What Words Mean - or, A Drone is NOT an F-4!!!
#1
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Words Mean - or, A Drone is NOT an F-4!!!
Well, this Jim Williams dude apparently cannot (or chooses NOT) to differentiate between "RC Aircraft" and "Drone". CNN was quick to pick it up!!!
Read - http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel...t=hp_inthenews
If FAA dudes can't define the difference, how will any practical differences be "taught" to the civilian populace-at-large as the furor over uAS activities gets beaten into a frenzied witch hunt by media???
Read - http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel...t=hp_inthenews
If FAA dudes can't define the difference, how will any practical differences be "taught" to the civilian populace-at-large as the furor over uAS activities gets beaten into a frenzied witch hunt by media???
#2
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this Jim Williams dude apparently cannot (or chooses NOT) to differentiate between "RC Aircraft" and "Drone". CNN was quick to pick it up!!!
Read - http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel...t=hp_inthenews
If FAA dudes can't define the difference, how will any practical differences be "taught" to the civilian populace-at-large as the furor over uAS activities gets beaten into a frenzied witch hunt by media???
Read - http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel...t=hp_inthenews
If FAA dudes can't define the difference, how will any practical differences be "taught" to the civilian populace-at-large as the furor over uAS activities gets beaten into a frenzied witch hunt by media???
#4
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=mongo;11801851]so, bob,
what do ya call the "Q" variant of the F-4?
ya know i had to ask>GVBG<
In the context of the article, it's likely a VERY SAFE BET that the ATP guy in the FS couldn't tell what exactly the RC aircraft was, considering whatever ungodly closing rate they LIVED THROUGH. And on approach, no less. To me, this is a very good example of plain ol' simple "luck" because there would not have been time to react and change course.
Hopefully the rc flier dumbass maggott will get ratted out and prosecuted?
I must confess to being "guilty" of believing that RC of ANY kind has NO rights whatsoever in active FS airspace..... PERIOD.
what do ya call the "Q" variant of the F-4?
ya know i had to ask>GVBG<
In the context of the article, it's likely a VERY SAFE BET that the ATP guy in the FS couldn't tell what exactly the RC aircraft was, considering whatever ungodly closing rate they LIVED THROUGH. And on approach, no less. To me, this is a very good example of plain ol' simple "luck" because there would not have been time to react and change course.
Hopefully the rc flier dumbass maggott will get ratted out and prosecuted?
I must confess to being "guilty" of believing that RC of ANY kind has NO rights whatsoever in active FS airspace..... PERIOD.
Last edited by Bob Pastorello; 05-10-2014 at 04:18 PM.
#7
We are in deep do do
I was looking at the website for the AVSI Conference in Orlando, FL. http://www.auvsishow.org/auvsi2014/public/enter.aspx and thought just who are we as model airplane hobbyists to think that we will control the discussion on sUAV?
Look at the exhibitors/sponsors of that conference and compare to the AMA Convention!!!!! Boeing, Honeywell, Northrup Grumman and on and on........................
There is the real money and power. I would speculate that the commercial sUAV companies are much more concerned at the shenanigans exhibited by RC modelers that make the news than we are........... We (recreational RC flyers) are over and over again giving credence to the anti "drone" uninformed public.
If the commercial sUAV industry starts to see the recreational sUAV as a impediment to their business model then we are screwed. Their lobbyists can trump the AMA lobbyists any day.
Look at the exhibitors/sponsors of that conference and compare to the AMA Convention!!!!! Boeing, Honeywell, Northrup Grumman and on and on........................
There is the real money and power. I would speculate that the commercial sUAV companies are much more concerned at the shenanigans exhibited by RC modelers that make the news than we are........... We (recreational RC flyers) are over and over again giving credence to the anti "drone" uninformed public.
If the commercial sUAV industry starts to see the recreational sUAV as a impediment to their business model then we are screwed. Their lobbyists can trump the AMA lobbyists any day.
#8
My Feedback: (11)
Consider this
I've had my 4.2 m Blanik at 1200ft (confirmed by telemetry) and could barely see it well enough to control it. I bailed out of that thermal with flaps and spoilers, even with younger eyes I would think much higher would a stretch. Thats a lumbering glider at 14 feet across.
So how big would a traditional (not FPV) plane have to be to be flown at 2200 or 2300 feet, over a 1000 feet above what I was flying? How hard would it be to control at the speed of a turbine?
FPV? Maybe. Fly away? Possibly, though I haven't heard of anyone loosing one.
I don't know what it was, but I dont believe for a second it was someone at a flying field buzzing around a model that happened by an airliner. As someone with 3k hours in full scale, and a long time rc'r, I'm eternally grateful that there wasn't a collision.
I've had my 4.2 m Blanik at 1200ft (confirmed by telemetry) and could barely see it well enough to control it. I bailed out of that thermal with flaps and spoilers, even with younger eyes I would think much higher would a stretch. Thats a lumbering glider at 14 feet across.
So how big would a traditional (not FPV) plane have to be to be flown at 2200 or 2300 feet, over a 1000 feet above what I was flying? How hard would it be to control at the speed of a turbine?
FPV? Maybe. Fly away? Possibly, though I haven't heard of anyone loosing one.
I don't know what it was, but I dont believe for a second it was someone at a flying field buzzing around a model that happened by an airliner. As someone with 3k hours in full scale, and a long time rc'r, I'm eternally grateful that there wasn't a collision.
#9
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider this
I've had my 4.2 m Blanik at 1200ft (confirmed by telemetry) and could barely see it well enough to control it. I bailed out of that thermal with flaps and spoilers, even with younger eyes I would think much higher would a stretch. Thats a lumbering glider at 14 feet across.
So how big would a traditional (not FPV) plane have to be to be flown at 2200 or 2300 feet, over a 1000 feet above what I was flying? How hard would it be to control at the speed of a turbine?
FPV? Maybe. Fly away? Possibly, though I haven't heard of anyone loosing one.
I don't know what it was, but I dont believe for a second it was someone at a flying field buzzing around a model that happened by an airliner. As someone with 3k hours in full scale, and a long time rc'r, I'm eternally grateful that there wasn't a collision.
I've had my 4.2 m Blanik at 1200ft (confirmed by telemetry) and could barely see it well enough to control it. I bailed out of that thermal with flaps and spoilers, even with younger eyes I would think much higher would a stretch. Thats a lumbering glider at 14 feet across.
So how big would a traditional (not FPV) plane have to be to be flown at 2200 or 2300 feet, over a 1000 feet above what I was flying? How hard would it be to control at the speed of a turbine?
FPV? Maybe. Fly away? Possibly, though I haven't heard of anyone loosing one.
I don't know what it was, but I dont believe for a second it was someone at a flying field buzzing around a model that happened by an airliner. As someone with 3k hours in full scale, and a long time rc'r, I'm eternally grateful that there wasn't a collision.
#10
My Feedback: (4)
Consider this
I've had my 4.2 m Blanik at 1200ft (confirmed by telemetry) and could barely see it well enough to control it. I bailed out of that thermal with flaps and spoilers, even with younger eyes I would think much higher would a stretch. Thats a lumbering glider at 14 feet across.
So how big would a traditional (not FPV) plane have to be to be flown at 2200 or 2300 feet, over a 1000 feet above what I was flying? How hard would it be to control at the speed of a turbine?
FPV? Maybe. Fly away? Possibly, though I haven't heard of anyone loosing one.
I don't know what it was, but I dont believe for a second it was someone at a flying field buzzing around a model that happened by an airliner. As someone with 3k hours in full scale, and a long time rc'r, I'm eternally grateful that there wasn't a collision.
I've had my 4.2 m Blanik at 1200ft (confirmed by telemetry) and could barely see it well enough to control it. I bailed out of that thermal with flaps and spoilers, even with younger eyes I would think much higher would a stretch. Thats a lumbering glider at 14 feet across.
So how big would a traditional (not FPV) plane have to be to be flown at 2200 or 2300 feet, over a 1000 feet above what I was flying? How hard would it be to control at the speed of a turbine?
FPV? Maybe. Fly away? Possibly, though I haven't heard of anyone loosing one.
I don't know what it was, but I dont believe for a second it was someone at a flying field buzzing around a model that happened by an airliner. As someone with 3k hours in full scale, and a long time rc'r, I'm eternally grateful that there wasn't a collision.
At that altitude, it pretty much had to be a sUAS of some sort. A misidentified and irresponsibly operated hobbyist FPV model is the most likely answer.
Wonder if there is any sUAS research going on at the University of Florida? The sighting was quite close to the campus there.