As a matter of fact, I do. I am asserting that flying a drone in human-carrying-airspace is at the very least “attempted murder”, and if you kill someone while doing so it demonstrates mens rea, which makes it “premeditated murder”, which is a Class A felony in most states.
Check with your attorney and see what he says about your liability in such a circumstance. For all I know you may live in Wyoming, and it’s perfectly fine to shoot at aircraft overhead.
To address the similar problem in Europe, EASA asked the industry to develop ADS-L, the “light” version of ADS-B.
Talos Avionics ADS-L is fully compliant to the EASA ADS-L 4 SRD 860, short and medium range.
We also have an FTS (flight termination system) over ADS-L available as required by EASA Means of Compliance (MoC) document Light-UAS.2511-01
Our equipment can be adapted to the US market.
Please visit www.talosavionics.com
Just as any person should be held liable for damage or worse. No more. No less.
As to the rest of his post, I don’t think any reasonable discussion could be had. Most of the time such diatribes don’t worry me. However, many times I am taken aback and think, “behold a jury of your peers”.
Let’s call this what it is, an attempt to grab airspace for their money-making business under the justification of their business has more value than the non business pilot flying in the same airspace, therefor they should have priority over the airspace. The author is correct in one aspect, he’s alienated everyone else whom uses the same airspace they want priority over. It’s his apparent opinion that those without ads-b should be forced to get it. His negative tone of calling everyone else non-compliants whom by law don’t have to have ads-b puts his opponents in a negative context. It’s obvious he appears to be an everyone under total control via ads-b so they can all be watched. I wonder what drone manufacturer he’s being paid by… That or an FAA positive control of GA fan whom thinks such control is safer.
Just because the drone special interest group wants priority over airspace doesn’t make it either right nor safe. Their value doesn’t dictate priority, safety does. The rules as said earlier are for safety reasons, not profit vs non profit reasons.
THose using the 0-500’ airspace need to oppose this seriously or they will get their way and another freedom will be lost.
If a kill switch is activated then you have the problem of a drone falling on someone. Or several.
Sounds like you are describing business jet operations.
Realistically, achieving meaningful controls for drones, ensuring safety, protecting privacy, and reducing noise pollution, is possible, but it’s an uphill battle. The technology and regulations needed to address these issues are complex, costly, and far too slow to match the rapid expansion of the drone industry. Without decisive action, communities may find themselves with little more than complaints as drones buzz overhead.
The pro-drone movement, backed by deep pockets and political influence, has momentum on its side, making it difficult for local opposition to gain traction. Yet, communities are not powerless. By organizing, enforcing existing laws, and demanding accountability from drone operators and regulators alike, they can push back. Local and state governments have a crucial role to play in slowing the drone invasion, using tools like zoning restrictions, privacy laws, and noise ordinances to mitigate the impact.
The real question is whether communities and their leaders are willing to take a stand or if they’ll resign themselves to a world that’s noisier, less private, and increasingly dominated by unchecked drone operations. The swarm is turning, and without action, the consequences will be irreversible.
You guys are forgetting one minor issue when discussing the current dilemma. Public acceptance and perception. Drone operators are not largely perceived as rich snobs with noisy luxury toys. The average citizen without any affinity to general and business aviation (largely incapable to differentiate between B748 and Cessna “Sportplane”) appears to be indifferent to topics such as:
• Invasion of privacy
• Operation in restricted/ prohibited airspace
• Risk analysis (Midairs, Terrorism, Espionage)
• Did Drone hit Plane or vice versa?
The integration of drones into the NAS is a matter of convenience for most. People DO like the idea of having a fully autonomous apparatus deliver their pizza, geoceries or latest buy now purchase - whereas rich people with expensive noisy toys are perceived as a nuisance and environmental disaster.
Best of all: Drones are Battery Powered! Another E-Everything that is healthy for the environment!!
Example: Where I live, its prohibited by law to operate a drone close to (e.g.) a police station or public building, close to energy infrastructure and so on. Yet, Joe Schmuck operated his DJI BVLOS above maximim permitted altitude and lost control of his “toy”. Instead of returning to base, the little bugger crashed someplace.
Joe Schmuck now posted on a local group on Facebook, asking fellow trolls to help him locate his drone. And guess what they did?! They went and found it for him!
We’ve had these topics for more than a decade.
I am afraid, we are beyond the suggestion phase.
Common Sense has left the chat.
The drones will win the fight.
—@Jethro442: “If a kill switch is activated then you have the problem of a drone falling on someone. Or several.”
Vs. Hundreds in a 777 on final. Or a firefighting tanker. Or me.
Didn’t say it had to fall on persons. Kill switch could be just that - Drone is in a bazillion, non-harmful pieces. Or autoeject parachute. Or programmed to drop a hundred feet. The point is, if operators want to play in the airspace, they have obligations to those who are already there, and the same level of responsibility. I think the thought of losing a strong monetary outlay would tend to be self enforcing for them, and result in a higher standard of care. As Aviatrx said, albeit more forcefully.
Well, as a manned aircraft pilot, I’ve had my doubts about drones, especially when it comes to how they can encroach on airspace. It’s a real concern, bad actors or careless operators can cause serious safety issues. The idea of an untrained person flying a drone near an airport or a busy flight path makes my stomach turn.
But I’ve also come to respect the technology. These little machines are packed with wonders, stabilization, cameras, even autonomous flight capabilities. It’s incredible what they can do for their size and price. They’ve opened up aviation to people who might never have thought about flying otherwise, and that’s a good thing.
The trick is balancing the marvel of drones with the need for safety and accountability. When used responsibly, they’re amazing tools and a lot of fun. But we can’t ignore the risks of misuse, whether it’s accidental or intentional. They’ve earned my respect, but they’ll always need to be kept in check. Too old for this kind of fun.
Well stated, Raf. There must be a balance point somewhere. We have local RC pilots who have their own field and are well away from our traffic pattern and practice areas. Yes, there are mavericks and there are risks with RC aircraft, but it tends to be very localized. There are responsible drone operators who follow the rules and have a modicum of common sense. Unfortunately, those responsible UAS pilots seem to be in the minority, at least in my neck of the woods. We have had several incidents in our area with drones at pattern altitude and in or near the traffic pattern. That is unacceptable at any level and should be punishable/actionable by the FAA and the law.
I’m still OK with a ban on drones, with the exception of first responders. I might be talked into allowing certain commercial ops as long as they were strictly regulated and with stiff penalties for non-compliance. I don’t trust the media drones and don’t need to have a close-up of the latest disaster.
At some point a drone is going to take down an aircraft resulting in a loss of life, perhaps many lives. Unacceptable.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.