[beeeeerp]

Those pilots are in the minority, and already accept a much higher level of risk. Also, drone flights that have been problematic are typically in congested areas (much like laser problems).

What might have been better is if the FAA had created a way for those pilots to create mini low-level TFRs or protected airspace to warn drone pilots not to fly their during inspections. It’s also worth mentioning that many survey jobs are being replaced by more advanced drones due to cost.

I do respect what you are saying, but having a foot on both sides of the fence can’t help but feel like the FAA had a knee-jerk reaction to drones.

If I fly a 600g drone below treetop level in a heavily forested, rural area, it will have 0 impact to aviation. This is currently illegal without licensing, additional hardware, or a flight notification. I find this silly.

[defrost]

> Those pilots are in the minority

Their racked up line kilometres aren't though.

In the light aircraft domain working survey and dusting aircraft ideally work all the daylight hours with pilots on shift to take over as daily flight hours pass personal limits.

The economics are such that the planes are always aloft, parked at night, or being maintained.

Air Transport companies price light passenger and mail runs on the basis of daily, perhaps twice daily A->B runs, Air Tractor companies price on the basis of 100,000 line kilometres jobs completed as rapidly as possible in order to move onto the next, there's a backlog of mineral exploration and agriculture work demanding more craft and pilots.

> and already accept a much higher level of risk.

I'm sorry, are you saying that makes it OK to add more risk to low level drafting by just allowing any old drone up in the air anywhere at all?

Until some form of comprehensive regulation is resolved and upheld with drone operators required to get clearance for airspaces it's still better to err on the side of human safety now.

[8note]

It's pretty safe flying that low, more like driving a car than flying a plane, because the danger is the forward movement and not the falling

[beeeeerp]

I’m going to disagree unless you are in a specific area of aviation, because it severely reduces your emergency landing options.

[defrost]

Depends on the operator, K.Geophysics operated for 25+ years with 15+ airframes (mostly fixed wing, some heli's) with zero deaths or crashes.

Another company bought them out and had three major crashes and five deaths with the next two years.

You can put that down to quality of maintainance and route planning.

One crash due to engine failure on takeoff and climbing, a second due to tangling with power lines that were not on the flight plan, the third I'm unsure but IIRC it was maintainance again.

By cause these were crashes caused by poor support surrounding the work rather than intrinsic risk of low flying .. of which only the power line tangle had an element of, which wouldn't have happened had the support team down their homework.

[beeeeerp]

Maintenance and operation is a big factor, but engine-outs do happen.

It also seems like you are talking about helicopters, which have a special exemption: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

In a fixed wing, altitude is absolutely your friend and gives you more options to land, which equates to a higher probability of finding a nicer emergency landing spot.

And to your point, power lines that are shorter than 199ft don’t have to be on the charts. I could erect a tower off major airways or near an airport to that height without prior warning.