Busting the GoPro Drone Cowboys

Using Foreflight I approximated the location shot at 1,200 feet, then measured range & bearing from KMGN (Harbor Springs, Michigan). It was 2.9 nm from the center of the airport at a bearing of 289 degrees magnetic. This is only nine degrees R of the extended centerline of RWY 28 for departing aircraft, or nine degrees L of the extended centerline of RWY 10 for arriving aircraft. Incidentally, there is quite a bit of parachute activity during the summer - the jump planes operate from KMGN, and the drop zone is 1-2 miles east of the drone's location. Can you imagine the hazards this guy poses to skydivers!?

I spoke with GRR FSDO this morning and sent them an email, two attached images, a link to this guy's YouTube video, and a request for an investigation and enforcement where appropriate. Next: Municipal airport manager.
 
Derg said:
What's hilarious is that I went to an outdoor sports n guns event in Arizona a few years ago and the event had a hexacopter with a camera to film some of the event.
Click to expand...

I think it is extremely commendable that no-one went after the hexacopter with a scatter gun like it was Duck Hunter … at a FLIPPIN' GUN SHOW!
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The FAA should be regulating anything that enters the airspace, hobbyist or not.
Click to expand...

Not only do I disagree, I strongly disagree. Granted, one shouldn't be flying around in controlled airspace with an RC airplane. But the guy flying his airplane around the park is not a problem. The guy flying his "1/2 scale F4" in airspace where he will and does cause a problem should be handled properly. This shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction by the FAA to regulate the crap out of Grandpa Jenkins who scratch built a Piper Cub with a 72" wingspan using a model airport miles and miles away from a controlled airport. A few people need to be made an example out of to get the point across. But like I said, Grandpa Jenkins isn't that guy.
 
mshunter said:
Not only do I disagree, I strongly disagree. Granted, one shouldn't be flying around in controlled airspace with an RC airplane. But the guy flying his airplane around the park is not a problem. The guy flying his "1/2 scale F4" in airspace where he will and does cause a problem should be handled properly. This shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction by the FAA to regulate the crap out of Grandpa Jenkins who scratch built a Piper Cub with a 72" wingspan using a model airport miles and miles away from a controlled airport. A few people need to be made an example out of to get the point across. But like I said, Grandpa Jenkins isn't that guy.
Click to expand...

The issue is where you draw the line for altitude limitations. Sure, 400ft sounds fine, but there are a whole bunch of us wearing green pajamas that fly a lot lower than that.

Maybe an altitude & weight limitation. Must weigh under 150lbs, stay below 400ft, within visual range of operator, no closer than 5NM to Class B/C/D, no closer than 1NM to public airfields, etc.
 
Roger Roger said:
That is nuts. Wonder how long it's going to take before some airliner takes one to the windscreen.
Click to expand...

This. These things are going to keep going unabated until something really bad happens. Someone will get killed or an airliner will suck one through the engine and the the new regs will flow forth.
 
NewYorkophile said:
The issue is where you draw the line for altitude limitations. Sure, 400ft sounds fine, but there are a whole bunch of us wearing green pajamas that fly a lot lower than that.

Maybe an altitude & weight limitation. Must weigh under 150lbs, stay below 400ft, within visual range of operator, no closer than 5NM to Class B/C/D, no closer than 1NM to public airfields, etc.
Click to expand...
The latest proposed rule is 55 lbs and under, for hobby use only (not commercial use), and within line of sight (LOS).
I say proposed, because the FAA hasn't got any sort of timeline when any of this will actually start going into the regs.
 
Isn't uncontrolled airspace a good restriction for this? It's already defined, and pilots already know there could be anything going on in there. You say non-pilots don't know airspace, but I say they can be made to learn if they're flying RCs.
 
The high-powered rocket guys have been good neighbors.

For that matter, the R/C guys haven't been a problem. I guess the ability to fly autonomously out of sight is a major issue.

That said, it's going to be a bird or a Cessna that hits me.
 
Minuteman said:
What is this under-the-table Système International bo-honkus; that's almost exactly 25 kg! (which seems freakin' huge for the current field of non-commerce ROVs)
Click to expand...
I agree, that is huge.

Especially when an average quadcopter with a go-pro weighs roughly 5 lbs.

Most of the larger foam rc planes with cameras on them weigh well under 10 lbs as well.
 
Bernoulli Fan said:
Isn't uncontrolled airspace a good restriction for this? It's already defined, and pilots already know there could be anything going on in there. You say non-pilots don't know airspace, but I say they can be made to learn if they're flying RCs.
Click to expand...
Would be a great place for it, and a common sense answer to the issue, both commercial and hobby use. But the FAA really isn't about common sense (just look at the FAR 117 rest rules) and is much more about keeping people busy (ie jobs) in Washington.
 
It's still an enforcement problem, IMO. We have rules everywhere, but most people ignore them unless there is a good chance of getting caught and punished.
There used to be several guys who flew RC jets off of our runway when I was doing fire patrol. They flatly refused to cease flying, or at least monitor the CTAF, saying "It's your job to see & avoid."
The local PD finally ended it, but this attitude is, in my experience, very prevalent in the developing drone ops community.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be upset with limitations on altitude and airspace for UAVs.
But you all know that they will be.....
 
Pilot Fighter said:
The high-powered rocket guys have been good neighbors.

For that matter, the R/C guys haven't been a problem. I guess the ability to fly autonomously out of sight is a major issue.

That said, it's going to be a bird or a Cessna that hits me.
Click to expand...
The RC guys have dealt with this responsibly for many years. As I recall they're required to belong to a national organization which requires liability insurance and the owner/operator's name in/on any RC aircraft that they operate.
 
How about this for the new reg: "No unmanned, powered vehicle weighing less than __ pounds may fly higher than ___ feet AGL or within ___ miles of an airport perimeter fence. Any law enforcement agency - federal, state, county or municipal - may enforce this regulation when a violation occurs within its jurisdiction."
 
tomokc said:
How about this for the new reg: "No unmanned, powered vehicle weighing less than __ pounds may fly higher than ___ feet AGL or within ___ miles of an airport perimeter fence. Any law enforcement agency - federal, state, county or municipal - may enforce this regulation when a violation occurs within its jurisdiction."
Click to expand...
.. let's carve out some exceptions for us. These things are kinda cool.
 
I could get behind a couple of new categories and classes in the oldde FAA's pilot certification scheme.

You can fly a LSA with a driver's license and a 3rd class medical, so it's not like the system can't support certification commensurate w/ performance. Also, you can't prohibit things from all of the wide-open, not even in Comm'nist Zhōngguó.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top