Excellent news concerning Drones

tbstanto said:
There have been many court cases about this, and US airspace is controlled by the Federal Government. When the constitution was written, there were many things that the founding fathers could not have anticipated. UAV's was certainly one of them.

This is an interesting case, stating that you do not own the airspace above your home. At this time in history, the airspace starting as low as 83' was owned by the government. Now, it is usually considered 500'.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/328/256
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is incorrect, the United States is the only country on the planet where the government does not own the airspace. In our case the citizens of the United States own the airspace instead of the government. We as citizens have allowed the federal government to appoint an administrator over that airspace who has established a set of rules for the use of said airspace. Jurisdiction does not equal ownership.

To your other point, I am not concerned about sucking up a balsa Cessna for a few reasons. First, that's a Prime example of a golden BB. Second, in several decades they haven't brought down a manned airplane. The reason, I believe, is that the owners and operators of such a model are generally skilled at their craft and have a vested interest in not behaving badly. I don't think you're off base with you're fears, I think you're not even on the playing field. You've allowed fear and ignorance to dictate a response in the name of safety which I believe is very dangerous. You think you're being logical and you aren't. Could a model grenade an engine, sure. But so could a golf ball shanked off a tee in Canton Texas. I don't think we should ban golfers.

I don't worry about a legal concealed weapon nor do I worry about a RC plane.
 
tbstanto said:
I would REALLY hope that you are concerned with this RC airplane (a balsa wood Corsair, maybe? Hard to tell). That would certainly be enough to take out an engine - and almost did.


Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
That video is a fake I've seen the original one. They basically CGI'd the plane.
 
So let's say you go down the road of requiring licensure to fly these things. Do you also require a medical exam/certificate?
 
I'm not going to armchair QB about this stuff. I have no idea what the regs should be, and I do think it's a healthy hobby if you use common sense and I don't want to see it taken away from people. However, there better be hell to pay if one of those things hits a plane and any regs imposed had better greatly diminish the chances of what I feel is an inevitable serious(if not fatal) collision. It is a lot easier for them to stay out of our way then us out of theirs.
 
ChasenSFO said:
I'm not going to armchair QB about this stuff. I have no idea what the regs should be, and I do think it's a healthy hobby if you use common sense and I don't want to see it taken away from people. However, there better be hell to pay if one of those things hits a plane and any regs imposed had better greatly diminish the chances of what I feel is an inevitable serious(if not fatal) collision. It is a lot easier for them to stay out of our way then us out of theirs.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I'm betting the FAA will over reach and over regulate. Because, you know, regulations make us safe...
 
ATN_Pilot said:
People need to stop with the red herring about RC planes being around for decades. Up until now, RC has been a tiny niche hobby. Now when I walk into the Verizon story, they're selling quadcopters that could decimate a jet engine. These things are everywhere, and after this Christmas season, their ubiquity will grow even more. Ever little spoiled brat across the nation will have his own drone. This is a huge issue, and has absolutely no relation to the miniscule RC hobby of decades past.
Click to expand...

Rc has been a HUGE hobby, for more than 30 years. The invention of social media and micro cameras, plus a few dumb assess has brought it to the media attention.

Edit to add: I've been flying RC since the days of AM transmitters, when someone with a CB radio could make you crash from interference. Note it's all on 2.4ghz, where the transmitter and receiver have to be bound together, and frequency flags so someone else didn't turn on their transmitter and make you go all kattywampus and crash.
 
deadstick said:
Slow do you see and avoid without being able to have a panoramic view? "Big sky little bullet" doesn't cut it. TAS/TCAS only helps if both aircraft have at least an operating transponder and at least one has the traffic system. I can bet a J3 will be at the same altitudes and will have neither. Also, the responsibility cannot rest solely with the J3 just because there's a person in the aircraft. Heck, if the UAS is beyond the visual range of the operator, does it only make left turns?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that the FAA will not allow a TCAS/TCAD system on UAS/RPAs. The delay in processing seems to set them off the rails. I disagree with the position, but that's what it is right now. I also recently learned that part 91 is likely to change from
"see and avoid" to "sense and avoid," which seems counter to the TCAS/TCAD position. But hey, it's the FAA...!
LC
 
esa17 said:
Yes, common practice already.

Flying for hire is flying for hire.
Click to expand...
The FAA requiring a commercial cert for hire will kill the sponsorships at clubs and competitions that go on around the country. It has some pretty far reaching consequences.

I can hear it now, "I don't care, flying for hire is flying for hire".

I get it, but I'm also open minded enough to recognize the difference between a 3-lb quad copter with a go-pro doing a real estate photo shoot no more than 50 ft off the ground (and below tree level) vs. flying a 3,000 lb Caravan wannabe box hauler remotely with FedEx on the side.

Not to mention it's beyond logic that the same 3,000 lb Caravan wannabe box hauler could be flown without a license if it was simply done as a hobby...
 
wheelsup said:
The FAA requiring a commercial cert for hire will kill the sponsorships at clubs and competitions that go on around the country. It has some pretty far reaching consequences.

I can hear it now, "I don't care, flying for hire is flying for hire".

I get it, but I'm also open minded enough to recognize the difference between a 3-lb quad copter with a go-pro doing a real estate photo shoot no more than 50 ft off the ground (and below tree level) vs. flying a 3,000 lb Caravan wannabe box hauler remotely with FedEx on the side.

Not to mention it's beyond logic that the same 3,000 lb Caravan wannabe box hauler could be flown without a license if it was simply done as a hobby...
Click to expand...
This is where we disagree, not because of the difference in skill level required but because the only way to enact any sort of regulation is to equally apply the regulations to everyone. If you're getting paid to fly a craft in the NAS then you're getting paid to fly and should comply with a standard that is equally applied to all. Some animals are more equal than others, I get that, but I don't like it. I also feel I'm uniquely suited to my opinion because of my experiences.

By your own logic a 208 should have a different set of standards because his airplane is more demanding to fly than a Phenom 100.

Medical certification aside for manned flying, it doesn't matter what certificate the pilot has. Our checkrides are still to ATP standards no matter if you're flying a FedEx feeder or a 757.

As far as I'm concerned club shouldn't be doing anything for hire. Amateurs by definition aren't professionals. Commercial FAA requirements haven't killed college manned flight teams even though they rely heavily on sponsors, why would a UAS club be any different?
 
esa17 said:
This is where we disagree, not because of the difference in skill level required but because the only way to enact any sort of regulation is to equally apply the regulations to everyone. If you're getting paid to fly a craft in the NAS then you're getting paid to fly and should comply with a standard that is equally applied to all. Some animals are more equal than others, I get that, but I don't like it. I also feel I'm uniquely suited to my opinion because of my experiences.

By your own logic a 208 should have a different set of standards because his airplane is more demanding to fly than a Phenom 100.

Medical certification aside for manned flying, it doesn't matter what certificate the pilot has. Our checkrides are still to ATP standards no matter if you're flying a FedEx feeder or a 757.

As far as I'm concerned club shouldn't be doing anything for hire. Amateurs by definition aren't professionals. Commercial FAA requirements haven't killed college manned flight teams even though they rely heavily on sponsors, why would a UAS club be any different?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? A Phoenom 100 requires a type rating, a 208 requires a high performance sign off!

It DOES have a different set of standards...in fact the entire aviation industry is set up that way.

Single seat trikes require no training.
LSA requires more.
Full blown private requires a full blown PPL, but can only operate smaller low powered low altitude equipment.
Want to go higher or faster and you have to get training, up to a type if you want to operate a large aircraft or one with turbines.

It goes on and on, in a graduated scale.

We are seriously talking about making the requirements to fly a small, several pound quad more stringent than a 400 lb single seat manned aircraft. It's compleltely illogical.

When government regs become illogical, people completely disregard them en mass.
 
wheelsup said:
Are you serious? A Phoenom 100 requires a type rating, a 208 requires a high performance sign off!

It DOES have a different set of standards...in fact the entire aviation industry is set up that way.

Single seat trikes require no training.
LSA requires more.
Full blown private requires a full blown PPL, but can only operate smaller low powered low altitude equipment.
Want to go higher or faster and you have to get training, up to a type if you want to operate a large aircraft or one with turbines.

It goes on and on, in a graduated scale.

We are seriously talking about making the requirements to fly a small, several pound quad more stringent than a 400 lb single seat manned aircraft. It's compleltely illogical.

When government regs become illogical, people completely disregard them en mass.
Click to expand...
Ever flown a Phenom? It's about as point and push as they get. Once the throttles are out of cut off you've got two other options, climb and cruise. The only reason it requires a type is because it's got jet engines.

Hell, a Seneca is far more complex than a Phenom. Load the Vnav profile into the G1000 and all you do is check gear up & down. No it doesn't require a different set of standards. Even if you're a part 91 pilot going for an initial type you'll still be required to fly to the plane to ATP standards.

If you're talking about flying that quad-copter "for hire" why in the blue falcon shouldn't you be required to take a commercial written and demonstrate mastery of the aircraft?

One set of rules for everyone, period.
 
esa17 said:
If you're talking about flying that quad-copter "for hire" why in the blue falcon shouldn't you be required to take a commercial written and demonstrate mastery of the aircraft?

One set of rules for everyone, period.
Click to expand...

You ever give anyone a car ride for gas money? Did you first get a taxi license before you did? Ever loan someone a buck or two? Were you a certified lender at the time?

One set of rules for everyone, right?
 
That was an actual response. Just as you shouldn't need a taxi license because you were a designated driver and all your buddies supplied you with free soft drinks and dinner, neither should you be required to obtain have a license to fly a toy fifty feet into the air to photograph somebody's real estate listing.
 
RDoug said:
That was an actual response. Just as you shouldn't need a taxi license because you were a designated driver and all your buddies supplied you with free soft drinks and dinner, neither should you be required to obtain have a license to fly a toy fifty feet into the air to photograph somebody's real estate listing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not really - you're saying that operating an aircraft for hire is the same as getting reimbursed for being DD or lending money to your friends, this is a misrepresentation of the situation, and also a logical fallacy. It's called a straw man argument.
 
No. I'm pointing out that toys aren't manned aircraft even though you want to treat them as such when you insist the operator pass a commercial written examination and jump through other regulatory hoops. If there's a straw man argument being made, that's it right there. I'm also pointing out that you want rules applied only when it benefits your particular point of view.

Nice attempt at deflection, however.

Since it seems you want to narrow your argument strictly to aviation because you cannot defend it otherwise, I'll come up with an equally absurd aviation-related analogy for you. Requiring a commercial written and other manned-aircraft requirements for me to use a $400 quad copter to photograph my wife's real estate listing from an altitude of fifty feet or less is akin to requiring airport-specific CTO along with all the associated exams, OJT training, and certifications that entails to operate as an air boss for an air show because air bossing involves controlling air traffic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top