HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Check this out straight from the FAA.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][h=3]FAA projects 7 million UAVs sold in US by 2020[/h]FAA has forecasted total unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sales of 7 million in the US by 2020 and also released a new report detailing UAV sightings around airports, which the agency said have “increased dramatically over the past two years.”
FULL ARTICLE
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Check this out straight from the FAA.

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]FAA projects 7 million UAVs sold in US by 2020

FAA has forecasted total unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sales of 7 million in the US by 2020 and also released a new report detailing UAV sightings around airports, which the agency said have “increased dramatically over the past two years.”
FULL ARTICLE[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Of the 357,000 registered aircraft in the United States,

As recently as 2011, FAA was forecasting 25,000 total UAVs sold by 2020, but the agency is now projecting 1.9 million recreational UAV sales in the US this year, plus another 600,000 commercial unmanned aircraft sold. By 2020, according to FAA’s latest forecast released on March 24, there will be 4.3 million recreational UAVs and 2.7 million commercial UAVs sold for a total of 7 million annual UAV sales in the US.
7 Million Drones / 375000 planes means that DRONES will out number Full Scale Planes in the USA by a margin of 18.66 to 1.

smeckert

That's great news, we'll out number them and have control of the national airspace Strenght in numbers!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So let's that that number at face value, or heck, better yet...cut it in half. Figure that number might be off as the "trend' might be gone by then, and then take into account that one might be sold, but used once and crashed, or the person just got bored with it.

So......we have 3.5 million MR up in the air.....what would ever make the FAA need to get involved and start regulating them? What is that some say, a few errant drones flown by scofflaws? Those tiny few who "ruined it for us traditional folks", and then of course the AMA embracing them.

Ya, I don't think so. The FAA has known all along these would be cluttering up the skies, and knew that it had to do something about it. I don't see blame on the "outlaw fliers" ie: Trappy, nor the AMA, or even the FAA for that matter. This was about technology advancing to the point that legitimate safety concerns were raised. Yes, I doubt some of the "sighting" numbers battered about by FAA reports, but that's not taking into the account the huge number of these things that will be in the skies eventually.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[TABLE="width: 468"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 479"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 479, colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 479, colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 2, bgcolor: #006699"][/TD]
[TD="width: 479"][TABLE="width: 459"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 2, bgcolor: #006699"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 486, bgcolor: #006699, colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
FAA Expands Drone Privileges
By Mary Grady
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Certified drone operators may now fly small UAS, weighing less than 55 pounds, up to 400 feet AGL, the FAA said today, expanding the flight zone from the previous limit of 200 feet. The policy change follows a "comprehensive risk analysis," the FAA said. Operators still are restricted to daytime VFR. They also must still keep the drone within sight and stay away from airports and heliports. Read More[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 479"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 479, colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sport_Pilot

I suspect we are at or near peak numbers right now. Won't seem so cool when everybody has one. So they will sit in closets and garages.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'd still give it another year before sales level off, or start to decline significantly. The costs are already coming down, and the big producers are packing these things with more options for less money. There are more showing up at one field I fly at, more for racing and using on an obstacle course. I would say within a year the furor over them being involved with the hobby, as well as being accepted in some clubs will be largely a thing of the past. What will be the first sign that this is on the decline....ads from Tower, HH, and HK will go back to fixed wing and helis.

Flight Risk

My Feedback: (1)

[QUOTE][TABLE="width: 468"]
[TR]
[TD] the FAA said. Operators still are restricted to daytime VFR.[/QUOTE][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

But I love night flying. Did this use to be a restriction?

Sport_Pilot

[QUOTE=Flight Risk;12196267]Not for us, that restriction is for non recreational use. Or maybe not, at least not after they pass the new law.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[QUOTE=Flight Risk;12196267]Nope Never we've had Night flying and still do at our Electric Festival. That's why we have to get Registered R/C fields exempt from most of this crap. Even the 400' stuff. FAR 91.119 states that Maned air craft Must maintain at least 1000' above the Highest object with in 2000' of the AC when "over any open air assembly of persons," What I'm saying it is the Full scale pilots responsibility is to know where R/C fields are and avoid them or fly higher than 1000'+ AGL


[TABLE="width: 90%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 582"]
Sec. 91.119

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Subpart B--Flight Rules[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Just got this as an Email have fun ... Doesn't seem the FAA is going to stop or wvwn slow the Tide
http://diydrones.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

Sport_Pilot

So was there something on that site about night flying, or some other topic we have been discussing?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Sporty It's just some interesting reading on DIY Drones if u don't like it don't read it Is this your License plate.N1PITA

rgburrill

No, strength is in the dollars.

Sport_Pilot

I should have pasted a smiley! I did not mean that in a critical way, just thought I missed something or some article disappeared before I go to it.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Things surly can get screwed up just reading with out having the nuances and inflections of speech. Sorry The older one get the thinner their skin gets Figuratively and actually.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

More growth noted:

http://techcrunch.com/2016/03/31/all...1&noRedirect=1

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://gizmodo.com/all-the-big-drone...lob-1769050453

fliers1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...m_hp_ref=world

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

ouch!

N410DC

The Huffington Post has some stories that are true, and others that are completely false. I am going to have to pull out the BS card on this one.

The picture of the quad on the desk shows that it is in pristine condition, just after crashing through a plate glass window and striking a person in the head. Most quads look worse this after the first few flights. This kind of impact would cause substantial damage, at best.

There is a good chance that the picture was taken a few minutes after it was unpacked from its shipping container.

fliers1

Although, one prop is broke.

Sport_Pilot

I have a hard time believing that a drone this size could go fast enough to go through an office window. Maybe South Africa's building standards are lax but here in the US the window would have to survive a lot of wind and would be laminated glass. It would likely shatter but not allow the object to penetrate.

init4fun

When they say "office window" , if they are talking a downtown New York type building I will agree 100% with Sport that it's BS that little quad broke clean through a window that strong , and only lost one prop blade in the impact . For size scale , look at the glass of water in the picture near the quad , that quad is quite tiny indeed . (Or that's one darned big glass of water !) You would have to shoot the poor little thing out of a cannon at close range to get bits of it to go through a high rise's window . Now if they are talking a little building , a 2 or 3 floor "office window" that was paper thin like a cottage window sure I believe there are such windows that could be broken by a small quad like that , But an "office tower" type building ? No way no how could the mythbusters themselves convince me that little quad went through a window at (for instance) a building like Boston's "Hancock Tower" !

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

OK. All the talk about MR'S AKA Drones has been hashed over many times. They are the Primary Reason that caused all the uproar and that led to Registration of all RC Now, take a look at the new contraption they have invented, and may be on the Market for sale next year!
How is the FAA going to regulate that?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-hove...320.html?nhp=1