The "bringing down a commercial aircraft" analogy was directed more at your assertion that inidivual acts don't trigger a law...and I can easily point to hundreds of laws with that exact background. Take off your shoes before boarding an airliner lately? And the recently posted video on this forum of someone up over New Orleans at an unknown altitude but guessed at 1000 feet or over...at night....puts him into an interaction zone with media helicopters.
"R/C? helicopters have been around for many years, with the same flight capabilities as multi's, yet they have not initiated a similar respsone that is so often described by the "gloom and doom" brigade." Poor analogy...The R/C helicopters preceeding this new generation of copters were very difficult to fly, very complicated to construct (and most were BIY), and NOT designed specifically to carry a camera. If that's all we had now we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would love to see a graph of what is going on now, sales-wise.
"If we aren't careful, there will be no need for any regulating by the FAA or other entities; we'll self regulate our hobby into farm fields in the middle of nowhere." Which is EXACTLY where the fixed wing R/C world in the US went a long time ago, for their own safety free from radio interference and for public safety. But the only major difference between the craft is that our copters do not need a long-ish approach and take off field...making taking off and flying our of one's driveway quite simple. My Ph will do 55 MPH (in ATTI or MANUAL) and has 4 sharp, spinning blades, mass, and a battery which, if damaged, could cause a fire. Additionally, it can carry a camera with FPV, hover, and be used to snoop and record details of peoples homes and property. THAT has already triggered one legal response.
But really, in my opinion, what we want to be talking about is just plain old "responsible", in this case....RESPONSIBLE FLYING. We are seeing in this forum, on a daily basis, a constant flow of new Phantom owners who, for relatively little money (and even less risk if insured) can instantly put their bird up into any environment they want, including FAA airspace. There are essentially no laws, no requirements, not even any guidelines. The learning curve in this sport is absolutely LEARN BY NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE. The OP post is exactly that. Strap a bright idea different camera to your bird and test fly it....over water. An example of stupidity rightly rewarded. Does anyone doubt that this same guy, if there was a reason to, wouldn't have done the same thing in a populated environment....with a considerably different level of risk?
We see "what were you thinking?" examples of flying on a regular basis here. We hear of crashs and fly-aways (and the bird comes down SOMEWHERE)...on a regular basis. Some people are risk tolerant to a degree that certainly curdles MY blood.
I think there is a place for GUIDELINES, debated and drawn up by the most experienced flyers, posted where it is accessible to all, especially newbies, as to how to learn and progress up the learning curve in a way that minimizes the risk of lost equipment to them AND minimizes the risk of negative or dangerous interactions with the wider public environment. Simply said, promoting RESPONSIBLE FLYING protects our sport from outside limitation. And, as a caveat to that, at least commenting on IRRESPONSIBLE flying is part of setting and maintaining a standard.
THAT, in my mind, is what this thread has been about, and why I think it is important to keep calling attention to such behavior.....lacking ANY permanent guidelines at all for newbies other than their own horse-sense...or lack thereof.
