I don’t fly my drone at 35,000’. I don’t see commercial airliners or any other aircraft under my 400’ agl ceiling. Why am I being punished and losing my freedoms? Because someone else can’t be responsible? How is the act of one or a few good enough to overreach and regulate the vast majority of people who fly these things?
Just because there are laws sayings felons can’t have guns, it doesn’t stop them. Law abiding citizens aren’t the issue here. I don’t feel like I should have to pay a penalty because someone else can’t follow the rules.
If I do something stupid, I should be held accountable. Period. Not my neighbors, not my friends, nor should any strangers.
There is no way to legislate stupid people from being stupid. It just doesn’t work. Never has, never will.
Always respected and appreciated don't forget to voteWell let me add my 2 cents
I feel like the vast majority of the members here are professional pilots, not hobbyists like myself. The Inspire is a professional model, not aimed at the consumer market. I for one dabble in videos and really like the capabilities of my Inspire. So for me, at least until I get my license, this is just an expensive hobby. So of course the votes here on Inspire Pilots will skew towards pros saying the hobbyists should be tracked and regulated just as they are. However, if you were to post this very same poll on a general DJI forum, I'll just about guarantee the opposite would happen. Don't ya think?
I completely agree with the sentiment that the few "hobbyists" are the ones causing us issues here, but I'll also bet that people pushing this are just afraid. They don't know what they don't know and are making a knee-jerk reaction to these "scary flying machines that spy on me." A few incidences just don't prove to me that this is such a huge problem as it's being made out to be. It's a reaction to fear. Laws and regulations will not fix that either.
hi, keep believing that... my friend had 2010 Land Rover LR4 HSE stolen for joy ride, the cops had it overnight, ALL CARS ARE TRACKED. at least the nice ones. and so are the nice dronesA transponder isn’t airframe specific nor is it tied to a certain pilot. I call BS on the individual tracking nonsense. I wouldn’t mind a simple and generic transponder specific to drones, maybe. But I’m against the entire need to track individuals and their particular craft and flights. My car may be registered, I may have a license, but the government doesn’t track where I go and when, nor do they need to. Heck, you can fly a real plane and not file a flight plan if you so choose. The same applies to my drone. “They” don’t need that info and I don’t plan on giving it to them.
Well let me add my 2 cents. I see manned aircraft under 400ft All The Time over my property. Usually either Helo's from 34th street heliport on ill-advised nap-of-the-earth sightseeing tours, or military aircraft doing mountain terrain training out of Stewart International. Your mileage may vary by location. However, if I had the choice to squawk ADS-B out from my drone or fixed wing, I would elect that option, for my safety and the safety of others. Should that be mandatory? It's certainly an issue that's debatable, especially for hobbyists. I think it will be a moot point with NexGen, however.
There is nothing in the Constitution that governs flying aircraft that can kill hundreds of people if misused.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ATAY&usg=AOvVaw0s3iNyE2mr9pw6WTNROYhb&cf=1
It's our constitutional right!
FAA's Panel Fails to Agree on Need for Drone Security Measures ...There is nothing in the Constitution that governs flying aircraft that can kill hundreds of people if misused.
As long as irresponsible hobbyists fly into airports and high altitudes we need to know who they are, like it or not.
It's not surveillance, its safety, and it's prudent.
FAA Authorization Extended to September 30, 2018 | AMA ...There is nothing in the Constitution that governs flying aircraft that can kill hundreds of people if misused.
As long as irresponsible hobbyists fly into airports and high altitudes we need to know who they are, like it or not.
It's not surveillance, its safety, and it's prudent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?