jsharp Loc: Ballwin MO.

At a local office building near where I work ( chesterfield mo) the police were called when a local delivery company thought it was a good ideal to use one to video their delivery process for an up coming training video to that office building they never thought to contact security and get permission they just freaked out the office workers who saw it flying outside their windows looking in at them.

Lazy Old Coot Loc: Gainesville, Florida

Your example of texting and driving is against the law in every state that I know of, yet people keep doing it. And there are tons more of those, causing tons more injuries/deaths than quadcopters; this shows the ineffectiveness of mere laws when dealing with irrational people. It is exactly this demonstrated ineffectiveness of laws in these situations that make me want to hear what "regulatory solutions" Cholly is proposing that he thinks will work.[/quote]

It seems to me the problems with the regulations you have mentioned, such as texting while driving, is that they are not detectable until they cause an accident that comes to the attention of the authorities. At that point the violator will be charged. Currently the same thing is true In the case of drones. If they're flown in a prohibited area it's very unlikely they will be charged unless they cause some sort of damage or emergency. Consider this solution. The authorities currently have a database of all the areas where drones are prohibited. Most drones have GPS capabilities that they use to return them to the launch site if they lose contact with the transmitter. Would it not make sense to require the manufacturers to include that "no fly database" in their software so the drone would simply not function if it was in a restricted area? That would prevent violations rather than punish the violator when he get's caught. I have a next door neighbor that's IT director for a company here in Gainesville that produces fixed wing drones for commercial users. He says this is one of the things the authorities are considering. ...... Coot

Violameister Loc: michigan

There are already drones that allow you to program a flight path, or boundaries beyond which it won't go. So implementing such a database seems like a no brainer. If the boundaries ever changed, you could update the database like all automotive GPS units can do. This would not, however, eliminate the nuisance factor of flying in somebody's yard who didn't want it there.

OTOH, most of the small inexpensive toys do not have GPS. And many of the "stunt" helicopters/quadcopters do not have GPS either, as attention to position would diminish the "stunt" quality. I suppose that could be solved by stating that "stunt" devices without GPS could only fly on an AMA sanctioned airfield.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

No... YOU Bill, are missing the point.

There never has been, nor ever WILL be 100% compliance with ANY rule, regulation, ordinance, policy, or law. EVER. But in order to have a civil society laws are required, REGARDLESS of the degree of compliance.

And potential non-compliance has never been, nor should it ever be a determining factor in the drafting of safety related legislation.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

EXACTLY! :thumbup:

There are PLENTY of solutions available, and the possibilities are endless. But to dismiss ANY attempt to find them because there won't be 100% compliance is irrational and ridiculous. ESPECIALLY in the light of documented need. :roll:

Violameister Loc: michigan

And that is why we have so many many thousands of ineffective, harmful regulations. Because legislators say "we need a law" and do not consider how it will be enforced, if it will be enforced, what the unintended consequences might be, and how the regulated populace will respond to the law.

One way to help solve the above deficiencies in the legislative process is to provide legislators with ideas and concepts. That is why I have proposed some, and have asked you to also think about providing some, instead of just asking the legislature to "make a law". As you know, I also thought the GPS idea was an interesting one to think about.

So, how about it, Cholly. Drones are presently regulated. Ineffectively in some circumstances, too aggressively in others. Surely a better regulatory regime can be put in place. All we need are ideas, and communication with our legislature. Since you are adamant about "needing regulation" even though it exists, please suggest some good ideas you must have.

joto9d7 Loc: Laguna Hills

Fundamental to all of this is that somebody wants photography restricted. They want to blame the privacy issue on us so as to take the focus off of Corporate and/or Governmental agencies as the real cause.

It is not about crazy or stupid people needing to be regulated. The flying of RC aircraft and/or drones has never been a serious danger to the public.

Violations of our privacy are happening, but it's not us doing it.

Drones are being flown every day that are so high as not to be seen by us and they use cameras far more sophisticated than we know. Spy problems can not be solved by restricting the pro photographer or the hobbyist.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

It's basically another hot topic, infotainment, like the presidential primary debates, or Kim K's latest selfie.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Again, you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how our system of government works. SERIOUSLY.

Unfortunately there is not much that can be done to convince you that this^^^ view of America is way off base and both factually and practically incorrect. :(

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:?:

No, this IS about restrictions the unlimited use of drones... regardless of whether they have a camera attached or not... in hazardous situations.

And let me say this; your right to photograph using a drone ENDS where my right to keep my house from burning down begins. :roll:

Violameister Loc: michigan

You keep making ad hominem statements without backing them up with examples. I'll then offer one. If I am wrong about how our government works, then every law has been carefully vetted with input from all sides, how it will be enforced has been considered and the law modified to make enforcement possible, unintended consequences have been minimized by considering many possibilities, and the negative effects on the affected populace have been minimized as much as possible. And after laws have become obsolete because of technology or cultural changes, they are discarded.

How can you possibly believe that any of that actually happens with any regularity? There are thousands of obsolete laws on the books of every governmental entity at every level. Unintended consequences are commonplace, as the frequent executive changes to Obamacare demonstrate. That law also demonstrates that input is often not gotten from all sides in an effort to make it more workable. And the regulations that were imposed recently on quadcopter users were also not well thought out, as even you seem to admit by insisting there is no regulation.

Violameister Loc: michigan

I think most people on this forum including me believe that a quadcopter user should not interfere with any emergency service, and that the arbiter of that is the emergency service affected. And I would be happy to see that as a law if there exists a place where such a law is not already in place. But, again, the law must be carefully written to not interfere with legitimate news agencies acting in a safe responsible manner. There are many recent examples of police and other authorities not wanting their work documented for political or other self serving reasons.

bcmink Loc: Monona, WI

Banning drones is not the answer but requiring anyone purchasing one to take a short ground school course, a short competency exam in order to obtain a license and then complying with FAA rules ought to be the minimum requirement for purchasing a drone.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^A common sense regulatory solution and look; the sky didn't fall!

Violameister Loc: michigan

I have no real problem with this as a proposal.

Some details to discuss: What, exactly, is a "drone"? Clearly the 4 inch wide devices designed to fly indoors are no hazard to firefighters. Where is the line between them and a device that is a hazard? Drawing such a line is rationally not easy but important. Will radio controlled model airplanes fall under this rule? If not, why not? Will there be any changes to the FAA rules as they presently exist, and if so, what are the changes?

Some here will probably say that answering those questions is the job of legislators and they certainly wouldn't presume to suggest any of the above. But, in our system legislators are supposed to get information from those affected, and as part of the affected population, we should be ready with answers to the above.