Originally Posted by HoundDog

Perhaps you could pose that question to your legislators? I expect they'll get it kicked to DOT then FAA for a response. Might be good reading - though might not be what you hope it would be.

Originally Posted by porcia83

I'll just note that these types of situations are statistically minuscule, must we really have a safety rule and reg for everything?

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Feel free.

FYI it's a Corps of Engineers lake without any commercial traffic.

Originally Posted by porcia83

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...l#post12228625

1: Man, this totally smacks of a concern trolling approach at it's core. More rules, more stringent govt regs, more more more...all for safety? So if some are stuck at 400 feet, let's point out that the AMA members who don't fly for profit but have 80 years of a proven track record should be limited to that as well, is that your argument?

2: More rules, more fines, more govt involvement. That solves the problem how? It doesn't, just means they might get more money by way of fines. Use the laws already on the books (which again, don't preclude future bad acts).

Why keep digging and digging for a solution to a problem that doesn't really warrant that type of action. Before you say "write that to the governor..." I'll just note that these types of situations are statistically minuscule, must we really have a safety rule and reg for everything?

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Feel free.

FYI it's a Corps of Engineers lake without any commercial traffic.

Originally Posted by CESSNA 421

This was on the internet today: "Amateur drones grounding firefighting aircraft is not a new problem. Last year, the US Forest Service started a campaign to try to curb the practice. State lawmakers tried to increase fines for those who are discovered flying a drone too close to fire-fighting operations, although California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed that bill."

I wonder why the governor of California vetoed this, maybe be he has a drone import business!!! I believe a fine of $100,000.00 per occurrence and 10 years in jail without parole would help curb the drone intrusions!!

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

In 2014 there were 18 accidents involving a recreational vessel that collided with a commercial vessel with 7 deaths and 9 injuries. Model airplanes 0 for 0 for that year and only 2 accidents and no death's or injuries. Seems to me a 400 foot rule is needed for your boat. And oh as for as no commercial vessel's in your lake, there have been 937 accidents with 40 deaths and 652 injuries where recreational vessels collided with other recreational vessels. Seems to me a ban on your boat is needed a lot worse than a 400 foot ban on model airplanes. Maybe a total ban nobody can own a boat except for commercial use and of course the government. Seems to me it makes a lot more sense than your 400 foot ban.

Same goes to the stupid Governor. Fires kill people, so far it has not been proven that drones can.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

While economics are part of it, so too is what I call logistical overhead. That being defined as the time spent packing aircraft and equipment, driving, unpacking aircraft and equipment, setup of aircraft and equipment, breakdown of aircraft and equipment, repacking of aircraft and equipment, drive home, and unpacking and storing aircraft and equipment in the garage again. In the case of the closest club field, there's at least two hours tied up in that. It mixes in economics when you then add the $100 a year for the club. It does not count waiting for the 3D plane that's hovering over the runway to land / clear to fly.

Do you have written permission to fly on the public property you're using as your flying site?

In my own way, I promote the hobby by reminding folks here and elsewhere that you don't need to fly at a club field to enjoy the hobby. In fact, if you're flexible with respect to the type of aircraft, then there's a number of flying sites available nearby. If you're so inclined, and if you're on a budget, you can then plow club dues into things that fly and just buying access to a flying site.

I enjoy every penny I spend on club dues. The expense only represents a tiny insignificant fraction of my annual income.

Originally Posted by HoundDog

All of what U say here Makes more seance than some around here.
Quads get a bad rap just like Guns, when it the individual that should be prosecuted.

Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about big/more government:

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Really seems to fit our situation doesn't it?

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I'm a little sun burned after a full day of baseball followed by a full day on the boat. Wasn't pre-emptively going after you but rather "insuring" myself against linguistic gymnastics by another.

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

You may want to consider adding sunscreen to your safety concerns. Skin cancer is a serious concern these days.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I welcome your concern. However, when I don't wear sunscreen, I suffer the consequences. When a drone pilot flies too close to fire fighting aircraft, the risk is imposed on others. In the latest example, the drone posed a safety of flight risk to the crews, a property damage risk to property owners on the ground, and economic risk to the state and other agencies that now have to expend additional resources.

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

What was the total duration of the risk? Was the duration of risk increased because the Governor, in charge of the TFR does not have any aviation experience? I've asked several times yet, you fail to disclose the Governor's aviation experience.

Seems odd that you both highlight and downplay the importance of "aviation experience" to make your case. If that's not linguistic gymnastics, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

The Governor's aviation experience is irrelevant. His role is to listen to recommendations from the staff and then make a decision, and his qualification for that role was issued by the voters that elected him. Since you seem to think it was not a good decision, perhaps you'll elaborate why?

Originally Posted by franklin_m

It's about advocating for consistency in operational rules

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I welcome your concern. However, when I don't wear sunscreen, I suffer the consequences. When a drone pilot flies too close to fire fighting aircraft, the risk is imposed on others. In the latest example, the drone posed a safety of flight risk to the crews, a property damage risk to property owners on the ground, and economic risk to the state and other agencies that now have to expend additional resources.

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

If sUAS are banned in federal/state parks w/o specific written approval shouldn't they be banned on all public property w/o specific written approval? For consistency, of course.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Cool video, but it sure looked like several near mid-airs (tail of FW out of frame with FPV flying below and behind). But I suppose to if you're willing to lose your plane, no biggie. Certainly no risk to people on the ground.

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie

The Snohomish County Parks Department has jurisdiction over a majority of the parks in Snohomish County. To operate R/Cs in the park requires a permit from them, issued before the day of the planned operation. As long as the people participating have the permit available on-site, they are legal to operate their toys. The same goes for school sites. If the school district admins feel it's safe, they give you permission and you're good to go.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

The Governor's aviation experience is irrelevant. His role is to listen to recommendations from the staff and then make a decision, and his qualification for that role was issued by the voters that elected him. Since you seem to think it was not a good decision, perhaps you'll elaborate why?m

Originally Posted by DJFOURSON

County, and state parks are different from national parks.

Originally Posted by DJFOURSON

County, and state parks are different from national parks.

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

The same goes for folks advocating for what they believe is best for everyone w/o ever understanding what the hobby is really about.