Drones resumed

[ZX11]

Too small for a positive ID. A little P-51?

 

[Lee Jay]

Too small for a positive ID. A little P-51?

 

[ZX11]

Too small for a positive ID. A little P-51?

 

[Mike CH]

I do not want to take all the fun away from R/C enthusiasts, but we need to have it so that a terrorist could not blend in as an enthusiast and drop a bomb on a football crowd.

Or fly a highly contended national flag into the stadium during a high risk soccer match and thus incite a riot!

No, wait, that already happened...

Regards, Mike

 

[Carey Brown]

Dukhat wrote:there.

A terrorist isn't going to try to blend in. He is going to find a nice spot where he can fly his aircraft, launch it and do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damned thing anyone will be able to do about it. Make them illegal if you like, the bad guys are still going to get them and use them.

This is as good a time as any to trot out the anti gun control argument, as it applies here. Criminals aren't going to obey the law.

True, but drones, unlike guns, aren't in the hands of very many people. Banning them now would make them harder to obtain. Plus if they are completely banned, you could assume that any drone you see airborne is flown with criminal intent. I think that is an overreaction to the issue.

Frankly, I don't take issue with the current US FAA rules for hobbyists, i.e., follow the AMA rules. Those rules should be enforced and carry significant penalties. I also applaud the NPS for banning them in the national parks. Unfortunately it took a number of injuries before they made that decision. I would like to see the FAA get its act together on commercial use.

Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.

 

[Mike CH]

The interviewer asked why he didn't take photos that would probably have earned him a Pulitzer Prize nomination at that time. He replied that sometimes, the people are more important than the photo.

Kudos to the man for being able to look beyond his immediate wants!

Regards, Mike

 

[Lee Jay]

Too small for a positive ID. A little P-51?

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.

I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.

 

[Lee Jay]

Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.

I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.

I'd like to see confirmation of that. It sounds to me like people making up injuries that never happened because they were annoyed.

In 28 years of flying, I've never once seen or heard of a bystander injured by a model aircraft.

 

[donaldsc]

Are we done?

 

[Dareshooter]

Are we done?

--
Don

No idea what you mean, your reply is a bit too cryptic for me.Care to elaborate ?

Regards, Dareshooter

 

[PhotoSenpai]

All drone users will have to register and file "flight plans" just like any pilot.

To be clear, flight plans are optional and not required for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and only required for IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).

I own and fly a helicopter; outside of congested areas, I generally fly between 500-1000ft AGL. Drones should not fly above 500ft without authorisation and a transponder. A 747 may be able to ingest a small drone into an engine and be OK, but a drone hitting the tail rotor of the average helicopter could kill everyone on board. I've often flown over groups flying model aircraft and this can be OK if they understand the altitude limitations/rules.

 

[Lee Jay]

All drone users will have to register and file "flight plans" just like any pilot.

To be clear, flight plans are optional and not required for VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and only required for IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).

I own and fly a helicopter; outside of congested areas, I generally fly between 500-1000ft AGL. Drones should not fly above 500ft without authorisation and a transponder.

No, the rule is 400 feet, and it's just a guideline except within 5 miles of an airport. I've flown at 3,500 feet before though I don't recommend it (even a big plane is a dot at that altitude). High start launches put the glider at about 500 feet.

A 747 may be able to ingest a small drone into an engine and be OK, but a drone hitting the tail rotor of the average helicopter could kill everyone on board.

So could a bird. See and avoid is the way to go. Birds don't really do that effectively.

I've often flown over groups flying model aircraft and this can be OK if they understand the altitude limitations/rules.

R/C aircraft should not be intentionally flown in proximity to full-scale aircraft, ever. Whenever we have an airshow that's mixed models and full-scale, we entirely ground one set while the other is flying.

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.

I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.

I'd like to see confirmation of that. It sounds to me like people making up injuries that never happened because they were annoyed.

It doesn't agree with your world view so they must be lying? I would think that an injury would need to be visible to be reported. The rangers have no reason to fabricate such a story. Considering the probable amount of paperwork, I would think that the rangers would prefer such incidents not to be reported.

In 28 years of flying, I've never once seen or heard of a bystander injured by a model aircraft.

The first page of a Google search will bring up several verifiable fatalities in the last year alone. The R/C community is a very responsible group yet they have fatalities. Judging by their YouTube videos as well as the comments they make in these forums, the typical drone flyer is somewhat less responsible.

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

Not yet.

 

[Lee Jay]

Who, exactly, got hurt in the National Parks? I guess I missed that in our sensationalist news. The only NP/drone incident I know of is when a drone went down in one of the thermal pools in Yellowstone. Other than that, all other reports were just people being annoyed with the drones.

I was chatting with the rangers while renewing my commercial use (photo workshop) permit for Everglades NP last week. They told me they had three reported injuries prior to the ban.

I'd like to see confirmation of that. It sounds to me like people making up injuries that never happened because they were annoyed.

It doesn't agree with your world view so they must be lying? I would think that an injury would need to be visible to be reported. The rangers have no reason to fabricate such a story. Considering the probable amount of paperwork, I would think that the rangers would prefer such incidents not to be reported.

Not the rangers, the visitors reporting it to them.

In 28 years of flying, I've never once seen or heard of a bystander injured by a model aircraft.

The first page of a Google search will bring up several verifiable fatalities in the last year alone.

I know of two, ever, and neither was a bystander.

 

[Pontoneer]

Anyway, I dont think just anyone being able to fly a drone is a "constitutional right" and it looks like we might have some steep legislation on the way.

The law says we can, if we follow the rules (FAA Modernization Act of 2012).

All drone users will have to register and file "flight plans" just like any pilot.

That's entirely stupid. How about having every bird do the same thing?

The reason being at our airports there have been a lot of cases of "close calls" where a collision almost occurred between a drone and a passenger aircraft.

And a lot more far-less than close calls with birds.

This was on the news tonight but of course the other thread was full so I could not put it there.

Oh..if it's on the news, it has to be true.

And to whomever made the comment about passenger aircraft.....lol what? I was specifically referring to unmanned aircraft that present both a safety AND privacy concern.....

Actually, the vast majority present neither one.

The fact of the matter is, R/C aircraft are just about the lowest hazard to air travel there is. Birds are around 10,000 times more dangerous than R/C aircraft, and there's very little you can do about it. And even so, the numbers one, two and three causes of hull losses and fatalities of full-scale aircraft are still human error.

R/C aircraft have been flying uncontrolled in the national airspace for 70 years. Can you guess how many hull losses and fatalities this has caused over that period?

--
Lee Jay

There has been a big change in R/C and drones in the last few years. As technology changes the laws need to change to protect the public. TV shows are following the technology. Like I said somewhere there have been two recent shows about how drones were used by terrorists.

I do not want to take all the fun away from R/C enthusiasts, but we need to have it so that a terrorist could not blend in as an enthusiast and drop a bomb on a football crowd.

whvick

A terrorist isn't going to try to blend in. He is going to find a nice spot where he can fly his aircraft, launch it and do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damned thing anyone will be able to do about it. Make them illegal if you like, the bad guys are still going to get them and use them.

This is as good a time as any to trot out the anti gun control argument, as it applies here. Criminals aren't going to obey the law.

Gun control works : we have strong gun control here in the UK and don't have the problems with guns that are evident in places with widespread gun ownership ( legal and illegal ) elsewhere in the world . -- With kind regards Derek.

 

[Pontoneer]

I'm just hoping a few of them fly over some of the areas here in duck shooting season. Saves them scaring off the birds at the estuary I like to take photos at. In fact, I might apply for a shot gun license here.

Danny.

Would you be okay with people that don't like pictures being taken to shoot your camera equipment?

The camera equipment doesn't harm the subjects.

You didn't answer the question.

R/C aircraft don't harm birds.

Win to the bird this time ;-)

See?

How much damage can be done though in the wrong areas with endangered species or protected animals, birds, etc.

Not as much as is done by people. Maybe we should shoot all of them.

Natural instinct for nesting birds is to protect the area, lets not invade that space, unless of course you are all for it.

Nope...now I'm sure we should shoot all the people.

--
Lee Jay

Ahh, you are right I didn't answer the question.....

"Would you be okay with people that don't like pictures being taken to shoot your camera equipment?"

In my cases yes I would, but preferably not with me standing behind it In some countries you would be just asking for it.

As for drones, blocking the frequencies could well be an option in certain areas.

Oh yes, that would be the epitome of intelligence, wouldn't it? Block the operator from being able to control his aircraft, thereby ensuring it will crash, possibly hurting someone?

Did you take your stupid pill this morning or are you a genetic idiot?

Clearly , he meant that by blocking frequencies in certain areas it would be impossible to fly the things in those areas in the first place . -- With kind regards Derek.

 

[Lee Jay]

Gun control works : we have strong gun control here in the UK and don't have the problems with guns that are evident in places with widespread gun ownership ( legal and illegal ) elsewhere in the world . -- With kind regards Derek.

It would work in the US about as well as prohibition did. Worse, probably.

 

[Pontoneer]

Dukhat wrote:there.

A terrorist isn't going to try to blend in. He is going to find a nice spot where he can fly his aircraft, launch it and do whatever he wants, and there isn't a damned thing anyone will be able to do about it. Make them illegal if you like, the bad guys are still going to get them and use them.

This is as good a time as any to trot out the anti gun control argument, as it applies here. Criminals aren't going to obey the law.

True, but drones, unlike guns, aren't in the hands of very many people. Banning them now would make them harder to obtain. Plus if they are completely banned, you could assume that any drone you see airborne is flown with criminal intent. I think that is an overreaction to the issue.

Frankly, I don't take issue with the current US FAA rules for hobbyists, i.e., follow the AMA rules. Those rules should be enforced and carry significant penalties. I also applaud the NPS for banning them in the national parks. Unfortunately it took a number of injuries before they made that decision. I would like to see the FAA get its act together on commercial use.

Depends where you look ; here in the UK , there are probably more people flying RC models and camera drones ( the public probably don't differentiate between the two ) than shooting guns . -- With kind regards Derek.