Drones Vs. full scale airplanes - WattFlyer RC Electric Flight Forums - Discuss radio control eflight

General Electric Discussions Talk about topics related to e-powered RC flying

Drones Vs. full scale airplanes

Old 11-27-2014, 11:30 PM
  #1  
abborgogna
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 247
Default Drones Vs. full scale airplanes

Read it and weep. Below is from todays news.
"
Since July 1, commercial airlines, private pilots and air-traffic controllers have reported 25 incidents to the FAA in which small drones came dangerously close to crashing into larger planes, according to the report.
Many of the calls happened during takeoff and landings at some of the nation’s busiest airports including New York’s LaGuardia Airport, Washington’s Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia. The spike in near collisions presents a new threat to aviation safety after years of improvement, the report says.

In one case, air-traffic controllers at LaGuardia reported that Republic Airlines Flight 6230 was “almost hit” by a drone flying at an altitude of 4,000 feet as a passenger plane was trying to land."


People if we don't do something about these nut cases who have no understanding about the law, or just good common sense. We will all lose our right to fly our planes and drones. The FAA is already on our butts over these kinds of incidents and with each new one we get closer to losing our privilege to fly our model planes and drones.

Staring now if I see anyone fly anything near a full size airplane I will call the police and turn them in, and I will testify against them in a court of law. I would hope everybody who loves our hobby will do the same.

Let the flames begin!
abborgogna is offline  
Old 11-27-2014, 11:45 PM
  #2  
Don Sims
Administrator
 
Don Sims's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 13,417
Default

The story made network news tonight.
Don Sims is offline  
Old 11-28-2014, 12:50 AM
  #3  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by Don Sims View Post
The story made network news tonight.
Again, the bonehead actions of a few dozen idiots can ruin the hobby of a few million RC fliers that use common sense.
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 11-28-2014, 12:55 AM
  #4  
CHELLIE
Super Contributor
 
CHELLIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hesperia, So. Calif
Posts: 19,246
Default

Me thinks that someone is Causing these problems on purpose to win a On going Lawsuit, Be weary of what you read in the press.

Last edited by CHELLIE; 11-28-2014 at 01:20 AM.
CHELLIE is offline  
Old 11-28-2014, 01:22 AM
  #5  
fhhuber
Super Contributor
 
fhhuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,786
Default

Darwin was wrong.... Evolution doesn't work or there wouldn't be so many idiots.

We, the at least semi-informed and attempting to be responsible fliers are not the problem and those that are the "problem children" will just tell us to STFU.

Been there. I have had a large argument with AMA EC about their need to revoke turbine waivers and >55 lb waivers for people violating the rules. They told me to shut up.

The only way to fix it is to enact laws with teeth and use them. Self-policing is not working.

This is from a life AMA member with 50 years of modeling experience including 40 years of RC.
fhhuber is offline  
Old 11-28-2014, 02:06 AM
  #6  
dahawk
Super Contributor
 
dahawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 5,019
Default

This is a trial lawyer's dream. Wait till one hits the baby stroller.

It's like the "Quads", er drones, are the xmas gift of 2014. They walk into a LHS or go online, , drop $1,000 and their in business. Drone pilots. Something really bad is bound to happen and it will undoubtedly affect all of us somehow.

There are so many great professional applications for these machines and a few nimrods will screw it up. Can't blame the FAA for trying to protect the airspace. It's reactionary. But usually, like anything else the government does , there will be an over-reaction and thus an over reach.

Sign of the sad times we live in today.

Happy Thanksgiving !

-Hawk
dahawk is offline  
Old 11-28-2014, 06:12 AM
  #7  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by dahawk View Post
This is a trial lawyer's dream. Wait till one hits the baby stroller.


-Hawk
Or goes through a jet engine.
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 11-28-2014, 08:11 AM
  #8  
fhhuber
Super Contributor
 
fhhuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,786
Default

There have already been cases of RC models hitting kids in strollers.... Earliest I know of was appx 1982, but that was probably not the first.

FF models had already hit kids, cars, houses in the 1930's... The offering of OPTIONAL insurance by the AMA started in 1939 and became required for all gasoline powered models at contests thus forcing the purchase of the insurance and it getting called the "gas license"
fhhuber is offline  
Old 11-29-2014, 05:05 PM
  #9  
abborgogna
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 247
Default

I agree with the opinions expressed above. I work in a hobby shop and see people come in daily wanting the biggest quad (drone) we sell so they can put a Go-Pro on it and impress their friends. When I ask them if they have ever flown one the answer is almost always no. I then do everything I can to talk them out of the purchase and try to steer them to a much small, and less expensive, quad to learn on. Then I give them a quick tutorial on federal laws regarding where they can fly these things. I cannot remember a single customer who had heard, let alone looked up, the laws covering the restrictions on where you can fly, how high you can fly, or the penalties for breaking the law. They just want the biggest quad for bragging rights, and plenty of money in their pocket. Like I said above we have to police our hobby or we won't have a hobby.
abborgogna is offline  
Old 11-29-2014, 06:50 PM
  #10  
Rodneh
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 753
Default

Drones (any pilotless flying vehicle) can be any size as many full scale planes have been converted to drones, usually by the military. Also, many of the current drones such as those being used in warfare today are bigger than many manned aircraft. I think that the so called report of drones should really be reports of quads or similar type craft, the word "drone" has to many possible types of vehicles to be accurately descriptive in such reports.
Rodneh is offline  
Old 11-29-2014, 07:51 PM
  #11  
makaveliks
Sheetmetal guy
 
makaveliks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 68
Default

Yes, but since drones have been used in warfare and until quads became popular the name drone meant bombs and surveillance. So the media is using the general word "drone" to incite fear and bring these images of war and lost privacy to the public. This will make passing laws against them easier because the general public will not be thinking "they want to ban model planes?" but instead will be thinking "drones are for war, no person needs a drone unless they want to spy on me, go ahead and ban them".
makaveliks is offline  
Old 11-29-2014, 07:52 PM
  #12  
Murocflyer
WAA-08 Pilot #1
 
Murocflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edwards AFB, CA
Posts: 7,044
Default

Originally Posted by Rodneh View Post
Drones (any pilotless flying vehicle) can be any size as many full scale planes have been converted to drones, usually by the military. Also, many of the current drones such as those being used in warfare today are bigger than many manned aircraft. I think that the so called report of drones should really be reports of quads or similar type craft, the word "drone" has to many possible types of vehicles to be accurately descriptive in such reports.
Funny you bring that up. We were just discussing that.

Now We Know; Drones = Multirotors: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2293701

Frank
Murocflyer is offline  
Old 11-29-2014, 09:31 PM
  #13  
tr4252
Member
 
tr4252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 350
Default

Originally Posted by abborgogna View Post

Staring now if I see anyone fly anything near a full size airplane I will call the police and turn them in, and I will testify against them in a court of law. I would hope everybody who loves our hobby will do the same.

Let the flames begin!
No flaming from me; I think you are absolutely right, and we owe it to ourselves to self-regulate as much as possible. I also liked the fact that as a hobby shop employee, you are trying to give good safety advice to the customers. We need more guys like you in this hobby, and a lot fewer senseless quad/drone owners.

Tom
tr4252 is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 06:38 AM
  #14  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

I don't think self regulation is a factor. A large majority in this hobby have much invested. Why would they want to shoot themselves in the foot? The people causing the issues are ignorant and uncaring. It is unlikely for the two groups to even cross paths.

Resolution is going to require a legal framework that allows heavy prosecution of the offenders. Wanna shine your green laser into the cockpit of a heavy? Fine. Get caught and do ten years for your thrill. The same thing is going to have to happen in the drone arena. It won't stop all of the offenders, but it's likely to give pause to many.

I. Just hope something happens before there is major loss of life. I know I wouldn't want to encounter one of these things at a thousand feet while flying around in my little open cockpit homebuilt.
maxflyer is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 12:25 PM
  #15  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,533
Default

And has any such action been brought against those who fly helis too close to bystanders?
Turner is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 04:21 PM
  #16  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

When anyone at the field brings out a big heli, I get into my truck and wait them out. Large, fast, unshielded, flying lawn mowers make me nervous. Call me cowardly.
maxflyer is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 06:39 PM
  #17  
abborgogna
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 247
Default This issue made national news this morning on TV

On this mornings TV show "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" they had the FAA boss on and the subject of near miss incidents with drones came up. The FAA guy said on average there are 25 reported near miss incidents per week with drones. He even clarified the term drone to no longer mean military type aircraft, the FAA now uses the term to include model drones (quads). He also talked about the upcoming changes to the law, and he called on the hobby industry to start educating their customers about the correct use of these aircraft. He supported the idea that we in the hobby and the hobby business must take a lead in making sure people don't abuse the privilege we have.

For those who don't know here are some of the basic rules. We don't fly any kind of model aircraft above 400 feet, that's always been the law. We don't fly within five miles of controlled airspace. We don't fly over anybody's private property without permission, I would advise getting it in writing. We don't take pictures of anybody when they are inside their home or in their back yard. People have an rightful expectation of privacy in and on their own property. We don't fly over any public or private stadium, it seems flying over football games has become a new sport. Finally, this should go without saying and if you observe the first two rules it won't happen; we don't fly near any full size airplane. Sadly this is the one getting the most attention from the FAA right now.
abborgogna is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 06:48 PM
  #18  
fhhuber
Super Contributor
 
fhhuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,786
Default

Actually the 400 ft is from an advisory circular... a glorified memo. AMA rules for the Pattern Aerobatics "box" calculate out to appx 830 ft max altitude.
fhhuber is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 09:46 PM
  #19  
Turbojoe
Mountain Models Minion
 
Turbojoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mesa, Arizona
Posts: 1,247
Default

Whatever happened to common sense and reasonable intelligence? Something we are sorely lacking in today's world. What kind of moron gets his kicks from flying any kind of R/C aircraft in the path of a real aircraft risking the lives of possibly hundreds of people? When they are caught they need to be sterilized so they can't further contribute to that already polluted gene pool.

Joe
Turbojoe is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 09:58 PM
  #20  
fhhuber
Super Contributor
 
fhhuber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,786
Default

Common sense is politically incorrect.
fhhuber is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:02 PM
  #21  
jcstalls
Member
 
jcstalls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 57
Default

Yes, no Law nor FAR, yet.
Yet, FAA can make up a restriction of say 400' and threaten with reckless endangerment of an aircraft if exceeded even if no aircraft are around.
Then added a finish that will be our lawyers against yours when cited.
Yup, happened, I was there along with many others.
Reference;
EDSF and no more thermal flying at HSS
jcstalls is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:05 PM
  #22  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,533
Default

Originally Posted by maxflyer View Post
When anyone at the field brings out a big heli, I get into my truck and wait them out. Large, fast, unshielded, flying lawn mowers make me nervous. Call me cowardly.
I hear you. It is not cowardly at all. I basically do the same thing. Those things have killed numerous people including the pilots flying them.
Turner is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:14 PM
  #23  
abborgogna
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 247
Default

As we all know the 400' limitation is routinely broken everyday, but according to my LHS boss, who is also a licensed pilot, he is supposed to stay above 600' and we are supposed to stay below 400' leaving a 200' safety margin between us. My concern is the FAA has not made a big deal about this because we don't take down full size airplanes. But if the drones keep getting closer and if they really are causing 25 threats a month we could all pay the price. We could all be lumped together and the hammer dropped on us. One of our public flying sites even bans control line flying when a notice goes out for the president's plane. Legally U/C planes are not planes at all, since they are tethered they are lumped in with kites. But don't try telling that to county employees. To them an airplane is an airplane no matter how it flies.
abborgogna is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:33 PM
  #24  
Turner
Super Contributor
 
Turner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 1,533
Default

Originally Posted by abborgogna View Post
...But if the drones keep getting closer and if they really are causing 25 threats a month we could all pay the price…,
Originally Posted by abborgogna View Post
…The FAA guy said on average there are 25 reported near miss incidents per week with drones….
That's per week.
Turner is offline  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:39 PM
  #25  
maxflyer
Member
 
maxflyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 362
Default

In less populated areas there are no altitude restrictions. If one is stupid enough to go fence hopping, the only rule is to remain at least 500' from people, vehicles and structures.

As to the concept that we in the hobby police and advise the miscreants...how many of these guys do you think are going to seek out our advice? Don't wait up for them.
maxflyer is offline  

Quick Reply: Drones Vs. full scale airplanes


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.10675 seconds with 12 queries