With respect, to me it seems to be about unelected officials making laws to protect us from ourselves. We have an elected group responsible for making laws, and it's not the FAA. The clear direction from congress was for the FAA to keep their hands off RC hobbyists.
FAA is currently being sued over this by a few of us unappreciative masses. I think we'll win.
ChesterW
That's a good idea. I could ask our beloved leader how he feels about the creation of so many new felons. If you take a look at the number of people who registered in the new database, and then make an estimate of the number of RC aircraft, you come up with at least millions, likely
10's of millions, of new felons.Maybe the president owns stock in those private federal prisons.
ChesterW
if weed becomes legal they have to find something else to do for all those people to do, I doubt the police union and prison lobby just sit idle waiting for their jobs to disappear
-Lasse
From ourselves?
When RC aircraft get misused, it's frequently not the misuser who suffers.
Sylvia.
That's how he's going to ban guns. He's just going to create so many regulations that everyone becomes a felon by so much as breathing.
That's irrelevant. No one has suggested that an RC owner shouldn't be held to be responsible for his actions or damaged caused by his hobby. The point is that congress has told the executive branch to back off. It's the law. The executive has no (Constitutional) power to ignore it.
Not due to misuse, but radio failure. A guy at a fly day in Australia some 15 years ago was getting into his car in the car park when he heard folk yelling, as a large model plane flew out of control towards him. He stuck his head out to see what the fuss was about, and died when the plane copped him right in the side of the head.
After that, we had strict new rules about where you can fly, under what controls, and with a minimum of $20M insurance.
So examples please. I can not remember ever seeing anything that suggested that RC aircraft have caused anyone to suffer. If you can not post examples , then you are trying to make a mountain when you do not even have a mole hill.
Dan
Look harder; open your eyes. See below for /one/ example of a life-changing injury to an innocent bystander.
I've watched RC aircraft do a 135 degree turn on the takeoff run and crash into a spectator's leg, causing minor injury. Ditto hitting dogs.
Fortunately, as any RC enthusiast will tell you, if you stick something in a prop powered by an internal combustion engine, the engine will simply stall *and*
*stop* without doing much damage.Unfortunately, as any RC enthusiast will tell you, if you do that with an equivalent prop and electric engine, the engine will stall, draw more current,
*increase the torque* and keep going, and do a *lot* more damage.Guess the power source during the spectator's leg incident. Guess what powers many/most modern RC planes.
Wince after looking at
From
You are right. There are incidents, but not a bunch. Your example is from the UK. The U.S. requirement to register would not affect people in the UK. For that matter I do not see how having the operator licensed would make any difference.
Dan
The problem is the same the world over; UK vs USA is irrelevant flack.
The problem is that as drones are sold in toy shops, at car boot sales, and via ebay, to anybody with money and a whim in their skull.
At the moment people perceive them as /toys/, not as energetic missiles with rotating knives. That perception must be altered.
Formal registration /won't/ prevent malefactors, nor will it prevent Dunning-Kruger exemplars from injuring more third parties. Neither, of course, do gun licences and car driving licences.
Formal registration /will/ help alter perception of drones/RC UAV, and start to get people into the appropriate mindset. And that is not only necessary, but it is also a sufficient justification for registration.
More examples...
I've watched an RC aircraft lose radio contact and disappear over the horizon in the direction of central London. The operator jumped in his car and hurtled off, but I'd be surprised if he could have kept it in sight while driving. I've always wondered where it ended up.
More lethally, from .
Drones were recently involved in four serious near misses at UK airports, the UK Air Proximity Board has said. ... The UK Air Proximity Board (UKAB) looked at seven incidents involving drones in its December report, four of which were classed as the most serious category A where a serious risk of collision existed.
The near miss at Stansted saw a drone fly over the Boeing 737 by about 16ft, as the aircraft was at about 4,000ft during take-off.
In another incident, a drone narrowly missed hitting the wing of a Boeing 777 shortly after take-off from Heathrow Airport on 22 September.
This took place at 2,000ft - double the legal altitude limit for drones transmitting live video to their operators.
According to the plane's pilot, the drone narrowly passed down the right-hand side of the aircraft and left no time to take action.
The UKAB concluded that the drone was at the same height and within 25m of the jet, meaning "chance had played a major part" in the lack of a collision.
On a sunny day (Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:21:06 +0000) it happened Tom Gardner wrote in :
Right my laser arrow (electric BTW) flies 160 km/h, if it hits you at that speed you will notice.
Not sure registration helps, but flying lessons may.
And even then, with GPS control and multiple waypoints, could drop out of the air anywhere, fly into anything. Would need radar avoidance, now THERE is an idea for a project.
So because of that the limitation to field of view.
Registration will help and encourage the ignorant to become less ignorant, before they hurt somebody else. Registration is beneficial but not sufficient.
Flying lessons and exams will help in different ways.
I just pointed that out as an indication you can not readily find U.S. exam ples.
I think you best figure out another approach. I believe registering drones will be as effective as registering CB transceivers. That is it will be i gnored and involve so many people that there will not be enough jails to h old the violators. Anything promoted as " start to get people into the app ropriate mindset. " is doomed to fail.
Dan
On a sunny day (Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:47:12 +0000) it happened Tom Gardner wrote in :
I wonder what happens when google and amazon start delivering with drones. Recently US law decided that 'a computer is a driver' sort of thing.
So if your robot software flies the drone, who is responsible? Software is the pilot!
See software companies being sued...
You started by saying "So examples please. I can not remember ever seeing anything that suggested that RC aircraft have caused anyone to suffer."
Examples were provided, so without justification you tried to move the goalpost to being /US/ examples.
Why stick at requiring US examples? Why not require state examples? After all, some parts of the US think other parts are barking mad.
Whoosh! (That's the sound you hear as you miss the point - because it whizzes past over your head)
examples.
Sorry, I thought you were in the U.S. and did not know of any local example s.
ones will be as effective as registering CB transceivers. That is it will be ignored and involve so many people that there will not be enough jails to hold the violators. Anything promoted as " start to get people into the appropriate mindset. " is doomed to fail.
The Whooosh is the sound you hear. My point is that the FAA does not have the manpower to enforce registration. And is likely to lose any cases beca use Congress exempted hobby RC planes.
Dan
There have been several cases of peeping drones in the news recently. RC modelers are their own worst enemies.
The owner/operator, obviously.
Them too. "Kill 'em all and let God sort it out.", or the equivalent legal principle, sue everyone who has a pocket deep enough to pay a worthwhile contingency.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.