Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!

Old 07-29-2014, 04:48 AM
  #126  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by randall1959
How can you say the FAA is hyping things when you have idiots like this making the news?
http://news.msn.com/us/toy-drone-dis...ornia-wildfire
The idiot has no concept of what a TFR is. I hope they prosecute him for reckless endangerment.


Frank
Old 07-29-2014, 04:55 AM
  #127  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Has AC 91-57 been resinded?
91-57 is only and advisory. Public law does not require the 400 foot rule outside of the 5 mile airport limit. So the AC is moot.
Old 07-29-2014, 04:59 AM
  #128  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
The idiot has no concept of what a TFR is. I hope they prosecute him for reckless endangerment.


Frank
IMO it sounds like the officials overeacted. I see nothing here about the drone actually being too close to aircraft, and likely had a right to be there. Not sure if this was a restricted airspace so that is pure speculation on my part. So yes this could be hype.
Old 07-29-2014, 05:40 AM
  #129  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
IMO it sounds like the officials overeacted. I see nothing here about the drone actually being too close to aircraft, and likely had a right to be there. Not sure if this was a restricted airspace so that is pure speculation on my part. So yes this could be hype.
No opinion, fact. He was in clear violation.
Every major fire and natural disaster gets one of these (see link). This one was for 5 Nautical miles around (Latitude: 38º34'00"N, Longitude: 120º48'40"W) From the surface up to and including 7000 feet MSL.

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_6046.html

He did not have to be near any other aircraft to be a danger. "That drone was flying within our air space and was a hazard for our aircraft," said California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesman Kevin Lucero. "It essentially inhibited some of our operations going on." By inhibiting air operations he endangered other people’s lives on the ground. Fire fighters and the civilians they were evacuating. But I guess it’s okay because he got some cool video.

Frank
Old 07-29-2014, 05:56 AM
  #130  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by randall1959
How can you say the FAA is hyping things when you have idiots like this making the news?
http://news.msn.com/us/toy-drone-dis...ornia-wildfire
Because there are hundreds/thousands of people flying FPV everyday and only a very, very small amount of "incidents". That is hype and media hysteria/sensationalism. The media LOVES this kind of stuff!
Old 07-29-2014, 06:58 AM
  #131  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
Because there are hundreds/thousands of people flying FPV everyday and only a very, very small amount of "incidents". That is hype and media hysteria/sensationalism. The media LOVES this kind of stuff!
If there weren't FPVidiots doing irresponsible things to attract attention there would be no such news reporting.

CR
Old 07-29-2014, 07:15 AM
  #132  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
If there weren't FPVidiots doing irresponsible things to attract attention there would be no such news reporting.

CR
True, but there will always be people doing these dumb things no matter what th FAA does.
Old 07-29-2014, 08:19 AM
  #133  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
No opinion, fact. He was in clear violation.
Every major fire and natural disaster gets one of these (see link). This one was for 5 Nautical miles around (Latitude: 38º34'00"N, Longitude: 120º48'40"W) From the surface up to and including 7000 feet MSL.

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_6046.html

He did not have to be near any other aircraft to be a danger. "That drone was flying within our air space and was a hazard for our aircraft," said California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesman Kevin Lucero. "It essentially inhibited some of our operations going on." By inhibiting air operations he endangered other people’s lives on the ground. Fire fighters and the civilians they were evacuating. But I guess it’s okay because he got some cool video.

Frank
That is a NOTAM. Notice to airmen. They are actually only menat for certified pilots. It says nothing about model aiplanes or sUAV. The TFR's for Presidential visits are issued in newspapers, TV, AMA, etc, and specifically says it includes model aircraft.
Old 07-29-2014, 09:46 AM
  #134  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
That is a NOTAM. Notice to airmen. They are actually only menat for certified pilots. It says nothing about model aiplanes or sUAV. The TFR's for Presidential visits are issued in newspapers, TV, AMA, etc, and specifically says it includes model aircraft.
Really!
"However, the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar on rulemaking that may have an effect on model aircraft. As noted above, the rulemaking limitation applies only to rulemaking actions specifically "regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). Thus, the rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may issue or modify that apply to all aircraft, such as rules addressing the use of airspace (e.g., the 2008 rule governing VFR operations in the Washington, DC area) for safety or security reasons. See 73 FR 46803. The statute does not require FAA to exempt model aircraft from those rules because those rules are not specifically regarding model aircraft. On the other hand, a model aircraft operated pursuant to the terms of section 336 would potentially be excepted from a UAS aircraft certification rule, for example, because of the limitation on future rulemaking specifically "regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft." P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). The FAA interprets the section 336 rulemaking prohibition as one that must be evaluated on a rule-by-rule basis"

Nothing in the TFR specifies man carring aircraft, it states all aircraft. The intent is pretty clear. Please note [4910-13] 14 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0396] is a Notice of Intepretation with Request for Comment. It does not say proposed.


Frank

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 07-29-2014 at 09:49 AM. Reason: spelling
Old 07-29-2014, 10:14 AM
  #135  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

These non Presidential TFR's are issued under clauses in part 91, part 135 (I think). Let me repeat, despite what the FAA says part 91 does not apply to model aircraft. this is not my opinion but the opinion of an NTSB judge who said that there are no FAA regulations applicable to model aircraft. Now they will be sure to incluce model aircraft in future regs, and we need to watch what they say. Also I know for a fact that they have not fined people for flying kites in a TFR for example. But that could just be a matter of enforcement and not really proof of what they are doing.

When I think about that I would be bluffing if I were an FAA official, but short of actually issuing fines.

Last edited by Sport_Pilot; 07-29-2014 at 10:17 AM.
Old 07-29-2014, 04:03 PM
  #136  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
True, but there will always be people doing these dumb things no matter what the FAA does.
I wonder if it's just young, inexperienced people. I kept telling my kids to think things through and to keep in mind that actions have consequences.

Many FPVidiots are in denial. They just refuse to consider that things can turn out badly if something goes wrong. And if things do go wrong, "It's not my fault!"

CR
Old 07-29-2014, 09:09 PM
  #137  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

About the only way things will every change with RC, would be several incidents that involve fatalities with people on the ground and/or passengers in regional and interstate carriers, and model airplanes. Such an incident will be extremely unlikely, involving an airliner due to the vast structural differences between the jet, and a model airplane, whether it be a drone or some RC club plane flying out of the envelope. Even a 55 pound giant-scale gasser proved to not be much of a match between it and a full-scale biplane.

That clause in the FAA funding act really threw a monkey wrench on the whole idea of coming up with any form of regulations that govern the use of drones, or model airplanes. So, the FAA will define that rule which ever way it thinks will make it more likely their enforcement actions will hold. The FAA has already extended the comment period clear through September, and I am sure they will very likely extend it for another year, for that matter. I am sure that comment period was extended, because I seriously doubt there's much else they can do, short of getting Congress to amend the funding act to include model airplanes under drone regulations.

Last edited by NorfolkSouthern; 07-29-2014 at 09:13 PM.
Old 07-30-2014, 02:44 AM
  #138  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
About the only way things will every change with RC, would be several incidents that involve fatalities with people on the ground and/or passengers in regional and interstate carriers, and model airplanes. Such an incident will be extremely unlikely, involving an airliner due to the vast structural differences between the jet, and a model airplane, whether it be a drone or some RC club plane flying out of the envelope. Even a 55 pound giant-scale gasser proved to not be much of a match between it and a full-scale biplane.

That clause in the FAA funding act really threw a monkey wrench on the whole idea of coming up with any form of regulations that govern the use of drones, or model airplanes. So, the FAA will define that rule which ever way it thinks will make it more likely their enforcement actions will hold. The FAA has already extended the comment period clear through September, and I am sure they will very likely extend it for another year, for that matter. I am sure that comment period was extended, because I seriously doubt there's much else they can do, short of getting Congress to amend the funding act to include model airplanes under drone regulations.
It's not a contest. The NTSB reported the damage to the biplane as "significant". "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who examined the bi-plane reported that lower left wing was crushed aft to the main spar. A six to eight inch tear was noted in the upper left wing fabric, and damage was noted on the leading edge of the left aileron."

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...0LA487A&akey=1


While I agree that "Such an incident will be extremely unlikely" the frequency of drones/models/UAVs being reported by airliners while on approach is increasing. I have no doubt that a small quad such as the DJI Phantom with photo gear and its denser materials than any bird will cause “significant” damage if ingested in an airliners engine. Would it be enough to bring down an airliner? Probably not, because pilots train for those unexpected failures. I don’t think anyone will disagree that the most dangerous phases of flight are takeoffs and landings. Would you want to be responsable if the "extremely unlikely" were to occur? I hope the FAA and we can get a handle on it before anything does happen.


Frank

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 07-30-2014 at 02:46 AM.
Old 07-30-2014, 04:23 AM
  #139  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Martha Stewart ....????????

"Why I love my drone"

http://time.com/3053003/martha-stewart-drone/
Old 07-30-2014, 04:30 AM
  #140  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Eeeeeverybody must get droned. Think Bob Dylan. Ha ha! I crack myself up sometimes!
Old 07-31-2014, 04:27 AM
  #141  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Airventure drones not authorized

Even the General Aviation guys don't think they are cool.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AirVenture-Diesel-Drones-and-High-Energy-222472-1.html


Frank
Old 07-31-2014, 06:34 AM
  #142  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Even the General Aviation guys don't think they are cool.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AirVenture-Diesel-Drones-and-High-Energy-222472-1.html


Frank
Maybe but Diesel fuel has no lead and the EPA may require it someday. Ohhhh!!! You meant the drone!!!
Old 07-31-2014, 07:19 AM
  #143  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
Even the General Aviation guys don't think they are cool.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AirVenture-Diesel-Drones-and-High-Energy-222472-1.html


Frank
To be correct, they did not say "drones" were not cool; just that buzzing the field once was not cool.
Old 07-31-2014, 07:25 AM
  #144  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Maybe but Diesel fuel has no lead and the EPA may require it someday. Ohhhh!!! You meant the drone!!!
Yes, I meant the drone however with the cost of nitro these days diesel is looking pretty inviting.

Frank
Old 07-31-2014, 09:38 AM
  #145  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Maybe but Diesel fuel has no lead and the EPA may require it someday. Ohhhh!!! You meant the drone!!!
I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling.

CR
Old 07-31-2014, 09:46 AM
  #146  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Charley
I'm beginning to suspect you're just trolling.

CR
Yea...Sport let's keep it on track! This discussion is a serious thread about vilifying the FPV hobbyists...No humor allowed!
Old 07-31-2014, 10:12 AM
  #147  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Yea...Sport let's keep it on track! This discussion is a serious thread about vilifying the FPV hobbyists...No humor allowed!
touché

only I thought it was about vilifying the FAA.

Frank
Old 08-01-2014, 09:07 AM
  #148  
Sport_Pilot
Thread Starter
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
Yea...Sport let's keep it on track! This discussion is a serious thread about vilifying the FPV hobbyists...No humor allowed!
Just joking. Not sure its should be so serious anyway. It's almost a joke to cast away a part of our hobby.
Old 08-04-2014, 07:59 PM
  #149  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

ABC news did a story tonight on drones flying too close to airliners, I must say up to a year or so ago I did not hear anything about model planes
on the news but in the last couple of months I have been hearing more and more about them.

The report also said New York seems to be a hot bed for drone activity.
Old 08-05-2014, 08:14 AM
  #150  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
ABC news did a story tonight on drones flying too close to airliners, I must say up to a year or so ago I did not hear anything about model planes
on the news but in the last couple of months I have been hearing more and more about them.

The report also said New York seems to be a hot bed for drone activity.
Awful lot of people in NYC. The city will have its share of FPVidiots. To protect out RC hobby we need to find a way to at least disavow
the FPVidiots.

What gets me is that the FPV forum I sometimes visit is ignoring this whole thing. Head in the sand?

CR

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.