just $200 bucks, I'll just get another"... That day will be bad for all of us...

Please enjoy NOW while we can, before the Regulations hit and "ground us all"...

Regulations are defiantly on the way in America. (we regulate everything)

As far as the airport no fly zone, I think this could be a big problem. It can create a false sense of security. Where I live we have many active airports, yet only one is a no fly zone, and the approach path no part of that no fly zone. To the side of the airport you cannot fly, even though it is not an approach path. In short using a circle is not really meeting the needs of a no fly area.
These zones are not a bad idea, and for the time being they are an ok bandaid but what is really needed is the requirement that all drone pilots know how to read an air map (sectional) and keep one with them when they fly.


To keep from getting grounded we need a good advocacy and lobbying group, like AOPA, but for UAVs.

 

[PhilAnderson]

It's already happening here in the US: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/e ... =478118316 Hope that link works. CNN has an article that states ALL federal parks are off limits to what they call DRONES.

 

[ResevorDG]

It's already happening here in the US: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/e ... =478118316 Hope that link works. CNN has an article that states ALL federal parks are off limits to what they call DRONES.

Yes the park service has said no drones. It will be interesting to see if they have the authority to make that call.
On one hand the parks are "private" property so they can make some rules. But it's also publicly owned private property, so...

The only way to know for sure is for someone to go to court over it.

To me, that rule seems arbitrary and unnecessary but who knows what will happen.

 

[jalpert]

From what I understand, that rule has existed for a long time, but is only now being enforced/reiterated as drones are actually becoming prevalent.

It's already happening here in the US: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/e ... =478118316 Hope that link works. CNN has an article that states ALL federal parks are off limits to what they call DRONES.

 

[ResevorDG]

From what I understand, that rule has existed for a long time, but is only now being enforced/reiterated as drones are actually becoming prevalent.

It's already happening here in the US: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/e ... =478118316 Hope that link works. CNN has an article that states ALL federal parks are off limits to what they call DRONES.

The rule as written only apples to maned craft. The Park Service has recently stated that is also applies to UAVs. So for now it does. If someone challenges it court, who knows. Not me thats for sure.

 

[semaj]

It's already happening here in the US: http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/e ... =478118316 Hope that link works. CNN has an article that states ALL federal parks are off limits to what they call DRONES.

You would think Parks would be the perfect place to use these... That's a shame... :|

The funny thing is, they just used a drone to help with the recent wild fire...

I wonder how hard it would be to determine who's flying what there? Unless you are in a heavily public area, who will see you launch and return? Opps... there goes my rule breaking personality... My bad...

 

[Hovtech]

I think we are at a watershed moment here. Drones are going to become a fact of daily life. They can try to stop it, but the pro drone forces (big business) are too strong. We really are pioneers in this field. We will all have great stories to tell our grandchildren about our early years with drones before they became commonplace.

 

[happydogs]

the genie is already out of the bottle.

there WILL be mishaps. (no one died of auto accidents before automobiles, right?)

but this is a game-changer...it is disruptive technology like the internet and like mobile devices.

we will adjust.

 

[garrock]

It appears the AMA is chumming up with the Federal Government (FAA) to allow the traditional hobby-sport to become "regulated. Or, the AMA is in the mist of changing its mission statement.

Either way it appears the AMA is not so forthcoming with its members on its intent to change its purpose.

I pay the AMA dues each year because my local flying club declares you MUST be an AMA member in order to fly at the field. The County Commissioners required this since they own the public land.

SO.. what is currently an insurance liability mechanism (paying the AMA), raises money for them to work closer with the FAA; which in turn appears not to be clearly shared with its members.

At least that is what I perceive.

 

[ResevorDG]

It appears the AMA is chumming up with the Federal Government (FAA) to allow the traditional hobby-sport to become "regulated. Or, the AMA is in the mist of changing its mission statement.

Either way it appears the AMA is not so forthcoming with its members on its intent to change its purpose.

I pay the AMA dues each year because my local flying club declares you MUST be an AMA member in order to fly at the field. The County Commissioners required this since they own the public land.

SO.. what is currently an insurance liability mechanism (paying the AMA), raises money for them to work closer with the FAA; which in turn appears not to be clearly shared with its members.

At least that is what I perceive.

This could be a good thing. I don't know anything about AMA but I pay AOPA money so that they can lobby congress on my behalf.

 

[Flyer91]

There are two really awesome viddys in the "Commercial Video" thread that are a double edged sword.
See: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=14207
First let me say ... contrary to how I've come across on this subject before, I am not pro-regulations, and although I am pro-responsibility for our own actions, just accepting blame and financial responsibility for hospital bills or funeral expenses for hurting/killing some "little girl" is not what I will ever accept as being a responsible person.
Sorry guys, that's just where I do and always will draw the line between being responsible person and and a total "self entitled" ***.

WRT: The two viddys ...... are both inspiring and represent the way I wish we could could fly ...... without any concerns.
So ...... lets for now just assume that there are no Visions falling out of the sky irrespective of being due to pilot error and/or equipment failures.
Lets assume that all pilots are perfect and the Vision is bullet proof.
Lets also assume that the Vision becomes only slightly as popular as "land-lubber" cameras.
In the viddy where the pilot flies totally FPV (no way he still had LOS) over to the concert that seems to have an audience of about 5 thousand people (???) and lets also assume that at a similar event in the near future that only 1% of those people also have Visions.
Simple math tells us that at the same time there would be 50 Visions in the air at such an event ...... all with the same right to fly at the same time, in the same uncontrolled airspace, and all with the perfect right to fly FPV only, if they so desired.
So here ya are with 50 Visions all working the same airspace over the crowd and near the stage, with their God given right to fly FPV only.
Need I go on ...... ?

Or in the case of the soccer game viddy, with the same percentage of people there with Visions all set to take their 'fair' share of the event's viddys ...... admittedly to a lesser degreeof danger because at least you still have LOS ....... but only if you are not trying to frame shots, and end up with the same sort of thing as flying while texting.

Who doesn't think there would need to be some sort of controll?
Who doesn't think that this a reality that's just around the bend ... probably this summer?

While the above seems to spell doom, gloom, and certainly that restrictive regulations/bannings 'are' going to negatively impact our being able to fly camera drones in any of areas that are the most viddy-worthy ....... there is some hope on the horizon.

For example ....... there are these: https://www.prelaunch.com/brands/epson/ ... pDrhwvVHkA
Pricey, but they do allow for FPV and LOS at the same time.
Also, adaption of crash avoidance technology (similar to that which is in some cars) 'might' be another technology that will help keep the regulators at bay.

But ..... even if we manage to get past the government, figure out ways to overcome the traffic control issues that will be at the most photographic sites/events, there will always be property, event, and lower level public administrators that will ban them because it's the path of least resistance for them.
"Not making any money letting people fly them here??
The attorneys say I might be involved in civil litigation that will cost my company/city/etc. a lot of money, and/or I might loose my job ..... in this freaking job market?!?!?
Screw it ........ban 'em!"

The biggest advantage that we have right now is the steep techo-curve that might help make them safer (especially in the eyes of the media who sells their products to sponsors by sensationalizing any story they can twist the hell out of so it has more "Pop" at 11) and more importantly, the simple and true fact that there is just a ****-load of money to be made selling these to the public 'specifically' for their use as flying cameras ....... especially when you copy your "new model product release plan" to that of the iPhone!

 

[Hovtech]

I dislike everything you wrote. But I agree with every word!

 

[garrock]

This could be a good thing. I don't know anything about AMA .....

I pay AOPA money so that they can lobby congress on my behalf.

So, I am paying the AMA money for liability insurance but they take that and "lobby" congress too. Or, chum up to the FAA in ways that its members may not fully realize.

Below 400 Feet has traditionally been more like that JG Wentworth Commercial: "It's your airspace, use it when you need it."

I'm just not too sure of our Federal Government doing the right things on its own. Look at its recent track history. So, I sure hope AMA executives are keeping vigil to its history and not selling much out.

 

[Flyer91]

I dislike everything you wrote. But I agree with every word!

Yeah ...me too!
But the glasses and possible new safety technology part is likable .... no?

 

[ResevorDG]

This could be a good thing. I don't know anything about AMA .....

I pay AOPA money so that they can lobby congress on my behalf.

So, I am paying the AMA money for liability insurance but they take that and "lobby" congress too. Or, chum up to the FAA in ways that its members may not fully realize.

Below 400 Feet has traditionally been more like that JG Wentworth Commercial: "It's your airspace, use it when you need it."

I'm just not too sure of our Federal Government doing the right things on its own. Look at its recent track history. So, I sure hope AMA executives are keeping vigil to its history and not selling much out.

This 400 foot rule comes from an off the cuff FAA circular with no legal standing from the early 1980's.
The reality is that airspace is complex. Some places are crowded at 50 or 100 feet some places are open with airspace "windows" yes thats a legal term, up to 50,000 feet +

I don't know what the AMA is doing but I am glad that AOPA lobbies for maned aircraft and we really need someone to do that for us. If AMA is not then someone must or we will lose many rights.

 

[CRankin]

I don't see the point in becoming a member of any organization that wants to crawl into bed with the FAA. In this hobby, the FAA should be viewed more as the enemy than as a friend.

Yes, I'm one of those people who says "regulations be damned". If I decide to head to one of our national parks I'll take it with me and at least try to use it. Worst case scenario is that a ranger comes over and asks me to land and put it away... at which point I'm willing to question his authority to do so.

My belief is simple: as long as one flies responsibly, and maintains the equipment carefully, and performs pre-flight checks, then one should be OK to fly pretty much wherever and whenever. Park authorities and other killjoys should have no business telling us what we can and can't do on land that our tax money pays to keep and maintain. It's public space, and should be open and free to the public to use.

 

[Ksandersfl]

I am a nature lover...I visit alot of national parks. I was looking forward to using my PV2+ in conjunction with my professional photography. I suppose I should never assume and find the rules to all local, state and national parks.

 

[Flyer91]

I don't see the point in becoming a member of any organization that wants to crawl into bed with the FAA. In this hobby, the FAA should be viewed more as the enemy than as a friend.

Yes, I'm one of those people who says "regulations be damned". If I decide to head to one of our national parks I'll take it with me and at least try to use it. Worst case scenario is that a ranger comes over and asks me to land and put it away... at which point I'm willing to question his authority to do so.

My belief is simple: as long as one flies responsibly, and maintains the equipment carefully, and performs pre-flight checks, then one should be OK to fly pretty much wherever and whenever. Park authorities and other killjoys should have no business telling us what we can and can't do on land that our tax money pays to keep and maintain. It's public space, and should be open and free to the public to use.

So ..... as long as I'm a excellent shot, always know my backstop ... and I'm kind enough to use a legal silencer (all paid up for my Fed stamp to use it) ... it's OK for me to ignore the regulations that say I can't go shooting in urban areas, and I can come by your place while your kids are playing in the yard, and see if I can't get me one of the wild hogs (that are invading those urban areas) with a .50 cal Beowulf?
If so ..... can I also bring about 50 off my best marksmen friends?

If you think the Vision doesn't have the kinetic energy of a firearm when flying within its normal performance envelope, you need to do the math for 2.5 lbs traveling at 30MPH ... (or just have somebody toss one at your head out of the window of a car moving at 30MPH).
It absolutely does.

BTW: ... rangers have guns, and they ain't gonna like it Yogi!

 

[CRankin]

BTW: ... rangers have guns, and they ain't gonna like it Yogi!

Keep in mind that it's legal to carry in most federal parks now...

BTW, I'm not saying that it's OK for people to do stupid things in federal parks or anywhere... but when one considers the desires that many like I would have - flying out slowly and getting into position to get a few pictures that just couldn't be captured any other way - there's hardly the danger that you presuppose.

Perhaps silly and capricious regulations such as this will be worth challenging, just to take some pencil-wielding power-hungry policy-pushers in the government to task. I'm sure that by now there are more than a few people with deep pockets who own a UAV and might be impacted by this.