Should Consumer Use of Drones be Regulated or Banned in the U.S.?

http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/lifeguard-drone-seve...

Being a beach fan, this one gets my vote of approval!

Its nice to see more positive news reports on drone use.

In this instance it's not the device which is licensed, it is the operator operating a transmitter from a temporary location. You would be correct for items such as repeaters as they normally are fixed at a site such as a building with an antenna exceeding 6.1 meters.

In the public safety realm only the fixed sites are identified with the mobile units in vehicles carrying no identification nor the portable units attached to the body. These are all lumped together under the heading "mobile." Repeaters and such fall under the "fixed base" classifications with the exception of temporary or FBT. They are treated as mobiles which can be set up anywhere within their authorized area of operation for periods of less than 1 year.

Drones should not be banned, but regulated. Regulation of drones will take several years of legal activity to make decisions on cases where drones are used. For instance, how high does your property line extend into space? When can you say your rights and privacy have been infringed upon when a drone is involved? How can a flying drone be regulated in a common area such as an apartment complex, a condominium development, or a high rise that serves as a multi-family dwelling? Does the owner of a property have the right to bring a drone down that is circling their property, if the owner feels like their right to privacy is being invaded? Obviously, regulation is needed, but will take time to be implemented.

In the old days, 85Megs I believe, there are still some who use these freqs, but why, shorter range and interference you had to have a freq flag/TAG ON YOUR ANTENNA SO OTHERS KNEW AND DIDN'T JAM YOUR SIGNAL. Now are in the Gig's and freq hopping so when you lock in your RC and Trans no one can get into your unit.

There are special Freqs for RC Aviation and Ground and the do not require a HAM license, they are not in the HAM Bands! They also have FPV that uses your Smart Phone, again no license required. As for the 1600'range that what most transmitters are rated, but for safety that's way to far. As I said before RC Heli's can kill.

I'm not going to do your home work but look up RC transmitter Freq then look up FCC Regs, you will see the are "No License Required", dedicated RC freq

By the way I'm a Extra Class, Accredited Volunteer Examiner and no I will not give out my call as that will give out my name and address.

http://rcvehicles.about.com/od/frequency/p/US-RC-Frequencies...

Now you're changing the subject. We were talking the 5.8GHZ FPV RC video transmitter. This is completely different as these RC controller transmitters you're now bringing up have an FCC ID number affixed to the transmitter. Completely different animal.

Before the influx of the multi-rotor aircraft, the RC community pretty much patrolled themselves. Now it's a different story. One reason is, as you can see on this thread, with just one controlling issue at hand, many have come up with excuses why it only affects other people and not them. Even though both the Manufacturer AND the Retailer tell you a Ham license is required to operate, they decided it didn't include them.

There already are height restrictions and distance restrictions in place, which some apparently already decided it didn't include them.

One way this can be controlled is if your buddy isn't following the law, turn his a-- in. He'll quickly get the message. For being an "Extra Class, Accredited Volunteer Examiner", I would have expected more knowledge on this subject.

RT

either we control ourselves or it will be forced on us.

that they do not fall in HAM Bands? Most of the "So Called" Drones on news and Hobby Quads using legal RC Freq, run by "Outlaw Hobbyist" in illegal manner, Not out of legal RC freq, just in no fly areas.

(and I'll assume other National Parks and Monuments as well) had signs stating clearly and concisely that no drones of any type are allowed to be flown there.

It's amazing how clear the video is but I also do understand that in general people don't appreciate being watched /recorded by whichever means.

http://www.techspot.com/news/60971-watch-firefighters-attemp...

Drones are dangerous, deadly and should be treated just as if you point a firearm at someone without legal justification!

When I fly my heli's I only fly in clear Areas away from people, the blades even on the micro's are sharp and rotating at high speeds. I am at least minimum 30' away from heli at all times as it just takes a wind gust or hiccup for disaster to strike!

Deadly?

Come on, now! That's complete hyperbole.

Potentially dangerous when operated recklessly? Certainly. As are many, many other things.

But yes, it's advisable and within the recommended FAA guidelines to stay away from people who are not involved in the operation of the craft.

But deadly? Show one case where a fatality has occurred from the operation of a recreational quadcopter.

You said what I was going to say. Some are using these crafts to see what they can see. Whilst looking at videos of real aircraft approaches, I came across a youtube video of a young girl sunbathing in a thong, obviously she was not a consenting adult.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-he...

I would be more inclined to regulate the government's use of drones and let citizens and consumers have greater leeway.

This incident was a full remote helicopter.

the incident in a concert where the quad copter drone used to film the show was reached for and grabbed. It doesn't rate as a fatality but does show the danger of the rotor propellers. Everyone involved agres the incident could have been deadly had the skill of the pilot in executing the maneuver been less. Even though it was a "planned" stunt, it did go horribly wrong and a serious injury resulted.

My eyesight ain't what it used to be, so I like the 41 pellets over the eight or nine of 00 Buck.

The statement was "Drones are dangerous, deadly and should be treated just as if you point a firearm at someone without legal justification!"; MM changed it to "quadcopter". Technically, the heli is a Drone. Some of what the military call 'drones' are single-engine UAS. Even if you add in a definition factor of 'multi-rotor aircraft', that still would include the heli as it is at least a two-rotor aircraft.

The definition really has no bearing on this fatality. With the increase in the number of these UAS, the increase in their size, the increase in the number of rotors, and the lack of concern of many of their operators, it’s inevitable … it’s going to happen again.

RT

This one will do a job on you:
http://hackaday.com/2013/09/20/heavy-lifting-copters-can-app...

Nine Misconceptions about drones that engineers wish you’d shut up about:

http://gizmodo.com/9-misconceptions-about-drones-that-engine...

And then there are the Mosquito sucking drones:

http://gizmodo.com/mosquito-sucking-drones-could-predict-out...

Some Humorous Gizmodo posts on the use of delivery drones:

http://gizmodo.com/maybe-we-should-just-stop-worrying-about-...

Pardon some of the language.

I'll take a Blade MCP-X heli, little bitty thing, about 12" carbon fiber blades, if it hits you even through shirt, it will draw blood. I've hit furniture and it will put a 1/8" ding in the wood. If it hit you in the head face, you would have a knife gash

http://www.horizonhobby.com/helicopters/blade-helicopters/mc...

Not a quadcopter.

The Inspire 1 NEVER should have been hand caught. It does not have anywhere that is safe to catch as opposed to the Phantoms which are regularly hand caught.

And again, they certainly can be dangerous. This individual, however, was involved in the activity and not an innocent bystander.

A fatality is a fatality, regardless of who it is!

RT

My statement was in reference to the individual who got injured at his concert trying to catch an Inspire 1. Hence, the post I quoted.

This was not a fatality. Not even close.

Sorry, thought you were referring to the pilot who got killed.

RT

The good:
Drones used to locate and identify sharks near beaches:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks/shark-files-drone-s...

The bad:
Drones used to smuggle drugs across the border:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/world/drug-drone-crashes-us-me...

The ridiculous:
Drone deep-fries turkey for Thanksgiving:

http://www.wusa9.com/story/entertainment/2014/11/26/drone-tu...

And now he can fly, at least until there's a slight breeze and he falls into the blades.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/26/drone-that-carries-people...

They should give that guy a fire extinguisher and send him out to San Bernadino CA to help fight the Big Bear Lake fire.

That might help make up for the drone that caused the diversion of 3 US Fire Service planes trying to fight the fire.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/drone-flying-over...

It was bound to happen sooner or later. A teenager has modified a hobby drone to fire a handgun.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/gun-drone-connecticut/

It will be interesting to see how regulators handle this new threat.

A large number of drones in a county that has thousands of flights each day poses great danger.
We'd better get it under control & fast.

Fred

Ground all commercial air traffic To ensure safe flying conditions for the drones!!

The biggest problem was birds around the runways. Now we have to worry about all these idiots flying their toys in the area. Granted there have been RC planes and helicopters but they were harder to fly and if you put that much time and money into it you tried to keep it in one piece.

They definitely need to change the laws but we all know that a law wont stop some people. Maybe the operators and owners should be required to be certified like pilots are.

They should be required to carry some exorbitant amount of liability insurance which would just about preclude anyone other than Bill Gates and his friends for having one. Then to buy one you need to have tho insurance company certify you have the insurance before you could buy it.

We keep hearing reports of drones getting in the way during fire fighting efforts. Just last week the airborne fire fighters could not get to the fire because of several drones in the way. California has a bill pending that allows firefighters to neutralize drones that get in their way.

I don't think regulation will keep the idiots from flying their toys where they shouldn't. But we have to do something. I think a 'kill' function that can be triggered by emergency service people that would allow them to shut off a drone that's in their way would be a good idea.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/

http://petapixel.com/2015/07/03/camera-drones-are-getting-in...

banned only for idiots who put people in danger

Fire Fighters should be able to remove drones that get in the way, they already go over or through cars parked in fire lanes if necessary. I don't like the idea of a kill switch. They want to put them on motorcycles so cops can catch them easily. It would just be abused when someone starts selling a gadget to kill them. It shouldn't be hard for the fire fighters to jam the frequencies used by the remote controls. The frequencies are already regulated. Once the owners start loosing control of the drones they might stay out of the way.

...they may be fun for the hobbyist, but they pose a danger to airplanes and other emergency type operations. I am of the opinion that the FAA needs to ban these things ASAP.

"Should Consumer Use of Drones be Regulated or Banned in the U.S.?"

Regulated... Maybe (To what extent?)

Banned... No

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Yep, let's ban drones. While we're at it, let's ban cars, trucks, pedestrians ... they all 'pose a danger' to 'emergency type operations' when idiots are involved.

Outlawing anything isn't going to stop the crooks. Guess who have automatic weapons. Guess how many of the drone operators give a crap about any laws, or the cost of their drones, when they use them to carry drugs across the boarder. Guess how many of the idiots that point lasers at airplanes care that it’s illegal.

You’re also suppose to have a ham license when operating certain video transmitters. Guess how many drone operators bother with that.

You can't ban Stupidity!

RT

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/07/28/san-bernardino-cou...

[quote}]
But deadly? Show one case where a fatality has occurred from the operation of a recreational quadcopter.[/quote[

Today it was reported on national news that drones flew close to landing aircraft at JFK airport. If one had been drawn into one engine we would have heard about the 130 plus dead because of one idiot. Drones do not belong near airports

Now here's a guy who doesn't give a crap about the law ... 16 OWIs.

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/public-safety/cedar-rapids-...

RT

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/09/05/remote-control-he...

wasn't a quad but quads are just as deadly if you operate near people

The US Department of Homeland Security issued an intelligence asessment of terrorism threats posed by hobbyist drones.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/homeland-security...

http://www.ktbs.com/story/29691714/homeland-security-issues-...

Looks like we have nothing to fear about drones. Eagles will deal with them - watch video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdgvlHH3JSA

Let's migrate eagles to all the airports and drones Will no longer be a problem!

guide lines for all things is the best you can do, common sense must be used with drones law's at times are a waste of time and money and do nothing but put money in a lawyers pocket.
guns kill, forks make people fat, pencils make people dumb.
laws help guide honest people to do the right thing but how do you stop an idiot ? some times life is frustrating !! lol