全部
← Back to Squawk list
Conn. photographer files lawsuit to continue UAV use
Should a photojournalist be able to take photos in public with a drone? Why is this platform for photography any different than a tripod or ladder? (www.dronejournalism.org) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I still say, fly one over my property under a couple hundred feet and I'm considering it a complimentary skeet target.
I think most people would agree in regards to any such trespass on their property. There was even that town that was considering a law to create a hunting permits for (federal?) drones in their town.
No low-level drone flights should ever be permitted over private land without the landowner's express permission, even after FAA issues drone rules.
Except law enforcement. But even then such flights should only be permitted with a court order. There should be no difference at all in law, between low-level overflight and tresspass on the ground.
Owners or their agents and employees should be able to use drones over their own land for any purpose whatsoever.
I would even grant a liberal use of drone technology in public spaces, especially by journalists. But only by permit, and subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for public safety.
Initial basic rules could be implemented quickly to allow experimentation which would inform more permanent future rules.
But this recent power grab by the FAA interferes with all uses of all remotely controlled aircraft for everything but the simplest recreation use (with has decades of history). Combined with its' bureaucratic and inertial snails' pace speed of drone rule implementation creates an undue impediment to both liberty and business.
No low-level drone flights should ever be permitted over private land without the landowner's express permission, even after FAA issues drone rules.
Except law enforcement. But even then such flights should only be permitted with a court order. There should be no difference at all in law, between low-level overflight and tresspass on the ground.
Owners or their agents and employees should be able to use drones over their own land for any purpose whatsoever.
I would even grant a liberal use of drone technology in public spaces, especially by journalists. But only by permit, and subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for public safety.
Initial basic rules could be implemented quickly to allow experimentation which would inform more permanent future rules.
But this recent power grab by the FAA interferes with all uses of all remotely controlled aircraft for everything but the simplest recreation use (with has decades of history). Combined with its' bureaucratic and inertial snails' pace speed of drone rule implementation creates an undue impediment to both liberty and business.
"But only by permit, and subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for public safety."
There is the rub.
Who issues the permit, establishes which restrictions are necessary and defines the scope of 'public safety'?
There is the rub.
Who issues the permit, establishes which restrictions are necessary and defines the scope of 'public safety'?
Permits available from and rules promulgated by local authorities as necessary.
Instead of banning all uses, the FAA could issue 2-3 pages sample rules that could be customized to the locality (urban vs suburban vs rural) issues.
It would just be an experimentation which could be adjusted or even cancelled outright based on progress.
Cars and other land vehicles are allowed to exist even though a plane load of people are killed on the roads EVERY DAY. That's a narrowbody of car passengers killed every day. Imagine a JetBlue A320 plane with close to 100 people falling out of the skies every day. Worldwide it would be a dozen widebodies. Imagine 12 Emirates 777s with nearly 300 passengers each falling out of the sky every day.
We still allow cars, trucks, and buses to ply our roads. That's because they have utility, and provide society lots of benefit.
Remote controlled aerial vehicles would also be quite useful. It's certainly worth the risk of experimentation, sooner rather than later, even if there us sone risk to property or safety of people on the ground.
Not that I expect many injuries or deaths, and even property damage should not be astronomical.
So there really is no reason to get give it a try with dome experimentation that would inform our future regulations.
Instead of banning all uses, the FAA could issue 2-3 pages sample rules that could be customized to the locality (urban vs suburban vs rural) issues.
It would just be an experimentation which could be adjusted or even cancelled outright based on progress.
Cars and other land vehicles are allowed to exist even though a plane load of people are killed on the roads EVERY DAY. That's a narrowbody of car passengers killed every day. Imagine a JetBlue A320 plane with close to 100 people falling out of the skies every day. Worldwide it would be a dozen widebodies. Imagine 12 Emirates 777s with nearly 300 passengers each falling out of the sky every day.
We still allow cars, trucks, and buses to ply our roads. That's because they have utility, and provide society lots of benefit.
Remote controlled aerial vehicles would also be quite useful. It's certainly worth the risk of experimentation, sooner rather than later, even if there us sone risk to property or safety of people on the ground.
Not that I expect many injuries or deaths, and even property damage should not be astronomical.
So there really is no reason to get give it a try with dome experimentation that would inform our future regulations.
Agree, keep it local. Fed finger sticking into that pie ostensibly is Interstate Commerce. (Not 'because we can and are too big to stop').
* so there really is no reason to NOT give it a try with some experimentation that would inform our future regulations.
