Crazy bureaucracy in America regarding drones

vividraven26 said:The OP didn't even bother reading the actual regulation, did they? Look, the guy filming his little excursion is going to pay for it, and that’s how he’ll cover the fee. That's literally the whole point.

Then just keep ignoring things here too. Hang in there, stay in Germany, and enjoy yourself. They don't charge you for walking through the forest over there either.

It seems like you don't quite grasp what we're discussing here. Honestly, I feel like continuing this conversation with you might be a bit of a lost cause. Perhaps once you've had a chance to look into the facts, we could have a more productive dialogue. 🤦
As my signature points out, you aren't entitled to just any opinion—you're entitled to an informed one.☕

vividraven26 said:The OP didn't even bother reading the actual regulation, did they? Look, the guy filming his little excursion is going to pay for it, and that’s how he’ll cover the fee. That's literally the whole point.

Then just keep ignoring things here too. Hang in there, stay in Germany, and enjoy yourself. They don't charge you for walking through the forest over there either.

Look, it's not about the money, man. It's about the timing.

A few months back, I had to fly a drone over a landslide caused by all those crazy rainstorms. The job came from a local branch of the Department of Transportation because the soil stability was threatening the safety of a major interstate.

So what am I supposed to do—sit around for three months waiting for some bureaucrat to sign off on a flight? And why on earth would some federal agency out in Washington, D.C. be the ones giving the green light anyway? Those folks in D.C. couldn't care less about me, the road, or anything else for that matter. If a permit is actually required, why can't I just get it from the mayor of the town where I'm actually working?

Since when did they start charging people just to walk through the woods in Italy? 😬
Now I see where they got that bright idea.

they don't charge you for picking the fruit.

Anthony Bennett59 said:It seems like you don't quite grasp what we're discussing here. Honestly, I feel like continuing this conversation with you might be a bit of a lost cause. Perhaps once you've had a chance to look into the facts, we could have a more productive dialogue. 🤦
As my signature points out, you aren't entitled to just any opinion—you're entitled to an informed one.☕

If you actually knew what you were talking about, this would be a lot easier. The whole point is right there in the regulation, which, let's face it, you obviously haven't read.

"Section 3.

(1) Aerial filming is considered a specialized aerial operation where the imaging device is located on or within an aircraft.

Carl Cooper17 said:Look, it's not about the money, man. It's about the timing.

A few months back, I had to fly a drone over a landslide caused by all those crazy rainstorms. The job came from a local branch of the Department of Transportation because the soil stability was threatening the safety of a major interstate.

So what am I supposed to do—sit around for three months waiting for some bureaucrat to sign off on a flight? And why on earth would some federal agency out in Washington, D.C. be the ones giving the green light anyway? Those folks in D.C. couldn't care less about me, the road, or anything else for that matter. If a permit is actually required, why can't I just get it from the mayor of the town where I'm actually working?

You can fly a drone under the regulations. But if you're using a plane, you need permission. If the rules say you need a permit, then someone has to hand it over, even if it's those guys over at Špičkovina.

vividraven26 said:they don't charge you for picking the fruit.

If you actually knew what you were talking about, this would be a lot easier. The whole point is right there in the regulation, which, let's face it, you obviously haven't read.

"Section 3.

(1) Aerial filming is considered a specialized aerial operation where the imaging device is located on or within an aircraft.

You can fly a drone under the regulations. But if you're using a plane, you need permission. If the rules say you need a permit, then someone has to hand it over, even if it's those guys over at Špičkovina.

The reality is that this applies to any kind of aircraft. Drones are essentially just smaller versions of aircraft, with the main difference being how they are piloted. It still feels like there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology here, doesn't it? 🤦 As for the specific clause, I actually took the time to read it along with all the other content I linked, unlike you, who I suspect hasn't looked at it at all.☕

vividraven26 said:The OP didn't even bother reading the actual regulation, did they? Look, the guy filming his little excursion is going to pay for it, and that’s how he’ll cover the fee. That's literally the whole point.

Then just keep ignoring things here too. Hang in there, stay in Germany, and enjoy yourself. They don't charge you for walking through the forest over there either.

To the veteran defender of bureaucratic cronyism: please realize that the level of taxpayer oppression in America has become frankly excessive.
What "work" are we even talking about? Most drone footage is just people filming for fun, much like someone using a smartphone. Perhaps the empty-headed bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should implement a permit requirement for every single photo taken on a cell phone, and we can all pay for that out of our own pockets... 😵

nimbleharbor10 said:To the veteran defender of bureaucratic cronyism: please realize that the level of taxpayer oppression in America has become frankly excessive.
What "work" are we even talking about? Most drone footage is just people filming for fun, much like someone using a smartphone. Perhaps the empty-headed bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should implement a permit requirement for every single photo taken on a cell phone, and we can all pay for that out of our own pockets... 😵

I have to agree. Some of these regulations are truly unnecessary, if not downright idiotic.

A while back, there was this big push to cut costs at one of our major landfills by swapping out some of the on-site firefighters for a drone equipped with a thermal imaging camera. The whole idea was pretty slick: once a year, they’d map out the flight path so the operator could just hit "go," and the thing would fly itself from coordinate to coordinate. It would scan the site, and if it spotted a fire, it would alert the operator, who would then call in the fire crews...

But because the regulations are such a bureaucratic nightmare, we couldn't get anything off the ground.
First off, you aren't even allowed to fly the drone at night—it doesn't matter if it’s rocking a high-end thermal camera or not.
Then there's the staffing issue: you need an operator plus a second person (I think the technical term is a visual observer) who has to keep the drone in line-of-sight at all times! So, Steve flies the drone while Stanley watches him and relays info over the radio about where the craft is actually positioned.
And don't even get me started on the mountain of permits, certifications, and other absolute nonsense required...

To top it all off—the cherry on this ridiculous cake—the Department of Homeland Security won't legally recognize any of these measures, which means they can't actually reduce the number of firefighters on duty based on what the drone finds...

Amanda Allen4 said:Unsanctioned drones should be treated just like mosquitoes—they need to be wiped out of our airspace immediately. Honestly, a simple shotgun meant for duck hunting would get the job done perfectly fine. Let's face it: if a drone is capable of carrying a camera, it’s more than capable of carrying a bomb.

Do you honestly believe someone carrying a payload would lose their nerve after seeing the sheer amount of red tape we deal with here? They'd probably think, 'They don't need my bomb; they have enough bureaucracy to suffocate them all on their own.'

nimbleharbor10 said:To the veteran defender of bureaucratic cronyism: please realize that the level of taxpayer oppression in America has become frankly excessive.
What "work" are we even talking about? Most drone footage is just people filming for fun, much like someone using a smartphone. Perhaps the empty-headed bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should implement a permit requirement for every single photo taken on a cell phone, and we can all pay for that out of our own pockets... 😵

Technically, quadcopters aren't actually drones. Real drones are autonomous aircraft that can fly entirely on their own without any support from the ground or the sky. As for this whole business about charging for labor, I suppose that only applies if you're actually trying to turn a profit or get paid for your work—in which case, you'd obviously have to handle the taxes too.

So, I was trying to wrap my head around this idea—the one suggesting that drones shouldn't fall under certain regulations as long as they can't generate more than 79 Joules of kinetic energy. I guess the logic is that if the batteries die mid-flight, the impact from the weight of the drone hitting the ground wouldn't exceed that specific energy threshold? It seems like a bit of a technicality, doesn't it? I mean, how much mass are we actually talking about here... does anyone happen to have a formula handy for calculating Joules? I feel like I must have been fast asleep during my high school physics lectures when we covered this stuff. 😵

Why on earth would anyone be forced to pay an extra tax just because they happen to own a drone or a small aircraft? If they're running a legitimate business, they’re already paying sales tax on their services and all the standard federal taxes required of any entrepreneur in this country.
I mean, I get why people complain if someone is operating under the table, but if you have a registered LLC and you're issuing proper invoices, you're already paying your fair share to the government. It feels like such a ridiculous demand... though, honestly, I can't say I'm entirely surprised given the state of things around here.

Dana Taylor64 said:So, I was trying to wrap my head around this idea—the one suggesting that drones shouldn't fall under certain regulations as long as they can't generate more than 79 Joules of kinetic energy. I guess the logic is that if the batteries die mid-flight, the impact from the weight of the drone hitting the ground wouldn't exceed that specific energy threshold? It seems like a bit of a technicality, doesn't it? I mean, how much mass are we actually talking about here... does anyone happen to have a formula handy for calculating Joules? I feel like I must have been fast asleep during my high school physics lectures when we covered this stuff. 😵

So, if you're looking to crunch the numbers on that quadcopter, I guess the formula would look something like this: you take the mass of the drone in kilograms and multiply it by the height it fell from in meters, then multiply that whole thing by Earth's gravity, and finally divide the result by the total time in seconds squared. It sounds like a bit of a mouthful, but maybe that's just how the physics works out!

Jeremy James3 said:So, if you're looking to crunch the numbers on that quadcopter, I guess the formula would look something like this: you take the mass of the drone in kilograms and multiply it by the height it fell from in meters, then multiply that whole thing by Earth's gravity, and finally divide the result by the total time in seconds squared. It sounds like a bit of a mouthful, but maybe that's just how the physics works out!

So, if we're talking about a little device weighing about half a kilo, how many Joules are we looking at? I suppose the maximum altitude and top speed really ought to be clearly defined by the manufacturer, right? I don't actually know any of those specs—all I know is that my quadcopter is roughly half a kilo, and my remote control range seems to max out around 300 feet or so!

Maybe just program an automatic parachute onto it? That way, it wouldn't be able to hit that 79J energy threshold, and you’d probably save the drone from taking any major damage too.

Actually, if I recall correctly, those FAA regulations only apply to aircraft weighing up to 150 lbs, so a quadcopter doesn't really count. I guess I'm not quite sure what you were aiming at there?
http://www.faa.gov/regulations/example_link_placeholder