Rogue Drone Usage

Could drones be used to pollinate crops without the FAA blessing. Seems that a farmer can dust his own crops without a commercial ?
 
Wonder how many gov't agencies are running rogue drones? Probably plenty but of course the problem is the guy filming his house from 50 feet.
 
People are already using lasers to upset the pilot,how long before we get them flying drones at us for fun?
 
Sleepingsquirrel said:
Could drones be used to pollinate crops without the FAA blessing. Seems that a farmer can dust his own crops without a commercial ?
Click to expand...
I doubt the bees are even aware of the FAA's existence, but I think the workers do the pollinating - not the drones.
 
frfly172 said:
People are already using lasers to upset the pilot,how long before we get them flying drones at us for fun?
Click to expand...

I was surfing the other day and, while changing in the parking lot next to Pacific Coast Highway, saw two high school age kids PURPOSELY and at the same time throw a football and a frisbee from the parking lot, and down onto PCH, directly into the spinning wheels of a tight peleton of about 20 cyclists. The group went down en masse, bikes and bodies strewn all about. The kids sped off on their own bikes. One rider comes out with a broken arm and a broken clavicle. Fortunately, that was it.

Completely random violence, ... for some sick sense of fun.

That's the kind of person that shines a laser in a pilot's eyes to see what happens.

Sadly, under the control of the same type of person (sociopath?), the intentional drone interference with a landing or departing aircraft will happen too. It's not if, it's when.
 
Last edited:
Sleepingsquirrel said:
Could drones be used to pollinate crops without the FAA blessing. Seems that a farmer can dust his own crops without a commercial ?
Click to expand...

The FAA keeps claiming that commercial drone use is not allowed, but so far, they haven't been able to point to a regulation or statute that says so. The case on appeal to the NTSB is based on a "careless or reckless" claim, which seems like a weak footing.
 
Palmpilot said:
The FAA keeps claiming that commercial drone use is not allowed, but so far, they haven't been able to point to a regulation or statute that says so. The case on appeal to the NTSB is based on a "careless or reckless" claim, which seems like a weak footing.
Click to expand...
The FAA's argument against/for drones was just posted on their website. If you believe they "own" the entire airspace, then you can agree that commercial operations require control similar to any commercial aviation operation.
 
According to their logic, if I toss a paper airplane in my back yard for profit I'm breaking the law. I think that web page describes their take on reality, but of course any regulatory agency will claim absolute power over everything as their default position, until someone (like the courts) say otherwise.
 
DaleB said:
According to their logic, if I toss a paper airplane in my back yard for profit I'm breaking the law. I think that web page describes their take on reality, but of course any regulatory agency will claim absolute power over everything as their default position, until someone (like the courts) say otherwise.
Click to expand...
And based on that logic, shouldn't they also regulate football, baseball, soccer, golf, etc. That will certainly get someone's attention!
 
silver-eagle said:
And based on that logic, shouldn't they also regulate football, baseball, soccer, golf, etc. That will certainly get someone's attention!
Click to expand...

Clearly some regulation is called for (maybe not by the FAA?). They should at least be regulated in airspace near airports and there do seem to be some privacy issues at stake, possibly.
 
silver-eagle said:
The FAA's argument against/for drones was just posted on their website...
Click to expand...

And notice that they don't cite any regulations or statutes on that page. The Federal Register notice they point to refers to AC 91-57, which is clearly labeled as voluntary. The notice also refers to the regulations for experimental airworthiness certificates, but the requirement for an airworthiness certificate in this context is described as a "policy," which is not the same as a regulation or statute.

In another thread, I provided a link to an article in which some attorneys pointed out the weakness in the FAA's legal position. I certainly don't object to the FAA's regulating unmanned aircraft, but I wish they would come up with a clearer legal justification for their current "policy."
 
Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed that the FAA didn't cite any regulations or statutes on that page. This attorney's Web site contains a rebuttal of the FAA's "myth busting" on commercial use of unmanned aircraft.

http://dronelawjournal.com/busting-the-faas-myth-busting-document/

Introductory paragraph:

On February 26, 2014, the FAA published on its website a document entitled, “Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft.” It purports to dispel “common myths,” and provide “corresponding facts.” It does neither. In fact, it’s no more than a rehash of what the FAA has been falsely claiming all along. It again cites no relevant federal statutes, federal regulations or case law to support its claims. Because there aren’t any.
​

His home page goes into some detail on current drone law:

http://dronelawjournal.com/
 
denverpilot said:
He's an entertainer out of Nebraska and the video is fake.

But his other videos aren't. He plays with some fun toys.
Click to expand...

I admit that he certainly had me fooled. It was fun while it lasted... In thinking about it, that payload could not be carried. Although there are currently larger multi-rotors that have significant AUW. [ and the old GM car that was blown up was a dead give away...]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top