reo

My Feedback: (130)

so why even post it?

SAMCPAKISTAN

Dear FLAPHappy, if it happened by mistake ? Need more attentions to the safety rules, & if it was a willing act ? it will raise many issues for the hobby & Hobbyists . Don't think that it was a mistake, when the drone pilot know the situation and have awareness of it's results.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

What's the problem with posting it? It's a story in the media already, posting it here isn't going to alert some lawmaker to it. The reality is some people are going to find a way to be disruptive, and destructive. The means of that isn't really the issue. Just like anyone else violating the law and putting people's health and safety in peril, they need to be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed. Eventually those stories will be told as well, and might act as a deterrent to further stupidity.

Kinda like the guy who was tazed and arrested at the national park (in front of his children and wife no less), I wonder how much that stunt is going to cost him at the end of the day. He had his vacation ruined, tazed by a park ranger, his UAV confiscated, and now has to deal with the legal ramifications of that. And for what...some footage that he'll probably never see.

Sport_Pilot

No! Don't put words in my mouth. I only stated that the airline pilot should be trying to avoid the sUAV. Not that he did not have right of way. In the first instance it is unknown if he had time, the second it looks like they did not. But there have been others where they had time but the article did not say they aborted or otherwise avoided the sUAV. Just pointing out that even if you have right of way you have the duty to see and avoid. BTW in the PSA flight 182 the airline pilots were ruled as violating the "see and avoid" statute even though they had the right of way.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

OK, now I would like to know, if the pilot of the drone was within 3 miles of an airport, and was over 400ft.AGL, why should the airliner pilot have to concentrate on a drone, when the drone should not have been in that airspace to begin with?
I agree, all pilots shall "see and avoid" when possible, that was the point I was trying to get across, but when an airliner is slowing down for a landing with flaps down, how can they make a drastic move to avoid anything without stalling?

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

it does not help to keep talking about the drones>> lets lay off them for a while see what happens

slowjett

Hey RGB, I fly pretty much exclusively FPV. We do races, competitions and general fun. There is nothing like cruising through the sky with 2 other fpv planes or doing proximity runs down a mountain face with the first person view. Any time you want to come out and put the goggles on I extend the invitation to you. I'll even let you fly and trust you wont crash the plane then stop on the TX You just let me know.

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

Neverlost1

My Feedback: (1)

And another one makes the news.
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/virgin...NTQzMTcwNDI3S0

Sport_Pilot

The airliner was at or near 200 Knots which is likely well over his stall speed. At any rate the approach speed for any airplane is such that you should be able to quickly make a go around and climb. But no mater, regulations still require you to see and avoid. BTW PSA 182 was on approach and it was found in the crash investigation to have failed to "see and avoid" even though the small Cessna was not where it was supposed to be. The airliner was flaps down and transitioning into landing mode. Yet the pilots of the airliner took most of the blame.

I suggest you read this> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

Rob2160

I gather you don't fly airliners Sport?

200 Kts is slow for an airliner and as you know the stall speed increases with extra G load.

Manoeuvrability at 200 Kts in an airliner is severely limited. I fly a Global Express Corportate Jet and with a clean wing it will stall easily at 200kts if anything more than a gentle turn is attempted at medium to heavy flying weights

Using slats and flaps reduces stall speed but also reduces the structural limit (EG 2.5 G clean vs 2.0 G with flap extended in a 737 )

So it's a catch 22. If you have a clean wing at low speeds you are aerodynamically limited. If configured with slat and flap you have a structural limit.

Unfortunately the highest probably of encountering a drone will be when the aircraft is heavy after takeoff or slow for landing. Neither are ideal for taking evasive action.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

...

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Yes, thank you for that information, but in this thread we are talking about remote controlled Drones, not Full Scale aircraft.
I do realize the conflict, but here again, it's about uneducated, new to the hobby, flying recklessly and not even trying to obey flight rules established by the FAA and the AMA, to promote safe flying in our hobby.
This "see and avoid" concept is great, but when it comes to little Drones, 1-3 ft diameter, the full scale pilot has a second or two at most to avoid a conflict, a fully loaded airliner has about zero chance of avoiding a collision with a remote controlled Drone of that size. I know people are tired of this arguement, but the fact remains, when a full scale aircraft collides with a remote controlled uSAV, airplane or Heli, Glider, the rules will be rewritten to avoid this. Do we want more Regulation in this hobby, No, but if these types of people continue with the current practices they are conducting today and it grows every day on the News, we could be controlling remote controlled Submarines. Not a joke, fact.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

RG: sorry I was late, just reviewing past comments took awhile. This is exactly why I brought this subject up. If a fatality happens because of reckless pilots flying where they not supposed to be, 3 miles from an airport, above 400 ft. AGL. and proven in court, the person will not have enough money to settle the suit. The real bad part is, somebody dies because of this, the second part is unknown, but your guess is as good as mine. The end of RC Aircraft? who knows?

ira d

you seem to think that the rule or law 336 does not have to be obeyed by the FAA. If something did happen the FAA would be free to go after whoever was at fault but not after RC operations as a whole.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

how much ya wana bet, that, in the event of major loss of life incident, that the model aviation part of 336 gets reviewed and probably rescinded pronto.
what congress givith, they can also taketh away. and public opinion drives what they do.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
........If this continues to be a more growing problem than it already is, I fear the AMA will be in big trouble, and most of us will be punished because of a few. The first fatality involving a full scale pilot or passengers, will be the crowning blow to all of us.

inin:
Sure hope U are right but the real problem is that the Public and the FAA doesn't yet distinguish the AMA (Good Guys) from the Rouge Quad Pilots. (Probably more neurmous than all the AMA put together. These people don't kno it illegal to fly where they are and causing the problem. If there is a major accident or Loss of life I'm afraid the FAA/NTSB is not going to differenuate from us and the rouge Quad guys. Really all the contervercy with the FAA started when the AMAA/congress tried through ammendmant #336 what they were allowed and not allowed. This caused the FAA to say to congress U can't tell us how to accomplish the moderation of the ATC system only thing congress can do is that they are to moderinizr the ATC system.
Let's all hope and pray that no one causes any kind of accident with any R/C Fling Device. But we as Responsible R/C flyers must do every thing to nip in the bud anyone that might cause a problem and we also have to find a way to separate us from the ROUGE Quad people. We can not hope or even believe that amendment #336 is going to do anything but cause the FAA to give us grief for reasons stated above. JMHO

NorfolkSouthern

And this really brings the point: The AMA should have kept its mouth shut, and not got involved with politics in the first place. It will one day turn around and bite them.

Sportflyr

My Feedback: (1)

Quads are the Special Olympics of the entire RC world. If they disappeared completely it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit. In fact I had to intercede more than once to in form ppl not to fly within approach space of an airport. And yes it is creating an unnecessary stigma for our beloved sport.

DeferredDefect

Well, we know that it will be impossible for the legislators to declare a quad "illegal", while at the same time ignoring an electric park flyer. Either everything gets effected, or nothing does. Helis have been a part of the hobby since the 1970s, and nobody would argue that they are technically dissimilar (at least in performance, which is where the concern comes) from a multirotor.

Have you personally ever flown a multirotor, or tried that aspect of the hobby?

Being more interested in aviation history, building, and full-scale aviation, I didn't see the appeal at all..... Until I built a tricopter this winter.
It's absolutely the most fun I've had in this hobby in five years, and the multirotor community is extremely friendly and safety conscious.
Everyone is extremely well aware of what needs to be done to preserve the hobby, and they (us) have just as much to lose.

Also, I don't see the stigma between multi rotors and traditional models. Even the most media-brainwashed observer isn't going to think the guy flying a 25% scale Spitfire is spying on them from the air.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Don't count on that. The FAA will come down hard, real Hard when it involves R/C Drones. The FAA has given the CBO Permission to fly these Drones, but.... Obey the Rules, Period. When one of these toys, contacts a full scale aircraft, thank God it has not happened yet, but will one day, you will see Rule 336 tossed out the Window as fast as appeared. Not knowing is not going to be accepted by the FAA or the AMA. Rule 336 will not protect us, and if you think it will, please reread it again. It clearly says " OBEY Flight Safety Rules" Those who do not will be punished within the Law.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The sky isn't falling, the end is not near. Ignoring probably the single biggest issue that could have negatively affected this hobby would have been incredibly ignorant and shortsighted. Thank god they took the approach they did. Leave the potential future of this hobby in some other entities hands without any input? No.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So basically follow the rules and you won't have a problem. Disobey, or break the rules, and you will be punished. I have no problem with that, how could anyone?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So basically one should follow the rules and then one won't have a problem. Disobey, or break the rules, and you will be punished. I have no problem with that, how could anyone?

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

i see that the people are still talking about the drones will it ever stop

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

around the time that people stop talking about people who talk about drones.