FAA Set To Crack Down on UAV Pilots

[Daveroo]

[h=1]FAA Set To Crack Down on UAV Pilots[/h]By Stephen Pope / Published: Aug 13, 2015
Related Tags: News, drones, UAVs





image: http://www.flyingmag.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/article_image/_images/201303/Aeryon-Scout.jpg

Enlarge Photo


The FAA has finally had enough. After a sharp rise in close encounters this year between remotely piloted UAVs and commercial aircraft, the agency is now warning drone pilots that they face stiff penalties, criminal charges and even prison time for unauthorized flights.

The FAA says there have been 650 reports of UAV sightings by commercial and GA pilots so far this year versus 238 all of last year. Addressing the threat of a midair collision, the agency says it is sending a clear message that “operating dronesimage: [url]http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png

[/URL] around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal.”

To this point the FAA has relied on a community outreach program called “Know Before You Fly” to educate drone pilots about where they are permitted to operate. But after reports of drones grounding firefighting aircraft battling wildfires out west recently, the FAA decided to step up enforcement big time. It has levied fines in a few instances but says enforcement cases are set to rise sharply, with “dozens” of open cases now pending.

As part of its crackdown on unauthorized droneimage: [url]http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png

[/URL] flights, the FAA is asking the general public to report illegal flights to local law enforcement.






Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/news/faa-set-crack-down-uav-pilots#4qlOMoQyYlfsl2hk.99

from flying mag

 

[Navy Chief]

I've been expecting one to get sucked down the intake of a passenger jet (or military) on approach, causing engine failure and possible catastrophe. Not out of the realm of possibility. Birdstrikes have caused accidents; so could drones.

I hope, however, the FAA doesn't impose unwarranted regs on the RC community though. I have never owned a RC plane, but thought about getting into the hobby. For now, though, my jeep has me busy.

NC

 

[rdaniell]

There was a reported near mid-air collision between a medical helicopter and a drone in California just today. Navy Chief, I am a RC pilot and I too am worry that the regulations will have a very negative impact on that hobby. AMA is working diligently on our behalf hoping to prevent that.

RD

 

[Daveroo]

to me..smart flying is what will save the RC community/hobby at this point..people need to police themselves and inform educate people on it...at the hobby shop level and disallow online sales of "drones"...just a thought really

 

[emfrat]

to me..smart flying is what will save the RC community/hobby at this point..people need to police themselves and inform educate people on it...at the hobby shop level and disallow online sales of "drones"...just a thought really

I hope so...the RC people have been enjoying their hobby for years, without causing problems, then along come some halfwits with more money than sense and their behaviour could see the RC hobby banned altogether.

MikeW

 

[Naismith]

It seems to me unfair to lump RC enthusiasts in with Droners (droneists?). RC takes skill enthusiasm and investment of time and $$. Drones take none of the above.

 

[emfrat]

It seems to me unfair to lump RC enthusiasts in with Droners (droneists?). RC takes skill enthusiasm and investment of time and $$. Drones take none of the above.

It certainly is unfair - but the bureaucrats will only see a vast virgin territory where they can impose lots of rules so that people can be fined for breaking them. They will not be the least bit interested in reducing the danger to commercial or military aircraft. They will probably start by insisting that anyone wanting to control any aircraft from the ground should have at least a PPL.

MikeW

 

[rdaniell]

What a lot of people who are not into radio control flying don't know is that there are already rules in place. The FAA FARs place restrictions on where they can be flown. Responsible RC flyers also conform to AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) identical rules. But as Ron White says, "There ain't no cure for stupid."

But here in the United States, once again, our elected representatives in Washington will all be scrabbling to see who can make the biggest "stink." And RC enthusiast will be the losers I'm afraid.

BTW, I think that there are quite a few RC enthusiasts here at the Outhouse.

RD

 

[Navy Chief]

Of course the government is already salivating at the added revenue from all the proposed new regulations.

 

[Spad54]

Here is how you handle a pesky drone

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hr-xBtVU4lg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Mick]

The trick will be to distinguish between drones and model planes. We know the difference, but defining it in terms useful for law and regulations might not be so obvious. Like art and pornography, it's one thing to recognize one from the other, but quite another to define them legally.

One might think that drones with cameras are causing problems while regular model planes are not, and that would undoubtedly be correct almost all the time, but one could operate a camera-less drone or a model plane in a dangerous manner.

Folks who fly model planes are virtually all aviation enthusiasts and have enough knowledge of aviation to fly their models safely, without interfering with real aircraft. Some drone flyers might have this knowledge too, but many, perhaps most, are clueless, totally ignorant of aviation, and fly drones not because they're interested in aviation, but just to take photos. Again, the difference is obvious but tricky to define in legal terms.

Effective regulation will have to be based not on what kind of drones or models are flown (after all, drones are just a sub-set of model aircraft) but on how and where they are operated. Regs that properly define and prohibit the kinds of dangerous idiocy we've been seeing in the news shouldn't effect modelers because modelers aren't doing the kinds of things that should be prohibited.

Legislators often make laws about subjects they don't understand. This is where regulations come in. Congress would pass a law that doesn't define anything, but just prohibits dangerous drone operation and specifies the consequences. The law would include instructions to the FAA to write, promulgate and enforce appropriate regulations to administer the law, and states that those regs will have the force of law.

Whether on the local, state or federal level, the legislature passes a law that states its intent, and the professionals in the appropriate agency are left to do the serious thinking about how to implement the legislature's intent. This usually works out pretty well. In the present instance, we know that Congress, in the person of most of its members, doesn't know much about aviation, but the FAA does, and it's the FAA that will write and enforce the regs.

This process is called administrative law. I spent a career in the field, and while I won't claim the system is perfect, I can attest that it works acceptably well most of the time. It works a lot better than leaving every detail in the hands of the legislature.

 

[joe bob]

It seems to me unfair to lump RC enthusiasts in with Droners (droneists?). RC takes skill enthusiasm and investment of time and $$. Drones take none of the above.

I agree. The patience to learn the skills to fly RC weeds out much of the more money than brains element, as does the mentoring that goes with joining clubs to learn to fly them.
It is just a fact that there is a certain percentage of the population that my be nice guys, highly educated but just lack common sense. give them a toy and time on their hands and they are going to be a burden on those who operate them responsibly.

 

[glh]

The Eagle Takedown of the drone was good. Might want to get me an Eagle in the future.

But the following video "Topless Girl Takes Down Drone" was funnier ......