DJI F550 flies ABOVE the clouds, then crashes

[Robert Benda]

I'd guess the legal issue here would stop being about an RC vehicle and become about regular FAA rules regarding altitude restrictions. For instance, the FAA defines spaces for take off and landing. For flight spaces (at the altitude this guy was at, planes and helicopters do fly) they have rules... flying in this direction? (0 to 179 degrees), then you fly at either 3000, 5000, or 7000 feet. Or 180-359 flies at 2000, 4000, or 6000.

I've even seen where a guy sent a balloon into space (with a camera) who got permission from the FAA first, so he could make sure he didn't cause any problems. It was pretty easy and took just a few minutes. That was a vertical take off (and return), too.

This guy is a jackass for not considering all the issues he might cause both in the air and when his copter comes crashing down.

[Darren Levine]

More an more UAV incidents will happen. and it's not certain the FAA will ever figure out how to handle it. I still think licensing/permits/etc.. should be based off of total flying weight + perhaps maximum height capabilities.

If you banned all UAVs altogether, the toy industry would get pissed, and so would many commercial videographers.

and if you just banned them for commercial use, then videographers would ask what the heck is the difference from the toys which basically do the same thing

With all the technology in these things, an altitude limiter is hardly a stretch, and could be required by law to be limited to a certain height, if an incident happens, and you were above that height, criminal charges. want to fly above that altitude? get a license.

these are my thoughts, and now i require brunch

[Paul R Johnson]

What I really do not get - is the sheer irresponsibility of doing this. Forget the law, just common sense. PPL pilots avoid clouds for good reason, it's easy to get confused. With RF systems, as we often talk about on here, the idea of range worries me, the lack of spacial awareness worries me and the danger of dumping a flying object onto people or property worries me. On almost every aspect, the operator showed pretty poor judgement. Not knowing where the drone was, not realising battery power was limited - having to disconnect the GPS to attempt to regain control.

The video and the little notices not to flame the operator are not sufficient to make this video, with many others exactly the kind of thing that responsible operators hate. People in the UK now taking flying lessons because the crazy antics of some operators worry the authorities.

Is there a flying version of driving without due care and attention?

[Dave Blackhurst]

As I suggested a while back, "common" sense is not always common, and reckless indifference is a legal concept easily applied here.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that the guy who shot the video was completely clueless to the potential of aircraft at those heights, or the potential "targets" on the ground should there be a loss of control. That would make "reckless" operation a GIVEN, and the apparent indifference to risks might not matter to him, but certainly would to any victims of such "indifference". No doubt enough to bring charges and litigation.

Just because you CAN (there is no law specifically prohibiting your special brand of stupidity) does not mean there may not be consequences should you DO something incredibly stupid and cause harm or injury to person or property.

Unfortunately, every time someone does something stupid or horrific, we hear "there ought to be a law", why isn't the there a LAW?!?!! There ARE laws, stupidity cannot be legislated out of existence, and more laws don't solve anything, they just create more "law" breakers and less freedom, and often additional government "agencies" at great expense!

When stupidity is made illegal, who will be left to guard all the inmates? You'd have a 100% "criminal" population!

[Charles W. Hull]

Originally Posted by Darren Levine

get a license.

Yes, get a license - this is also my view. I'm a pilot, with knowledge of the airspace rules and with all the safety training. Certainly some licensed pilots still do stupid things, and certainly some accidents happen, but by and large aviation is a safe and sane activity. The process of training for a license, and testing to get a license, and the periodic re-training and testing to maintain a license does wonders to minimize the number of fool hardy and ignorant and stupid people flying airplanes. A license requirement to fly these drones would thin the herd, but would not limit those with genuine interest or need.

And I'm certainly for a 400 foot AGL (above ground level) law. I really don't want to be at a legal flight altitude and encounter a drone. It could go right through the windshield, or disable a control surface, or take out an engine. All potentially lethal.

And frankly if I saw someone purposefully flying a drone in or above the clouds at a legal flight altitude, I wouldn't kindly return his crashed copter, I would go completely postal on him.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Charles W. Hull

The process of training for a license, and testing to get a license, and the periodic re-training and testing to maintain a license does wonders to minimize the number of fool hardy and ignorant and stupid people flying airplanes. A license requirement to fly these drones would thin the herd, but would not limit those with genuine interest or need.

And I'm certainly for a 400 foot AGL (above ground level) law. I really don't want to be at a legal flight altitude and encounter a drone. It could go right through the windshield, or disable a control surface, or take out an engine. All potentially lethal.

And frankly if I saw someone purposefully flying a drone in or above the clouds at a legal flight altitude, I wouldn't kindly return his crashed copter, I would go completely postal on him.

Wait a minute, I resemble that remark, I am a "fool hardy and ignorant and stupid people flying airplanes."

I'm a pilot too, there are a lot of pilots flying MR's. I only fly recreationally now, about 300 hours a year in highly populated areas around LA, and in all that time I have never seen a MR in the air. Of coarse its the things you don't see that can hurt you. The point is that with as much flying as I do and the fact that I haven't even seen a MR makes me think that the threat of an air-to-air with a MR is greatly exaggerated.

I agree that it would not be good if it happened but your more likely to run into a large bunch of balloons that escaped the local auto mall or kids birthday. I see those all the time.

Yes I guess knowing something about how the air transportation system works might be helpful but the idea that someone flying a MR requires a commercial or private pilots license and a medical is ridiculous, you don't even require a medical to fly sport pilot, most people have no idea how much time it takes or the expense of getting a pilots license, it would probably be cost prohibitive for many and if RC's are required to remain below 400' then with a few exceptions they wouldn't interact with full sized aircraft anyway.

My concern is not that there should be regulations but that stupid logic will be applied to creating them and they will onerous and very few will be able to comply with them. Of coarse if your the FAA and you don't want people flying drones then that's exactly what they will do, they will have met the mandate to regulate but it won't be their fault that no one can afford it, then we'll be right back where we are, everyone doing AP illegally. Which at the moment we aren't because its not illegal and look at all the accidents that have occurred because of the anarchy.

[Jim Michael]

I sort of agree with Chuck here. There's a rationale for having to know the rules, but requiring pilots of low weight drones to obtain a private or commercial certificate is a little overkill. However, with respect to not having seen one while out flying, one should do a sanity check and ask where there might be a concentration of drones and GA aircraft. The obvious answer is at an event that attracts aerial news coverage. This is in my mind the highest risk scenario, where manned and unmanned vehicles are maneuvered competitively to obtain the best view. Another aspect of regulation is the engineering certification of aircraft. Where every other word from some folks is "cheap", the risk of proliferation of unairworthy equipment will be high. Batteries are a good example. Chuck references LSA and the certification process for those is more of an industry based certification than the rather overbearing and slow FAA based process for other GA aircraft.

[Charles W. Hull]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

Yes I guess knowing something about how the air transportation system works might be helpful but the idea that someone flying a MR requires a commercial or private pilots license and a medical is ridiculous, you don't even require a medical to fly sport pilot, most people have no idea how much time it takes or the expense of getting a pilots license, it would probably be cost prohibitive for many and if RC's are required to remain below 400' then with a few exceptions they wouldn't interact with full sized aircraft anyway.

Hmm, sorry for the misunderstanding. By 'license' I meant specifically a license to fly these drones (MRs); not a commercial or private pilot's license. By comparison it would be a very simple license and would entail training on how to safely operate drones, flight training, and a written test and a flight test.

No, I've never encountered one of these small drones while flying either; hope I don't.

[Chuck Spaulding]

I knew what you meant but unfortunately one of the suggestion has been that for commercial Ap you had to have a pilots license. That's kind of the problem with regulating things, all good intentions aside you get people who have political agendas, privacy advocates, defense department contractors larger drone manufacturers who would rather not see the average person have the opportunity to compete in this market making all kinds of stupid suggestions and then under duress politicians from the FAA cave to those demands and we're out of business.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

I sort of agree with Chuck here. There's a rationale for having to know the rules, but requiring pilots of low weight drones to obtain a private or commercial certificate is a little overkill. However, with respect to not having seen one while out flying, one should do a sanity check and ask where there might be a concentration of drones and GA aircraft. The obvious answer is at an event that attracts aerial news coverage. This is in my mind the highest risk scenario, where manned and unmanned vehicles are maneuvered competitively to obtain the best view. Another aspect of regulation is the engineering certification of aircraft. Where every other word from some folks is "cheap", the risk of proliferation of unairworthy equipment will be high. Batteries are a good example. Chuck references LSA and the certification process for those is more of an industry based certification than the rather overbearing and slow FAA based process for other GA aircraft.

Jim I fly out of Camarillo and there's an RC field a little over five or six miles away and fairly close to one of the helicopter approaches into the KCMA airspace and I don't know of any incidents or close calls. Certainly there's a higher probability of accidents near a news event but the people flying those news helicopters generally have their head on a swivel and have a heightened situational awareness. I know there have been incidents where there have been mechanical failure but I can't recall any air-to-air collisions in a situation like this. If drones are kept below 400' I don't think the danger is as bad as people think it is. Is there a potential for news gathering organizations to get a little overzealous, sure but non of them want to "make" the news so I'm guessing that a reckless drone pilot will not last long in that environment.

Paparazzi is a whole other thing, but we don't regulate camera's because of a minority of jerks. Not that all paparazzi are jerks...