Not if you're flying a helicopter, which does not have a height restriction.
Also, if an airplane pilot is flying below 1000' AGL, not only do they have a large, highly visible tail number that will identify them... they're also putting their own life at risk.
On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to. There was an incident in the news just a few weeks ago: http://kron4.com/2015/12/06/california-highway-patrol-helico...
They don't have a set "in stone" one like fixed wing aircraft, but if you go buzz a few homes for no reason the FAA will still throw a fine your way. Additionally whirlybirds don't want to operate too low as it substantially reduces their emergency landing sites even with auto-rotation.
> On the flip side, there are clearly some quadcopter pilots that fly above the 400' limit, even though the FAA has asked operators not to.
Which is fine, if they're below 1000 feet, and aircraft aren't allowed to fly below 1000 feet then there is no issue.
The only issue with drones is when they exceed 1000 feet, or are in controlled airspace (airports, events, emergency situations, etc).
I'll add that there are many airports inside class G airspace (the formal definition for what people call "uncontrolled airspace").
For approaches to any airport, there is an exemption to the FAR 91.119 minimum altitudes "except when necessary for takeoff or landing".
So by no means does being outside controlled airspace (in class G airspace) and under 1000' keep you separated from aircraft who are following the FARs.
Most of these "drone sightings" being reported are near airports since that's when aircraft are flying low. There have also been cases of idiots taking drones up several thousands feet and encountering aircraft further from airports.
The very first line of what I said is: "If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport, major event, etc)."
Your insurance quip is rather ridiculous, unless they've come out with a whole new class of life insurance.
It was a response to the above about the cost of repairs, nobody said anything about someone dying (except you).
Thing is, model aircraft hobbyists have been -for the most part- safely and responsibly flying RC aircraft for nearly a hundred years. These fliers haven't had any FAA registration requirement, and have not been required to put identifying information in their aircraft.
The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around -and doing great good- since 1936. It has encouraged the development and nurturing of a culture within the model aircraft pilots' community that highly values safe, sane, and reasonable operation of model aircraft. One of the big ways that they do this is by chartering local model aviation clubs.
Every store I'm aware of that specializes in model aircraft will -when you purchase an RC aircraft from them- steer you towards your local model aircraft club. This lets you know that there are folks who can train you (and let you get hours or months of fun from your new toy, rather than seconds), and lets those folks train you so that you learn how to not a hazard to yourself and others.
It's a damn shame that so many retailers that sold "drones" failed to point their customers to their local model aviation club.
So, anyway. People have been -entirely legally- flying aircraft that are substantially heavier, substantially faster, and -potentially- substantially more dangerous than "drones" for many, many decades. Perhaps the biggest difference between then and now is that the majority of folks then [0] were encouraged to learn how to operate their toys safely, and took the time to do so.
[0] And when I say "then", I don't mean to imply that this effort is not still ongoing. The AMA is still around, and doing its damnedest to reach the drone-flying yahoos who are endangering themselves and others with their reckless behavior.
While I tend to side with the less regulations side of things, I can also see how there is a gap in the regulations here.
> ...[the issue is] that the price point for model aircraft has dropped so substantially that they can't keep up with it anymore...
I'm not entirely sure that that's true. If I'm remembering my prices correctly, you've been able to get started in the hobby for a few hundred dollars for a long while.
My theory: Helicopters are substantially cooler than fixed-wing aircraft, and can be flown in really small spaces. However, they are hard as fuck to fly [0], mechanically complex, comparatively expensive, fragile, and prone to breakage. Now, quadcopters with computer-controlled motors are substantially cheaper and more durable than RC helicopters, and can -crucially- be flown by anyone who has at least half a brain and one hand... just press the "up" lever and away you go! The time investment barrier to entry has dramatically been lowered, making the hobby approachable by every yahoo who lacks the patience to ask "Am I using my toy in a safe and sane manner?". [1]
It's very clear that the AMA hasn't been able to get major retailers to do what the downtown airplane store reliably does. It -IMO- isn't a matter of keeping up with demand, but rather influencing big players (who previously would never have stocked RC aircraft) to help steer newcomers into the preexisting training program.
> ...the increasing amount of people who are misusing them and Amazon, Google, etc. that want to create drone flight paths has forced the governments hand.
This seems like an ideal situation: Commercial operators are regulated by the FAA, and are required to register their craft, file flight plans and whatever. Commercial operators should always be subject to some degree of regulation and oversight. Hobbyist operators who are a member of a model aircraft club (or were a member in good standing for $A_WHILE in the past) are obligated to follow FAA, AMA, and club guidelines and are liable for violations of FAA general regulations regarding interactions between model and full-scale aircraft, but are not required to register themselves or their craft with the FAA. Hobbyist operators who aren't and have never been associated with a club? If the danger that the FAA is reacting to is real and not overblown media-driven hysteria, require them to register with the FAA and ID their craft until they can either pass a training course to demonstrate that they're responsible, or they join a local model airplane club and get trained.
Like I said, it's pretty clear that the training provided by model airplane clubs has enabled folks to safely and responsibly regularly fly substantially more dangerous aircraft than most any quadcopter. The training provided by these clubs works.
It's a shame that the FAA seems to feel that it suddenly needs to make folks who are part of a very successful, long-standing nationwide flight training program submit to pilot registration and aircraft identification.
[0] I mean goddamn _fucking_ hard.
[1] Don't get me wrong, here... making the hobby more accessible and lowering barriers to entry is good. Model aviation is fun, largely wholesome, and can be a gateway drug to things like woodworking and aerospace engineering. ;) However, it is -IMO- dreadfully important to leave the "learn how to operate your toy in a way that doesn't endanger yourself and others" barrier intact.
But thanks for the example of clueless drone advocates, who just want what they want because they want it.
At first I thought the various posts calling some drone operators morons were being harsh. Now I don't.
Where on earth did you read that? Yes, the rule is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a radius of 2,000 feet when over a congested area, but when not flying over a city, minimum altitude is 500 feet.
Why did you ask me and then quote the exact regs back verbatim? Why ask a rhetorical question with the implication that I am wrong if your very next sentence is going to confirm that I am indeed correct?
As you yourself said, 1000 feet is the minimum allowed in most normal situations. You can go fly over the desert at 500 feet if you wish, but drones won't be an issue out there.
If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules and I hope they get fined.
Also, this is why most aircraft have insurance...