NewYorkophile
Fly Casual
I'm not arguing against that at all- but line of sight still falls well within our capabilities to hit them.
Excellent news concerning Drones
- Thread starter Seggy
- Start date
I'm not arguing against that at all- but line of sight still falls well within our capabilities to hit them.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Nah. I've been flying models for 35 years, no way a full scale will hit a model. Easy to stay out of the way? Folks have been flying models for 60 years RC. How many have you heard hitting a full scale? Notably one, at an airshow, where the full scale pilot flying a little biplane was completely out of bounds being a bad pilot. The RC guy did not get in trouble, and IIRC the biplane guy got violated.
esa17
Well-Known Member
UAS have close calls with other assets for the exact same reasons manned aircraft do. The vast majority of the time it's due to pilot error.And you clearly have no idea just how many birds we DO hit, and how many millions it costs the taxpayers each year. I can't imagine the damage a 50+ lb "bird" would do.
#noperspective
As far as training is concerned, there is a tremendous difference between operators with and without manned flight experience.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
What is your basis for that statement?
esa17
Well-Known Member
Type rated in two UAVs, operations on three continents in both the military and civilian environments including the Afghanistan theater and flights out of an international airport with 121 service. Oh, and I've got a full house of FAA certificates including 2 jet types.
I lost count of how many times I saw a kiowa driver get upset because he fornicated the K-9.
I lost count of how many times I saw a kiowa driver get upset because he fornicated the K-9.
tbstanto
Well-Known Member
In the past, there were only a very small number of RC's. Now, there are thousands and thousands of quadcopters/etc... that are being sold. They are easier to fly, and people are giving them to their young children for Christmas presents. Personally, I live within 5 miles of a class Bravo airport (my house is actually just under to the glideslope intercept for a runway at that airport (fortunately, it is only seldom used and is quiet). In the park across from my house, there are kids there at least once a week flying these things far beyond sight. I talked to them, but they said that their parents said that it was ok, and they really didn't care. I reported them via the online form on the FAA website several times, and nothing was done. I then called the tower and talked to a supervisor. The police were called and the kids (and their parents) were told that it was illegal and that the FAA would be in contact with them. I don't know how it ended, but I know that they don't fly there anymore.
It is just a matter of time before people are killed by these things.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
We're talking about two different animals here.
The thread started off with the typical hobbyist "drone", more closely representing a toy, or FPV, which is not at all what your operating. I would absolutely agree, pilots should be flying anything over a 100 lbs or so, especially if beyond line of sight operations.
But the biggest threat to U.S. operations IMHO is idiots launching little "drones" into airspace that they do not belong. They are selling these by the crap load. You can get one on Amazon, and be in the air in an hour. And go hover 1500 feet over anywhere.
Flying a 3K pound actual drone? Yeah, some flight experience is going to help. Flying a quad to get video of a shoreline? Not so much.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
How are they flying beyond line of sight? Are they wearing goggles?
tbstanto
Well-Known Member
Are you asking for tips?
It is pretty easy to fly them out of sight - there are tons of videos on YouTube of people flying them above clouds, etc... With GPS return feature, they come home even if they get out of range. Else, you can view the footage wirelessly from a GoPro to a phone from a pretty good height (well above 400').
esa17
Well-Known Member
I disagree, especially since my last platform had a MTOW of under 50#. It's my opinion that if you're operating an aircraft for commercial gain you should be appropriately certified. Flying a UAS isn't as point and push as people think it is and if a quadcopter slams down on someone's head in a crowd or through the windscreen of a car on the interstate it's going to ruin someone's day. You need to be ready for an emergency situation no matter what you're flying.
That said, UAS aren't the boogiemen most manned pilots make them out to be. A professional system monitor is a professional no matter if they're flying a UAS or a E-175.
I think there needs to be a commercial standard for UAS operations that should lead to a commercial FAA certificate. The standard needs to be platform specific and based on the system requirements and limitations including a heavy dose of EPs. By requiring a commercial certificate two things are accomplished. First a proficiency level is maintained and then the operators have skin in the game. Making a bad decision when you only have the aircraft to lose isn't that big a deal. But, if you're constantly making decisions based on the level of safety required to keep your certificate everyone will be much better off.
There is no flying any UAS BLOS without spokes or SATCOM. Both are cost prohibitive in most civilian applications. Flying on a RH route that you preloaded is beyond reckless.
That said, UAS aren't the boogiemen most manned pilots make them out to be. A professional system monitor is a professional no matter if they're flying a UAS or a E-175.
I think there needs to be a commercial standard for UAS operations that should lead to a commercial FAA certificate. The standard needs to be platform specific and based on the system requirements and limitations including a heavy dose of EPs. By requiring a commercial certificate two things are accomplished. First a proficiency level is maintained and then the operators have skin in the game. Making a bad decision when you only have the aircraft to lose isn't that big a deal. But, if you're constantly making decisions based on the level of safety required to keep your certificate everyone will be much better off.
There is no flying any UAS BLOS without spokes or SATCOM. Both are cost prohibitive in most civilian applications. Flying on a RH route that you preloaded is beyond reckless.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
No, a phone is not involved.
That is why I was asking if they were wearing goggles.
I have no problem with that for commercial operations. I said that in the beginning. Commercial operators are not the issue for safety threats though. It is joe the plumber, or an ignorant hobbyist (there are quite a few of those too) putting the model in a spot it is not supposed to be.
esa17
Well-Known Member
If you want to fly an RC your property that's fine. But, start adding cameras and sophisticated autopilot systems and a standard needs to be met. It's not really any different than the structure built into very serious model rocketry.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
You're preaching to the choir.
IMHO, the FAA needs to make complete examples of folks flying these things in inappropriate ways.
But for many (me included) who can and do fly in an appropriate manner, there is no violation of safety.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
I think anything beyond line of sight operations is out of bounds.
This is my style of flying, and in no way is it unsafe to anyone or anything: And it does have a pretty sophisticated autopilot and GPS
tbstanto
Well-Known Member
Is there a medevac helicopter enroute to an accident scene somewhere above you? How would you know? Are there aerial mapping operations taking place near you? Police helicopters? Military flights at low levels?
If you can't answer those things, you are not operating safely.
You have no transponder. No lighting (in most cases). The RC is not looking out for other traffic, and it is so small that it will be almost invisible to other traffic.
If you want to be a pilot, go be a pilot. If not, fly a flight sim game on your computer and stop risking lives.
If you can't answer those things, you are not operating safely.
You have no transponder. No lighting (in most cases). The RC is not looking out for other traffic, and it is so small that it will be almost invisible to other traffic.
If you want to be a pilot, go be a pilot. If not, fly a flight sim game on your computer and stop risking lives.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
BS.
We fly with an observer, out in the country. Unless a medivac can operate in a cone of silence, there is not an issue? Again, folks have been flying model airplanes for DECADES. With your line of reasoning everyone should just throw everything out?
tbstanto
Well-Known Member
If you want to fly RC's out of an abandoned airport and there is a NOTAM or similar alert for RC activity, I have no problem with it. Other than that, that is absolutely what I think. They do not belong in the air. When people fly them in their backyards with no due regard for the safety of actual airplanes with real pilots in them, I have a huge problem.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Than I guess I will suggest you do not know enough about the topic.
I probably have 30K invested in the hobby, and 12K hours flying. I have skin in both games.
People have been flying model airplanes for 6 decades. How many have been slaughtered by them?
There are huge clubs all over world with runways long enough to put a 172 down on them. Guess we should just bulldoze them over?
esa17
Well-Known Member
This is where we get into the weeds. First and foremost "see and avoid" often times becomes a hopeful practitioner of the Big Sky theory. Second, transponders that will paint themselves on most TCAS can be purchased that are the size of a large watch circuit board.
It's very possible to be a conscientious and safe operator if you have the appropriate training and experience.