Another Drone Pilot does it Again
#3176
My Feedback: (49)
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Are you saying the Governor of Utah is sensationalizing this latest event?
Not to make it a trivial mater but the news media certainly sensationalizes 99.9% of "DRONE" sightings. Just yesterday talked to one of our Ultra lite tenets (Hangers at 0WI8) and he still thought that a ""DRONE) had brought down an airliner in England. That's the one where the pilot reported a DRONE striking the plane when it turned out to be a plastic bag. News media like to publish things but ever or seldom print the truth after it is discovered, Because U can't sensationalize a Plastic Bag I guess.
Are you saying the Governor of Utah is sensationalizing this latest event?
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon;12228010[SIZE=3
]No.[/SIZE]
#3177
Originally Posted by franklin_m
Are you saying the Governor of Utah is sensationalizing this latest event?
Not to make it a trivial mater but the news media certainly sensationalizes 99.9% of "DRONE" sightings. Just yesterday talked to one of our Ultra lite tenets (Hangers at 0WI8) and he still thought that a ""DRONE) had brought down an airliner in England. That's the one where the pilot reported a DRONE striking the plane when it turned out to be a plastic bag. News media like to publish things but ever or seldom print the truth after it is discovered, Because U can't sensationalize a Plastic Bag I guess.
Are you saying the Governor of Utah is sensationalizing this latest event?
Not to make it a trivial mater but the news media certainly sensationalizes 99.9% of "DRONE" sightings. Just yesterday talked to one of our Ultra lite tenets (Hangers at 0WI8) and he still thought that a ""DRONE) had brought down an airliner in England. That's the one where the pilot reported a DRONE striking the plane when it turned out to be a plastic bag. News media like to publish things but ever or seldom print the truth after it is discovered, Because U can't sensationalize a Plastic Bag I guess.
#3178
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/...one-hit-woman/
"Drone operator Rosaire Turcotte is unsure of how he lost control of the drone or how the incident occurred. In an interview with VAT News, he attests that he has "zero explanation" and believes he "acted in the safest way possible.""
Really what a moron, but it's the medias fault.
Mike
"Drone operator Rosaire Turcotte is unsure of how he lost control of the drone or how the incident occurred. In an interview with VAT News, he attests that he has "zero explanation" and believes he "acted in the safest way possible.""
Really what a moron, but it's the medias fault.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 06-26-2016 at 03:52 AM.
#3179
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/...one-hit-woman/
"Drone operator Rosaire Turcotte is unsure of how he lost control of the drone or how the incident occurred. In an interview with VAT News, he attests that he has "zero explanation" and believes he "acted in the safest way possible.""
Really what a moron, but it's the medias fault.
Mike
"Drone operator Rosaire Turcotte is unsure of how he lost control of the drone or how the incident occurred. In an interview with VAT News, he attests that he has "zero explanation" and believes he "acted in the safest way possible.""
Really what a moron, but it's the medias fault.
Mike
The first mistake was the event coordinator hiring someone to do this, Not sure they ever should have done that in the first place. A tad harsh to call someone who's suffered a brown out or flyaway a "moron", but hey, if it involves a multirotor or quad I see that's standard operating procedure. Wonder if the operator bought his at a hobby shop?
#3180
https://www.engadget.com/2016/06/24/...one-hit-woman/
"Drone operator Rosaire Turcotte is unsure of how he lost control of the drone or how the incident occurred. In an interview with VAT News, he attests that he has "zero explanation" and believes he "acted in the safest way possible.""
Really what a moron, but it's the medias fault.
Mike
"Drone operator Rosaire Turcotte is unsure of how he lost control of the drone or how the incident occurred. In an interview with VAT News, he attests that he has "zero explanation" and believes he "acted in the safest way possible.""
Really what a moron, but it's the medias fault.
Mike
#3182
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If that's what you believe, that there aren't relative stats to show this problem is infinitesimally small, and that this latest event is being over dramatized, then put that in a letter and sign your name to it and send it to the Utah Governor, and maybe Utah's Senators as well. I think you should include the comment about the abacus for "color."
He isn't, but someone has taken up that banner and run with it........
#3183
#3185
Oh the drama.....how convenient to put this all at the feet of a couple of drones.....he's taking a page from the "traditional" RC folks now isn't he, always gotta be a bad guy and bogey man, hey how about drones. Probably plenty of blame to go around, but sure, put it on the drones. Yup.
He isn't, but someone has taken up that banner and run with it........
He isn't, but someone has taken up that banner and run with it........
#3186
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I visited a club again. I asked about quads, and was told that they go where the helis are, which makes sense. He also told me that there's really nothing exciting about watching a quad fly. They go up for a few minutes, get bored, and eventually buy a plank. Now, before anybody accuses me of maligning fixed wings, keep in mind that that's what I always flew when in the hobby. If I get the chance to start back in the hobby, I'll once again be among the circle flyers.
As for getting bored watching quads, well, one mans being bored is another mans being interested. To each their own. Not sure I follow the fellows logic about a quad going up, and then a pilot gets bored and goes out and buys fixed wing? Does this fellow realize a quad may be doing the same exactly thing, ie flying in circles? I've met plenty of quad pilots who got bored out of their minds flying planks in a circle.
It's a good time to get back into the hobby though, plenty of interesting aircraft out there and the prices are pretty reasonable. Good luck, and have fun no matter what you fly.
#3187
Oh the drama.....how convenient to put this all at the feet of a couple of drones.....he's taking a page from the "traditional" RC folks now isn't he, always gotta be a bad guy and bogey man, hey how about drones. Probably plenty of blame to go around, but sure, put it on the drones. Yup.
So, you appear to know something the Governor does not. If it wasn't drones as he says, then please do share what it was.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-27-2016 at 04:09 AM.
#3188
The Governor said it was drone sightings near fires that caused them to ground the aircraft. But you say "there's gotta be a bad guy and bogey [sic] man, hey how about drones?"
So, you appear to know something the Governor does not. If it wasn't drones as he says, then please do share what it was.
So, you appear to know something the Governor does not. If it wasn't drones as he says, then please do share what it was.
#3189
#3191
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The Governor said it was drone sightings near fires that caused them to ground the aircraft. But you say "there's gotta be a bad guy and bogey [sic] man, hey how about drones?"
So, you appear to know something the Governor does not. If it wasn't drones as he says, then please do share what it was.
So, you appear to know something the Governor does not. If it wasn't drones as he says, then please do share what it was.
#3192
#3193
Then you won't mind posting your letter to the Governor where you detail why he is wrong about the risk. Thrill us all with your aviation safety acumen.
#3194
Technically no. The Feds still own the airspace. However, by issuing a TFR, they are empowering him (or other officials) to decide who is and is not considered "participating," see 14 CFR 91.137(b). So, while not technically in charge, he's effectively in charge within the TFR as he says who can and cannot participate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.137
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.137
#3195
Well, just the other day your comrade, Crispy, took issue with my use of "bigger" in a discussion of operating envelope of part 107 ops vs. part 101 ops. I wanted to make sure I accurately quoted you lest Crispy take issue with it.
#3196
How is it possible to engage in meaningful conversation when you didn't provide your interpretation of the term "BIGGER" when you used it?
#3197
Technically no. The Feds still own the airspace. However, by issuing a TFR, they are empowering him (or other officials) to decide who is and is not considered "participating," see 14 CFR 91.137(b). So, while not technically in charge, he's effectively in charge within the TFR as he says who can and cannot participate.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.137
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.137
What proactive steps has he taken since this incident took place to prevent rouge operators from interfering with emergency operations in the future?
#3198
Will you be doing the same with your letter to the Governor showing why he is right about the risk along with justifiable and verifiable analytics to support your position?
#3199
I am however writing a letter to both Senators and my Congressmen asking them to support (via amendments) two issues:
(1) A national 400 foot limit on sUAS operations. The case I argue to them is that if they're going to restrict trained and certified operators (part 107 operators) to 400 feet and below out of concern for manned aircraft above 500 feet, then why allow a potentially larger group of untrained and uncertified operators (those 180,000 AMA members for example), to exceed that limit?
(2) In light of this most recent TFR incursion, I'm also asking them to support more more severe fines for violating any TFR that restricts operations of "all aircraft," whether or not "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned. Some believe that even though TFRs mention "all aircraft", they do not apply unless "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned. Despite the fact that the FAA has articulated that "model aircraft" are indeed a subcategory of "aircraft" (see note), it appears there's room for clarification.
Note: In the FAA interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft, on page 16 part IV "Examples of Regulations That Apply to Model Aircraft," the FAA uses as an example that a TFRs. In that paragraph on page 17, the FAA said that "the third category of rules relevant to model aircraft operations are rules relating to operations in areas covered by temporary flight restrictions and NOTAMs found in §§91.137 through 91.145. The FAA would expect that model aircraft operations comply with restrictions on airspace when established under these rules." So, it appears that if a TFR is issued under 91.137 through 91.145, whether or not "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned, the TFR still applies.
Last edited by franklin_m; 06-27-2016 at 08:50 AM.
#3200
The Governor did not detail actions he took, though I'm sure if you write him a letter and ask those questions, his office would be more than happy to tell you. They'd likely be more inclined if you also cite your aviation experience and rationale for why his decision was wrong.