To me, I think either way this activity should be banned. Though the activity should be allowed in some rural area with permits. Especially in a dense, metropolitan city like NYC, flying a robotic copter or drone can pose dangerous. especially if everyone were to fly one.
As a RC plane flying hobbiest my greatest fear is from over reaction to fools like this one. Yes he did the wrong thing. And he's been charged. The present laws seem fine.
The big danger is from over-reaction and then just a law outright banning all civilian use. This is my worst case scenario.
When me and my friends fly it's a day trip. We travel to a remote location, or a large open flying field. We don't fly over people, or sporting events. We check local regulations over places banned from model flying. Where I am (Australia) there are areas where it is not allowed at all. All the inner city areas are off limits except for a few allocated fields. It's all handled at the local council level. Different councils are different.
We fly under the 400ft ceiling and give way to all other aircraft (Hear a real plane? Bring yours down.) We don't need any permits. I usually don't crash but I have in the past, and I know that I might. Components fail. Radio links can have issues. And then there's the wind and the elements. So we take all the due precautions.
I don't want people to ban my hobby because some fools take this new piece of tech and without much experience act recklessly with it. It's a danger with anything. There are young hoons who burn their tyres in the middle of the night on some corner. Don't ban driving. Or the car. Or all civilian uses of the car. Let's all keep our heads screwed on.
Please before raging at me look at what I said. Flying in a dense area is dangerous. Flying in a rural area (or if you want, open field somewhere remote) is fine. So you took the wrong direction. My comment is not foolish at all.
We just need to ban in the city. Even 100 ft is dangerous.
This is not foolish. And importing the argument "ban driving" is certainly foolish because we do have regulations on driving. You can't drive above certain speed and can only drive if you have a permit (if you get caught without a license you get into trouble). You can only drive in a specific designated area called roads.
In essence, if you want to fly within the city like central park. Okay. But it needs to be regulated. Why? Anyone can build a monster copter flying and the next thing is either this copter cut someone's head off or a crash. It is like 3D printing a gun. Without regulation we don't really know who is responsible for what. So a permit seems reasonable. A little law enforcing the consequence, classifying the accident is crucial.
Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter? If you do that in an open field the danger can be minimized (more space to run away), but in a dense metro area (think about 42th street) is harder. So No.
Read my comment carefully before you make your comment (part of it on ban flying copter in the city).
Firstly, your comment is not what I called foolish. I was referring to the original act. Secondly, I'm not raging at all. I'm quite calm. That is what I'm actually asking for. Calmness.
With regards to driving not being related because of it 'having regulations', RC model plane flying has regulations too. Ones I abide by. You say it needs to be regulated. Guess what? It is. I've even talked to my local ranger about the regulations.
I think if you look at it you're actually over reacting a little. If you are worried about "copter cut someone's head off", what about someone who chops someone's head off without first getting "a permit"? What will you do then? There will always be foolish people doing foolish things. And there are laws and consequences.
Have you actually looked at your local regulations regarding RC plane flying?
In both accident, a giant, powerful RC aircraft killed people. Is this the kind we should ban? From the veteran perspective, how do we go about regulating these? Should these be regulated?
Wow. Those stories are shocking! I notice they're both helicopters. I've always found quads and helis scary (dangerous combined with difficult to fly) and I fly RC planes exclusively. The regulations need to recognise both ends of the continuum. The regulations applying to a high powered RC model helicopter should be quite different to those that apply to something like a parkzone mini vapor. But both are considered RC aircraft.
The regulations are outdated too. But not only in the high-powered end, but also the low powered and new micro end. I am not allowed to fly the mini vapor (or any other RC aircraft) in any park in my electorate. But there are many of small park flyers that are very safe.
As is often the case, the law struggles to keep up with the pace of technological change. It's really modern lipo battery tech that has enabled this change. Both at the high end, with large craft using 12 cell lipo batteries (50 Volts and capable of delivering hundreds of Amps for short periods), and at the low end with minture 1 and 2 cell micro lipos.
Regulations could have categories based in part apon things like:
- peak power output of battery/motor system
- material of craft's construction (EPO foam vs balsa or even aluminium)
- size, orientation and exposure of propellors and blades (ducted fans vs multiple large horitonal rotors)
Very simply, the odds of a drone falling out of nowhere and beaning me on the head are quite small, even if once they become popular.
Now, banning drones above a few hundred feet in a landing path for an airport, sure, but let's not kid ourselves that we're significantly helping anyone else.
Regulating urban drone usage by hobbyists doesn't do anything significant to help, and just dissuades people from having fun and learning.
Besides, you're not going to stop the cops or people with enough money/pull from doing it anyways. I'd rather not let the .gov cite FAA regs when nailing protesters, for example.
You don't want regulations on RC aircraft, you want to ban them. But you know nothing about them. I have a small RC helicopter, I could run it into a baby's face at full power and it'd barely tickle.
You've gotten your ideas from media sensationalism of extreme incidents. I could just as easily use your arguments to say "ban bicycles" because someone fell off one and died, or ran into a little old lady and killed her. That's actually far more common than anyone being injured by RC aircraft.
You're not quantifying correctly. Car accidents and bicycle accidents are currently more common than RC aircraft accidents partly because RC use is so uncommon. If you throw in a denominator of operator-hours, the picture likely changes. You should also account for the foresight and preventability afforded to potential victims. From the perspective of a pedestrian or property owner on the ground, it is a lot easier to anticipate and avoid an accident with something moving horizontally than something falling out of the sky. I can avoid stepping into a crosswalk if I anticipate a taxi will run the red light. I can't anticipate something falling on my head.
There are many reasons you might want to ban RC in an urban area besides safety. There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example; I don't think residents of apartment buildings would be amused by drones with cameras tapping on their windows. There's noise considerations. If there are drones flying unexpectedly between buildings and down streets, it's unsightly and distracting. Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities.
Not really. Unlike a water treatment plant, tunnel, power station, etc. that provides benefit to many residents, flying RC aircraft only provides benefits to the users and come with a host of externalities for everybody else. You might as well say "nimby" about guns or drugs.
One benefit you may not have considered is that there is one group for whom flying model aircraft is very common and that is those people who design planes. You may find it an annoying hobby, but it is also much of the childhood inspiration for the next generation of aeronautical engineers.
Most externalities of drug use are a consequence of prohibition.
Meanwhile, blanket gun bans in the US are clearly invalid per two recent Supreme Court decisions. Gun laws in New York City specifically are currently under challenge in federal court, a challenge likely to be somewhat successful.
Few things that don't involve direct and specific harm to another person are subject to blanket prohibition. Rather, we use varying levels of regulation to avoid or minimize harm. Crying for a ban whenever you see a potential harm in an activity is a gross overreaction, and will merely cause people like me to consider you a NIMBY quack.
If this thread had opened with "we need clear rules about operating RC aircraft in heavily populated areas, let's talk about what would be reasonable", the thread would never have existed in its current state.
But that's not what happened. Instead, there was a knee-jerk cry for banning entirely. The irony is that it is your reaction that is emotional -- specifically, the emotion of fear. You cower in the face of things unfamiliar, while accusing those without fear of being emotional. Projection.
How do you anticipate a bicycle hitting you from behind?
> There's reasonable expectations of privacy for example
There is nothing reasonable about an expectation of privacy when your curtains are open.
> There's noise considerations.
More ignorance, more overreaction. Many RC aircraft are nearly silent, and we have noise ordinances for the rest. But I promise, you won't hear most RC aircraft over the din in Manhattan anyway.
> unsightly
According to whom?
> distracting
Oh look, an actual problem to be addressed. Why not talk about that? Oh, right, because it's just a post-hoc rationalization for an initial knee-jerk reaction.
> Let's keep them in the suburbs or rural areas where less people will be affected by these externalities.
You mean where the majority of people, especially children, will have no opportunity to play, experiment, and learn.
We already have laws to control the externalities. The NYPD is investigating this guy for reckless endangerment. That should be more than enough.
Your emotions are coloring your ability to seriously consider how the 99% of urban dwellers who couldn't care less about being able to fly RC aircraft would feel about them being ubiquitous. I don't need to anticipate a bike hitting me from behind on the sidewalk because they are illegal there, and in the street, I look around (horizontally!) like every other pedestrian. I think that you also fail to understand how things like space, privacy, quietness, accountability, and yes, aesthetics are shared resources in a city that have to be carefully balanced among ALL people, not just an emotional or sarcastic 1%. To manage those concerns take resources, like police, city council members, and licensing.
Perhaps you would volunteer to test and license every operator and RC aircraft in the NYC for noise, safety, and flight-worthiness? And to respond to all of the reckless endangerment complaints that will happen anyway? No? Then I guess it will eventually cost me money. And no, I don't think every future reckless operator of an RC aircraft will be dumb enough to record his face on takeoff. It would seem that being able to control them from thousands of feet away, operator unseen, makes it a little harder to police than, say, a hit and run motorist, and the police already have plenty of problems catching them. But perhaps you are ready to volunteer your time and money to solve that problem as well.
Many people choose to live in the suburbs and rural areas (many more than in places with the density of Manhattan, for sure). There are already many different opportunities for kids there that don't exist in the city (why, my kid would like to ride his pony and his ATV on the streets, and go skeet shooting! why can't he?) I shed no tears for the sad future children of Manhattan who will be utterly deprived of the opportunity to fly their RC drones down avenues with hundreds of pedestrians. There are literally millions of square miles in the rest of this country where you can do that at a fraction of the risk. And if their parent really cares, they can drive ten miles into Jersey or upstate and do it in a large open park, the way any responsible person already does today.
Your comment is full of factual errors, erroneous assumptions, and evidence of living in a privileged bubble.
Bicycles are not universally illegal on the sidewalk -- in fact, they're specifically legal on the sidewalk where I live, and yes it's in the US. Not that illegality stops people anywhere.
If you want permits, those are generally funded by fees. Talk about that, rather than a knee-jerk ban. As you've already indicated: Enforcement can be difficult. So how are you going to enforce a complete ban, anyway?
A lot of my money goes to things I don't like. For example, your protection by police, fire, military, and the courts. I'd very much like a refund on that. Just for the portion that covers you, you understand. I'm fine with it going to everyone else. Since you're just one person, that's well below your apparent threshold of 1% for number of people that actually matter, so it shouldn't be a problem, right?
Horses can be lawfully ridden on many if not most city streets, including New York City.
It is probable there is some motorized vehicle your son would be permitted to operate in Manhattan. Electric-assist bicycles are often legal on city streets. Not being able to ride an ATV is a consequence of regulation of vehicular traffic, rather than a blanket ban on wheeled transport, as you wish for RC aircraft. And certainly when your son reaches the appropriate age, he will be able to obtain a license to operate a wide variety of motorized vehicles in New York City and across the country. Again, regulation, not prohibition.
80% of the US population is urbanized. Suburbs are largely for a privileged class, and the extreme rural poor would generally be better served if they could live in a city.
Getting out of an urban environment requires the parent to be privileged enough to have the time to do it, and the money to afford the car and gas. You may think this is no problem for most of the people who can afford to live in Manhattan, but Manhattan is not the only urban area in the US. Banning RC aircraft from urban areas covers many high-population areas that I don't believe you have visited or understand in the least.
Try spending some time outside wealthy uptown areas for a while. There's a country full of urban areas you have obviously not seen or experienced. People living lives vastly different from your own. People you want to rip privileges away from because you think Manhattan is America.
Do you want me to pull out news or video showing people's head got cut off flying copter?
There is a weight class. There are already regulations. People have been flying RC aircraft for fun in cities perfectly happily for a long time and accidents are rare. Most of the aircraft weigh very little. If flying RC aircraft were a particularly dangerous activity then you would expect there to be many injuries when people gather to fly them, but there are not and certainly I have never heard of anyone getting their head cut off.
"This activity" = "the flying of powerful RC aircraft (i.e., at substantial risk of major injury if it collides into a person - it's a quad carrying a GoPro, not a supermarket RC heli), by an unqualified operator (watch the feed from the quad, the guy crashes it five times into buildings before losing control permanently), in an area where there is a guaranteed swarm of people directly below the flight path".
My understanding is that RC aircraft as a hobby, up until recently, has been small enough and hard enough to get into that most newbies get schooled by the old-timers, and as such learn proper safety and how to not be a complete cockup.
With the advent of incredibly cheap RC aircraft, it seems more and more people are getting into the hobby who have no idea WTF they should/shouldn't be doing, have no one to teach them, and aren't aware of their own ignorance. If RC aircraft becomes much more popular than it currently is, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if hard regulations become the norm.
> With the advent of incredibly cheap RC aircraft, it seems more and more people are getting into the hobby who have no idea WTF they should/shouldn't be doing, have no one to teach them, and aren't aware of their own ignorance.
This is very much it. I see the solution as education and mentor-ship. I would recommend anyone interested to get in contact with clubs and activities that are happening in their area. Even indoor flying is an option in the big cities!
The problem is that these people don't know what they don't know. We have extremely powerful RC aircraft being sold without so much as a "so listen, you should really get properly trained on the operation of this potentially dangerous machine".
I'm all for lack of regulation. I'd love for people to be able to fly over the skies of NYC and create beautiful works, but not if the people doing it are completely ignorant like the guy in this case.
It's hard to expect people to seek out clubs and mentorship when they don't even know these organizations exist, or the importance of seeking out proper training. There is an attitude change required here I think.
How would one envision something like that to be enforced in NYC (or anywhere): Stop and frisk for drones? House to house, apartment to apartment sweeps?
And if you find one, and the owner doesn't post his face in a video, how do you track it back to him? My greatest concern with this is that they'll destroy RC aircraft as a hobby. There are many experienced RC helicopter and airplane pilots out there who have been flying these safely for decades. The problem is now that prices have come down (they used to cost an order of magnitude more), every idiot thinks they can do it.
That being said, the 'drone' this man was probably flying doesn't really pose a danger to anyone. They're typically made of foam or lightweight plastic and have very little kinetic energy. A full speed hit to the head with one wouldn't cause much harm (this is pretty much true for anything 100 sized and smaller - anything larger and you can start to hurt people with direct hits).
For instance, something like this: http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/blade-nano-cp-x-bnf-BLH... weighs 29 grams. That's ~1/30th of a kg. This quadcopter: http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/nano-qx-bnf-with-safe-t... weighs 16.5 grams. Banning stuff like that would be a huge overreaction. My largest helicopter (I fly RC stuff, if you haven't already figured it out) is ~750 grams, which is definitely large enough to hurt someone, but requiring me to have a license to fly it in my back yard would be crazy - I have 12 acres, which is ample space. Besides that, I've never crashed it, because unlike that buffoon, I know what I'm doing :) (edit - never crashed this one. As stated by another poster, components do fail, even on real aircraft, so it does happen). That being said, because I know what I'm doing, I'd never try flying it off a balcony in NYC.
TLDR; Responsible/skilled people should be allowed to fly, irresponsible people should be held accountable. If they can nail him for reckless endangerment, I think the current laws are strong enough.
In the UK I think that if you fly a remote control aircraft through a video feed rather than through line of sight then you need a pilots licence and then normal flying rules apply. Banning new classes of flying things is hardly neccessary when you have a licencing and training regime readily available with a century of experience in dealing with airbourne vehicles.
