[mathogre]

As a hobbyist: Good! I like flying my drone, and I do so responsibly. I don't want people like this ruining it for others, and I especially don't want people like this endangering others with their irresponsible behavior.

I have a DJI Mavic Mini. If you're marginally competent, DJI makes it very clear that you are operating an aircraft and have rules to follow. In certain circumstances, you do not need to be Part 107 certified to operate this aircraft, nor do you need to register your aircraft. That said, you still must follow all related FAA regulations, like them or not. From the linked video from @nathancahill below, I see the Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) issue, night time flying (appeared to be started before the 30 minute twilight, and I doubt he had supplemental lighting which would have brought it over the weight limit for registration), and generally reckless operation. Height is to be 400 feet AGL (above ground level) unless near structures, which allows you to operate 400 feet above that (§14CFR107.51(b)).

The FAA warned him. He didn't pay attention. Maybe a $182K fine will get his attention.

[ohmaigad]

BVLOS is tricky in the age of FPV. Flying behind a large tree is illegal as it is BVLOS. Same with night time flying even on a huge field with no property or people in sight. Basically you are at the mercy of regulators because most of the stuff is illegal or available with some kind of permits.

[mathogre]

On BVLOS, FAA Advisory Circular 107-2 §5.7 actually covers the allowance for brief moments when a drone is out of VLOS. It's one thing for a drone to be behind a tree for a few seconds, and another when a drone is so far away one cannot possibly see it.

As regards FPV and even the very good remote viewing in the Mavic Mini, regular general aviation regulations essentially nullify either of those capabilities as being inadequate. §14CFR91.113(b) states, "vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft." That means in addition to looking forward, you need to regularly look above, below, left, right, and to the extent practicable behind.

On night time flight over a huge empty field, yup, I get it. The regulations make no sense for this.

I could begin a long discussion over the regulatory process in the US, but I won't. I will say however that it behooves drone operators to be aware of and to become involved in the regulatory process. Whether you like the process and the products of that process or not, it isn't going away. The regulations exist, the FAA appears at some level to actually be interested in educating rather than punishing, but they have the power to do what they think is necessary to maintain order and safety.

[ohmaigad]

Ok, so FAA has exceptions, i am not from US so wasn't sure about that because when FPV got popular my local ancient regulation basically said that pilot must maintain visual contact (VLOS only) and even now the latest unified EU drone regulation is kinda shit because you must have a spotter. Realistically speaking - what kind of other random aircraft are going to be up to 120m/400ft or around trees/obstacles when flying a racing drone? I bet it is zero. I am not disputing the fact that there are situations when all the precaution is needed but the fact that you are breaking the law when you are flying your FPV racing drone alone between/above trees alone in a private forest is a bit unsettling (at least based on the latest unified EU drone regulation).

[mathogre]

Here's a great FPV video from Portugal. Just saw it a month ago on YouTube. (If it doesn't play for you, search for "NAZARÉ x FPV DRONE CINEMATIC" on the channel "RED- FPV".) I was actually more hopeful that Europe was doing better than us! I'm not even sure how the FAA would deal with something like this, other than to require some elaborate waiver that would take all of the creative energy out of a project like this.

https://youtu.be/Vsn7jyJ4xhQ

[ohmaigad]

Imo under the new regulation (from 2021) this could actually be completely legal without any waivers depending on where was the pilot, if there was a spotter (very likely) and if the surfers can be considered involved persons (notified and consented etc.). Under my current local rules (not Portugal) this would require to be a certified pilot (theory + practical exam, although if you do this commercially it is a must anyway) and a risk assessment submitted to Civil Aviation Agency.

P.S. I believe the first shot of the video wouldn't fall under any regulation as it is not using airspace.

[mig39]

Ironically, the Mavic Mini seems to have been designed to not be subject to rules, especially in other countries.

Here in Canada, none of the drone rules and regulations apply to it, as it's too small to be considered a drone.

I have a drone ... addiction. I generally use my Mavic 2 for most of my flights, but when I want to fly somewhere I'm not allowed to fly, I switch to the Mavic Mini.

So yeah, all those rules the FAA has in the USA, we have similar rules in Canada and other countries. But they don't apply to the Mavic Mini.

[Sodman]

This is largely true in the US as well, the Mavic Mini is 249 grams intentionally because most of the FAA rules explicitly only apply to aircraft >= 250g. They know exactly what they're doing, it's literally the first question in their FAQ page - https://www.dji.com/mavic-mini/faq

I'm generally very pro-drone but this definitely makes it hard to defend the hobby against anti-drone arguments. Most of the things people complain about we can say "Well that's already illegal, and with RemoteID it will be much easier to report them and have consequences"... But these 249g drones with 30 mins battery life and 4k cameras don't have to follow a many of these laws, even though they cause a large proportion of the problems.