JohnShe

Really, then you know that the French and Indian war was between France and England. Both sides employed (enslaved?) native American in the imbroglio. The colonials were mostly collateral damage. The whole war was about British conquest.

Agian, it didn't matter why there were taxes, the colonials were revolted by the lack of colonial input in the decision to levy taxes.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Are you trying to sneak in another ad hominem while drifting off on yet another political rant?

You wrote:
So lets see where smarts and reading the regulations gets us that protects the general public. You say "a good set of ears and eyes". Hmm..do you mean that sUAV folks will have to have a Medical certificate, AS PER THE REGULATIONS? Or are we going to "assume" they all have the same level of hearing and vision? I know folks that are legally blind but still see enough to business on a regular basis, is that good enough? So how are you going to define those nebulous terms for "good" vision and hearing?

One other simple question for you and since you are smarter than everyone else the answer should be very easy.

From prior experience many know that you can (1) see the model (sUAV), or you can (2) see what the sUAV is looking at (Sensor/camera package observation), or you can (3) watch where the sUAV is going (FPV). Which one of those includes looking for helicopters? I

If you say it is #2 the helicopter is effectively invisible until it goes below the sUAV, or is there some magical way I "don't understand". If your selection is #3 the helicopter may never be seen until after the merge since it may arrive from the rear, above, or even the side or at some angle outside the view angle of the FPV stuff. If you doubt that go look up and read ALL about the PSA 182 crash to learn more about "see and avoid" and tell us exactly how we can apply those concepts here effectively.

So if you select #1, how is the "product" of the flight to be collected and how is it to be evaluated? The only REASONABLE answer is to require TWO operators, one for the 'sensor' package and the other for the 'airframe'. By the way, that also requires the operator to have full view of the platform.

Care to try again?

bogbeagle

BlackSheep at it again; this time in Holland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q1GNCSaeyc

JW0311

A friend in need is a friend in deed, but a friend with weed is better.........Well there you go. No further explanation is required.


James

NorfolkSouthern

Fabulous! Love it!

bradpaul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NpemFgUH08 We might have to teach the government guys how to fly.

But then I see a video like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlqe1DXnJKQ

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Aww..do we have to? I mean I don't speak Portuguese and have no desire to learn it. Do you?

bradpaul

Yeah, but just think how much you could charge as a consultant........... and of course the location would need to be the Canary Islands.

cj_rumley

Don't want propworn and other Canucks thinking they're immune from bad UAV press.
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Transport+Canada+RCMP+investigate+unmanned+vehicle +close+commercial+flights/9764722/story.html

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Yeah, but as our minority say there is no way any airliner could ever be damaged by one of these toys! In my opinion their beliefs outweigh physics, logic, common sense, and rational thought.

Sport_Pilot

No one said that! Why do you keep trying to put words in other people's mouth?

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

It appears that this is where the FAA is headed, per the article I cited below....
"The FAA calls the dividing line between a model aircraft and a small drone more one of intent, rather than of technology. If it is used for commercial purposes, it's a drone. If it's used purely for recreational purposes, it's a model aircraft."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/25...cmp=latestnews

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Now, now...you're just trying to confuse the majority here.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Before you go off foaming at the mouth some more, let me assure you that it was not you that made the generic remark nor was anything derogatory or inflammatory said about you in that previous post. This post will have to stand on its own.

No words were put in anyone's mouth rather a clearly implied remark IN THIS THREAD by another poster was referenced. Admittedly that poster said "foamie" and this incident was a multi copter, but the genre (toy) is similar as is the danger.

Next time check your FACTS before posting falsehoods about me to avoid being excessively offensive.

I consider all folks who insist on telling lies to be somewhat lower than whale effluent and to date that seems to be your direction by your own decision. Too bad too sad.

JohnShe

Oohhh! ya think that the FAA definition has nothing to do with the Congressional definition in 112-95?

cj_rumley

Congregational is a church.....did you get FAA mixed up with AMA

JohnShe

Whoops! Spelling error and I didn't catch the spell check correction. I meant congressional. As in, "by an act of congress".

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Look... you can cite FAA or shmAA...congress, shmongress...the future of all we are discussing here has all the signs of something that will get decided by the will of the people...and that will put everything back to square one...Sooner or later, peeking out your window speed dialing 911 will be nothing more than a joke to the people on the other end of the phone...have your fun while you can but get ready for much frustration.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Sooner seems to be here now.

JohnShe

According to our constitution, congress represents the will of the people. So it has been decided.

So we are on square two and advancing, albeit rather slowly. Or maybe at super speed from a bureaucratic point of view.


And for the time being, 911 is our best option.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2154030

that idea looks like an interesting place to start making some changes...

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

So what the manufacturer is saying is "We do not want to be one of the defendants in multiple lawsuits brought by survivors and kin of the deceased when one of these 'toys' brings down an airliner". Pretty stupid of them according to many here and on RCGroups. Did you note there are already rogue guys planning how to get around the firmware? Maybe take the same approach with that as the Feds did with the catalytic converter.

Actually that approach, modified a bit more to include hard altitude restrictions, might be the best way and allow predefined excess compensation for personal injury by one of these "toys" to cover the rest.

NorfolkSouthern

There is an easy way around the firmware if you want to fly close to an airport: A model airplane with a standard receiver without a GPS, plus a camera with a video downlink. It can be done if someone really has the desire. So, when this firmware is implemented, and someone wants to find a way to do their stuff in the vicinity of an airport anyway, then they'll improvise. But who will catch all the flack then? Certainly not the FPV drone flyers. It'll all come down on the model airplane hobbyists.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Well, from your remarks you will be a happy camper.

Sport_Pilot

he
You did not reference any post and I cannot find any such post. Please reference it. As far sar being a liar. Did it occur that I simply missed the post YOU DID NOT REFERENCE?