porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Really? Where?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

No doubt the technology is already there, it's just a question of how to employ is so that it doesn't cause more harm than good. Would be funny to see a drone launch and then come back after hit with a "ray"...watch the pilots face, like wrh, I didn't hit the return to home button, why is it come back to me? Ha!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[h=1]Why drones are not the problem (a note to regulators)[/h]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8tnUjP-sK4

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

The person gave his opinion, which in the most part I agree with, and gives a valid commentary. People are the problem, not the Drones or Guns or Knives, it's Human behavior, that's the problem and I think it's about time for the Law Enforcement and other entities that make rules of Flight Safety get involved and make it happen.Will it happen??? I don't know, but I hope so.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Could not agree more....it's the people, not the technology. Hold them accountable and leave the people alone are follow the rules and regs, and use common sense. The most recent direction from the FAA is supposed to help local LE in dealing with this issue, as they are on the front lines. I hope as you do that it makes a difference.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

FAA Promises Strict Action Against Illegal Drone Users
The FAA is responding to a sharp increase in drone encounters with manned aircraft. In a statement released last week, the agency said pilot reports of drones have increased from 238 in 2014 to more than 650 so far this year. The FAA is sending a clear message that they will seek fines, and even possible criminal charges for illegal use of drones. Full story >>

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ons-on-drones/

Right on cue, our state senator (a guy who never met a camera he didn't like)....thinks the FAA should take steps to address the drone issue. Big hearty LOL...he's on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which oversees the FAA. As if the FAA hasn't done anything yet?

Not that some of his suggestions are bad ones (geofencing around airports), but it's not like this is a new issue. But hey, got him some air time!

dingo9882

http://wtnh.com/2015/08/20/blumentha...ons-on-drones/

Hate to say it, but I am adding fuel to the fire if this has not already been posted.

wjvail

My Feedback: (3)

Wait. What? The entire article is about some guy that saw a drone 15 miles from the airport. As a commercial airline pilot have no desire to hit a drone. On the other hand I realize that seeing a drone 15 miles from the airport, presumably thousands of feet below, is not cause for alarm. "On his approach 15 miles south of the airport" - he should have been at approximately 5,000'. Drones are perfectly legal up to 400' and within 5 miles of many airports. For all I know he looked down and saw a guy flying a RingMaster in the park.

In the same way. over the years, I've seen things I couldn't immediately identify. They were most likely mylar balloons. I suppose you would have to call them unidentified-flying-objects. The were flying. I couldn't identify them. They appeared to be - objects. Does that make them UFOs newsworthy and requiring congressional attention?

Also... Don't we have Connecticut to thank for Ted Kennedy? When elected officials from Connecticut speak, I tend to tune out.

Bill

Edited to correct a math error.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

"On his approach 15 miles south of the airport" - he should have been at approximately 4,500'.

I checked every approach plate at Bradly International and the vectoring altitudes to be from 2500'MSL to 3500' MSL with most at 3000'msl. Subtracting the 173' MSL of the airport the mean vectoring altitude would be 3000'-173'=2827' AGL. Still way too high for any Quad or R/C model air plane.

wjvail

My Feedback: (3)

Understood. Those are minimum altitudes. I used the hip pocket rule: Altitude x 3 should be your range from the airport. So 5,000 feet x 3 would be 15 miles. As you pointed out you might be vectored below that but in any case you should not see a drone anywhere near your altitude.

Using this 3 to 1 rule suggests that a drone even 5 miles from an airport would have to be at 1,700' to be at the same altitude as an airplane on approach.

I've taken the liberty of a lot of rounding in my calculations. The point is, if this person reported a drone 15 miles from the airport he was either looking a long way down or the drone was violating several already established laws.

Bill

Bill

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I had basically posted the same thing 3 hours earlier...different source, same story.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'm suspicious of the story from the "pilot" in that this had never been reported before, but conveniently was noted standing next to a Senator who was looking for some publicity. Yes it's an issue...but where have both of these guys been for the last year or so?

You can thank our fellow New Englanders from Massachusetts for the Kennedys. Not that most states don't have their "special children".

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

If U notice that at 12.8 DME -1.9 DME =10.9 NM from the RWTH
Run Way Threshold U are at 3000' MSL. I would guess that the
vectoring Altitude for the ILS or LOC RWY 6 approach is 3000'MSL

Any VFR Traffic should be a Pattern altitude within 5 miles
of the airport is 1000' AGL witch iwould be 1173' MSL.

Still way too high for any Quad (Drone) or R/C model. Agreed?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

absolutely....nothing hobby grade RC should be at that level.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

Agreed, HD, has shown us charts for vectors that Pilots use everyday, plates if you will. People like myself that are not Full Scale Pilots, know a very small margin of vectors and altitudes, but when not being educated on how to read these charts, and practical practice with those plates, leaving the General RC hobbyist and Pilot confused, doesn't do much good, though we do appreciate the technical portion of the comment. Can we just say, 5 miles, AGL MAX.at 400 ft, and leave it at that?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Roger Roger, I got that vector Victor.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

For those that might be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElkNeuKoh0

rgburrill

First, these UAVs have been seen at very high altitudes, including the 5000' from the above story, different account with more info. Second, the system the FAA wants to build will not oly allow them to disable the UAV and send it home but also track it back to the owner. Remember, as yet UAVs do not have identifying numbers on them. Yet. That can be arranged.

N410DC

Given the massive media coverage of near misses, I am convinced that virtually 100% of the pilots who are flying over airport property know that they are operating illegally. These individuals will simply remove or disable the "...radio-frequency detection tags..." that allow the UAV to be detected by the system. If the "tags" are "...incorporated into drone operating systems as a standard feature," the pilots will simply obtain flight controllers from China that do not include this technology.Even this measure might not be necessary, if the firmware can hacked/modified to disable the "tag."

UAV detection systems such as this would work well to prevent inadvertent flight at an airport, but it will do nothing to prevent people who want to fly at or near airports.

Duncman

Any regulation for any industry only makes it harder for the lazy ones to violate, other than that, just gives the authorities a little teeth on those rare occasions when they catch the violators.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yup, but I'm starting to wonder IF they will catch them. How many years, what at least two now, and how many sightings, and not one capture (airplane sighting wise). But yes, if/when they get them they need to make examples of them.

Sport_Pilot

I do not believe they can write new regulation that these people wouild not also ignore. Just need more people enforcing the law. In time this will pass, especially after a few arrests.

Duncman

Sooner or later it will happen, they will catch a genius.

rgburrill

You got that right. Most hobby drones sold today already have the line-of-sight and 400 ft altitude protections built in. These clowns just disable them so disabling a RFID tag will be no problem. The solution to detection is to look for transmissions on the video frequencies these clowns are using. Two detectors near an airport can home on in on the UAV and send the info to the police. The police can then vector a helicopter to the location to continue tracking. Knowing what frequency they are broadcasting video on will also allow that video to be jammed. forcing a return to home.