Excellent news concerning Drones
- Thread starter Seggy
- Start date
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Man, I would have killed for a fishing line/ pole attached to one a while ago.
Boy am I glad you're not a politician. I'm actually speechless.
What do you purpose then for regulation?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I already answered that question, and the answer left you astounded.
Which was? This thread is so big now, I'm not going to search it. Paraphrase if you have to. You talking about requiring a certificate to fly a model? Our one to make money with it?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yep, limit them to low altitude electronically, and require a certificate for commercial use.
Problem is, limiting them electronically to lure altitude will only work with the quad copters. Acc they would have to have a rad alt. The technology oft there yet to miniaturize it yet. And per the AC I posted earlier, they are limited to 400agl. Make that a regulation for all I care. But keep the government out of my fun. I'm not a hazard, and neither is 99% of the rest of us. Don't punish me because a few can't follow the rules. That's not what this country is about.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Like I said, I don't care about your niche RC hobby. You guys aren't bothering anyone. I'm talking about the new mini-drones, which are becoming ubiquitous. Those are the problem.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
One constant I notice in your posts is your continued attempt to belittle those who disagree with you.
Why?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
How did I "belittle" him?
TWP
Well-Known Member
Many people in this thread seem to be under the impression that the drones in the NAS will all be small hobbyist sized aircraft and are completely missing out on the fact that there will be drones bigger than what you are flying whizzing around up there....but nah dude....they don't need a license. Just a set of rules....like the ultralight guys......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
1) Hobbyists have extreme limits on where they can fly and what they can do, so comparing the two is stupid. They break the law, sometimes they get caught and punished.
2) Ultralights have extreme limits on where they can fly and what they can do, so comparing the two is stupid. The whole point of integration is to have drones in the same places as manned aircraft doing the same thing, comparing them to other aircraft that have an entirely different set of goals is just bad logic and you know it. Shame on you
3) If you wouldn't send your kid on a plane into the same airspace with these "non-pilot" drone operators without hesitation, don't bring your hypocrisy on here. Ya'll will be tap dancing around the subject real nice once it's your family on the line.
I mean it. Picture an airport that is 90% drones and none of the operators have a commercial pilots license. Would you put your kid on the only manned flight in and out of there. Of course you wouldn't.
1) Hobbyists have extreme limits on where they can fly and what they can do, so comparing the two is stupid. They break the law, sometimes they get caught and punished.
2) Ultralights have extreme limits on where they can fly and what they can do, so comparing the two is stupid. The whole point of integration is to have drones in the same places as manned aircraft doing the same thing, comparing them to other aircraft that have an entirely different set of goals is just bad logic and you know it. Shame on you
3) If you wouldn't send your kid on a plane into the same airspace with these "non-pilot" drone operators without hesitation, don't bring your hypocrisy on here. Ya'll will be tap dancing around the subject real nice once it's your family on the line.
I mean it. Picture an airport that is 90% drones and none of the operators have a commercial pilots license. Would you put your kid on the only manned flight in and out of there. Of course you wouldn't.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
There are many airports around the country that operate with 90% PPL holders, does that make them dangerous? I was at many out west, in fact often times the majority of people operating there didn't even have a private license! Yet somehow there were no mishaps with the air carriers and 135 operators going in and out of there.Many people in this thread seem to be under the impression that the drones in the NAS will all be small hobbyist sized aircraft and are completely missing out on the fact that there will be drones bigger than what you are flying whizzing around up there....but nah dude....they don't need a license. Just a set of rules....like the ultralight guys......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
1) Hobbyists have extreme limits on where they can fly and what they can do, so comparing the two is stupid. They break the law, sometimes they get caught and punished.
2) Ultralights have extreme limits on where they can fly and what they can do, so comparing the two is stupid. The whole point of integration is to have drones in the same places as manned aircraft doing the same thing, comparing them to other aircraft that have an entirely different set of goals is just bad logic and you know it. Shame on you
3) If you wouldn't send your kid on a plane into the same airspace with these "non-pilot" drone operators without hesitation, don't bring your hypocrisy on here. Ya'll will be tap dancing around the subject real nice once it's your family on the line.
I mean it. Picture an airport that is 90% drones and none of the operators have a commercial pilots license. Would you put your kid on the only manned flight in and out of there. Of course you wouldn't.
If you go back and read my posts I think you'll find I'm an advocate for a properly rated person operating a true UAS in the NAS. However, I'm logical enough to understand that hovering 50' in the air next to a townhome is NOT in the NAS and the FAA going down that road will just spur folks to skip the cert phase and just do it. Spending $20k to get a COM is beyond ludicrious and reeks of job protectionism.
Again I think it's pretty obvious the difference in a 3-5 lb quad copter taking photos <400 ft and a full on unmanned aircraft operating at thousands of feet in navigable airspace, just like there is a difference in an ultralight buzzing around down low and an Airbus operating in the flight levels.
Last edited:
You just have to understand @ATN_Pilot direct approach. I love debating with him. There is no BS between the lines.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
I think you give him way too much credit.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
One could probably make an argument for class G airspace ops, but that can also have issues. I would say 400' is very fair for the operation of anything sans license and training, as long as they are kept away from airports.
TWP
Well-Known Member
So we agree entirely on the drone stuff....?
The FAA will make an effort to regulate all they can because they know they won't get everything they want and there is BIG money involved. Wheelin and dealin'.
I can tell you that with my small airplanes, sometimes it is a struggle to keep it within 400AGL. If I am 15 miles away from an airport, in a park, that is a designated area you are allowed to fly, why is it a problem if I am say 600-800 AGL? That still gives me a 200ft buffer from 91.119 (b). If you are in a sparsely populated , and within 500ft of people, you are doing so at your own risk, and could likely still be violated for 91.13 if there was a collision between you and a model airplane. And again, the catch all, 91.119 (a). There is simply no reason to be so low, unless you are screwing off. Personally, I don't really care if you want to be that low and screw off. But why can't I also screw off with my models? MILES from any airport. Heck, if you want to make it so I can't fly my models within the confines of a towered airport, I'm okay with that too, unless you have an LOA with the controlling facility.
"Drones," well that's a whole different issue.
As an aside, before the ownership changed, we used to fly at Agua Dulce all the time. A class G airport, non-towered. The owners were cool with it as long as when we were there, we had a hand held radio to talk to anyone who was on their way in or out of the place to keep traffic conflicts to a minimum, and typically, it was only turbine equipment that the 400AGL stuff simply isn't possible. Keeping a model aircraft within 400AGL that is traveling at 150+mph isn't practical.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/publications/westernelectric.aspx
This is a very close friend of mine, who has since passed away(The CD, Sam Difatta). But just have a look at the level of education they advocate, and how important he stresses staying out of the way of the full scale stuff coming out of Van Nuys. Turbine RC aircraft have been around nearly 20 years.
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
Those videos basically contradict what you are writing RE: 400' restriction. If they do it there, why couldn't you? Just because you don't want too? Is that really a valid reason?