Stupid people will always do stupid things, sorry can’t regulate that but I get your point.
So the stupid person goes on their way with a G.I joe up their ass and continues to do stupid things and the “smart” ones just added more fees, fines, and education expenses to stay current on their government regulated “JOB” or hobby because they supported stricter regulations. Well played
No, I think one of the jobs of the Federal government is to protect its citizens (as a former military person I assume you agree with that also, at least to some extent). In addition to protecting it from external threats, and assisting in natural disasters in the form of the National Guard, it can and arguably should enact rules that protect people.
I’m all for questioning, but if the Feds don’t regulate airspace… who should?
While I might agree that local municipalities should control their local streets they do not control the Interstates. Local laws for local streets only affect the local area. Interstates are, by design, for connecting a multitude of local areas, and enable one to travel quickly from one small town to another. Rather than have the rules change every 10 miles (which at freeway speeds means more often than every 10 minutes of travel) there is a more uniform approach to regulating travel on Interstates overseen but larger units of government, ultimately, by the Feds.
Likewise, while there is room for local input in aviation (changing standard traffic patterns to avoid overflights near a hospital where the noise might disturb the sick and injured being a common one), because air traffic connects distant areas even more so than the Interstate system, and at even faster speeds, the need for uniform rules over great distances is even more necessary - and that is a major reason the US airspace is controlled Federally rather than at the local level.
In other words, Federal control of air travel isn’t done simply because some cackling, power-hungry politicians gibbering in a back office seized power one day, there is actual a rational basis for it.
The US actually is one of the least regulated aviation systems in the world. Yes, I know many have trouble believing it, but as a couple examples: in many parts of the world every flight without exception MUST file a flight plan and maintain contact with air traffic control. In the US, if you’re flying in good weather you don’t have to do either. You can fly coast to coast in your own private airplane without ever talking to any government agent. (You will, of course, have to avoid the big hub airports like LaGuardia, O’Hare, and LAX but you’d probably want to do that anyway on such a trip). You can ask for an exception to nearly anything - I personally knew a group of people who wanted to fly several ultralights into Chicago’s Meigs Field for a youth event, which normally would be absolutely forbidden. They wrote a letter to the local FAA office that covered Chicago with a detailed description of what they wanted to do and how they would ensure the safety of any bystanders. They got permission and did the flight. In the US anyone can build their own airplane and, provided it meets basic safety standards (similar to being road worthy for a car) they can have it licensed and fly it to their heart’s content. The US even lets unlicensed people fly a certain category of aircraft (called ultralights) with NO requirements whatsoever other than weight, seating, and speed limits, basically, the FAA will happily let you risk your own neck provided no one else is put in danger by your actions.
How much more freedom are you going to argue for? I’ll repeat: in the US the Federal government will let you risk your own life in aviation activities as long as no one else is put at risk by your actions.
The biggest problem being it’s surprisingly easy to put other people at risk in aviation. I mean, you might think you’re all alone up there but if you screw up you might fall on someone’s house.
No, it wasn’t. It’s been in the works for at least 5 years that I know about. It’s driven by advancing technology. The tech for remote control of small flying machines (or big ones, for that matter) used to be extremely limited and limiting. That has changed. RC aircraft a.k.a drones a.k.a UAS is now MUCH more capable and accessible. This means many, many more people are using them, typically with much less skill than used to be required.
Just as a road might be used by cars, trucks, bicycles, and skateboards with occasional crossing pedestrians we now have all sorts of things with vastly different capabilities and purposes occupying our airspace. In order to prevent both chaos and accidents there needs to be some traffic rules everyone obeys. That’s not tyranny, that’s sense.
This isn’t a “backyard issue”. A drone smacking into an airliner could, potentially, kill hundreds of people and those people might well be from some other nation (or, more likely, several nations).
Actually, no, I did not - my first two years I flew as an ultralight pilot, and the entire list of “onerous” regulations I followed is listed here. If you read them you will note that it’s mainly concerned with assuring untrained yahoos don’t fall on top of someone’s house, or an actual someone. The US is the only nation with a policy this liberal, allowing any flight at all without requiring any lessons or knowledge at all. (Personally, I took some lessons first. My choice. Chuck Yeager supposedly took three hours of instruction prior to trying out an ultralight and I figured, since I know I’m not as good as Chuck, I should get at least that much.)
However, as soon as you put a second seat on your flying machine - in other words, as soon as you start to risk someone else’s neck along with yours - you have to get some training and follow some rules. I personally think that’s a good idea because the average person knows jackshit about aviation and in completely unqualified to determine if either the machine or the pilot is airworthy and safe. I can show a piece of paper (actually, several of them at this point) demonstrating I have received training appropriate to the machine I’m standing in front of and passed several tests of my competency to reassure anyone considering a ride with me that I’m not a complete idiot in these matters. I think that’s a good thing. What do you think?
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “bullet heater” but the ones I’m familiar with are explicitly NOT intended for home heating and can generate carbon monoxide in hazardous quantities when used in enclosed spaces. I don’t think the manufacturers want their product killing people even by accident. While I might concede that you, personally, have the “right” to risk death by carbon monoxide poisoning you do NOT have that “right” for anyone else - including a spouse or children also in your home. So, presuming we are both thinking of the same device when you say “bullet heater” no, I don’t have a problem with a regulation that prevents the potential death of entire families. That’s entirely in line with government’s duty to protect its citizens.
If you have something different in mind when you say “bullet heater” please let me know.
Well, some countries simply outlaw personal flying machines, of any size, altogether. Now THAT is “ruining liberty”.
Just as people driving automobiles have to adhere to certain rules for the safety of all, so should people sharing our common airspace. “Drones” are currently posing a safety problem. Should the government simply ignore that until a tragedy, or several of them, occur?
The Feds having jurisdiction over US airspace has long been established in court, for decades. That battle was fought (and won or lost depending on your viewpoint) back in the 1920’s. I don’t know why you seem surprised that the Feds control the skies. It is their jurisdiction.
Keep in mind the government in no way has told people to stop flying their drones. They’re asking folks to register for two reasons: better tracking of drones that get into trouble (and that would include returning a drone that lost contact with an operator and landed safely elsewhere - RC operators have long put their address and phone number on their airplanes for that very purpose), and ease of the government issuing updates and consistent rules to everyone involved in this sort of flying. Is that really so terrible? “Please register, when you do so, we’ll send you a formal list of all the current rules so you know you have a complete and accurate copy.” That’s tyranny? :rolleyes:
As I said earlier, as a pilot I’m already on a mailing list produced by the FAA. They send me such tyrannical things as invitations to free safety seminars where they tell me how to keep myself safer when in the air. That’s tyranny? :rolleyes:
Yes, there are many rules and regulations I’m not fond of in aviation, many hassles, and much paperwork. However, after flying for a number of years (and burying a number of ultralight pilots who were either ignorant of the rules or felt they didn’t need them, and a couple of general aviation pilots who flouted the rules, one accident being described in this thread) quite a bit of the rulebook actually does make sense and is there for solid reasons. I agree we should push back on excessive regulation but I don’t see the new drone rules as excessive. If you do, please point to specific points you feel go too far.
Gee, I wouldn’t have guessed… 