FAA intentionaly hyping up Drone News. AMA needs to go to WAR!
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://news.msn.com/us/toy-drone-dis...ornia-wildfire
Frank
#127
Thread Starter
Has AC 91-57 been resinded?
#128
Thread Starter
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.
#129
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
#130
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://news.msn.com/us/toy-drone-dis...ornia-wildfire
#133
Thread Starter
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
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
#134
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
#135
Thread Starter
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.
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.
#136
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
#137
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.
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.
#138
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#139
#141
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AirVenture-Diesel-Drones-and-High-Energy-222472-1.html
Frank
#142
Thread Starter
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
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AirVenture-Diesel-Drones-and-High-Energy-222472-1.html
Frank
#143
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AirVenture-Diesel-Drones-and-High-Energy-222472-1.html
Frank
#144
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#147
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#148
Thread Starter
#149
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.
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.
#150
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
the FPVidiots.
What gets me is that the FPV forum I sometimes visit is ignoring this whole thing. Head in the sand?
CR