Another Drone Pilot does it Again
06-29-2016, 02:59 PM
#3326
06-29-2016, 03:03 PM
#3327
It doesn't take being a PIC to know about aviation but since you did ask. I personally don't have a pilots license. I do, however, have extensive training in aviation through the Navy as well as through civilian repair and maintenance facilities. At the moment, I get to watch new jets roll out of the factory every day. I've also had the pleasure of being involved in the repairing of aircraft damaged by bird strikes and replacing engines that had things as innocent as "Bic" pens sucked through them. A common modification on the 737s flying in Alaska is a "Vortex diffuser). Do any of you experts know what that one is and why it's needed?
That being said, I do have to keep up in what's going on in aviation as part of my present job. To not keep up with the what, how, why and when would have me out of a job very quickly. Knowing how a nose radome is constructed, for example, is something I have to be aware of even though someone walking onto a passenger jet wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I don't hear any of the so called armchair experts claiming to have flown below 500ft AGL at 500+ knots, though I bet Franklin has. Then again, I guess it's a mute point as well since at least one person in this thread will ask for proof of doing so
That being said, I do have to keep up in what's going on in aviation as part of my present job. To not keep up with the what, how, why and when would have me out of a job very quickly. Knowing how a nose radome is constructed, for example, is something I have to be aware of even though someone walking onto a passenger jet wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I don't hear any of the so called armchair experts claiming to have flown below 500ft AGL at 500+ knots, though I bet Franklin has. Then again, I guess it's a mute point as well since at least one person in this thread will ask for proof of doing so
06-29-2016, 03:07 PM
#3328
06-29-2016, 03:11 PM
#3329
At this point in time, which presents a more significant risk to the safety of manned aircraft, the one non-commercial sUAS incident Franklin has on record or the thousands of wildlife strikes the FAA has reported showing significant annual increases over many years?
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.
06-29-2016, 03:24 PM
#3330
Let me counter with a simple question:
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.
Based on the information you provided, it appears wildlife will present an even greater danger in the future to manned aircraft than it has in past.
06-29-2016, 03:35 PM
#3331
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me counter with a simple question:
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.
Interesting question.
Mike
06-29-2016, 04:06 PM
#3332
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
KEEP YOUR DRONE AWAY FROM WILDFIRES
There are lots of great places to fly your drones, but over or near a wildfire isn’t one of them. In fact, drone operators who interfere with wildfire suppression efforts are subject to civil penalties of up to $27,500 and possible criminal prosecution.
Here’s why it’s important: Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as airtankers and helicopters, fly at very low altitudes, just a couple hundred feet above the ground and in the same airspace as hobby and recreational drones. This creates the potential for a mid-air collision that could seriously injure or kill wildland firefighters in the air or on the ground.
As a result of unlawful drone operations near fires this year, fire managers have temporarily grounded all aerial firefighting aircraft on several occasions for safety reasons. Shutting down firefighting operations could cause wildfires to become larger and can threaten lives, property, and valuable natural and cultural resources.
The bottom line is “If You Fly, We Can’t."
Please fly responsibly – keep your drone away from wildfires.
STAY CONNECTED:
THANK GOD THEY SENT THIS I HAD NO IDEA........................................
Mike
06-29-2016, 04:10 PM
#3333
And why would the AMA be to blame? The FAA has taken the lead on enforcing this one and, as we all know, AMA members would probably know better already. Not sure how this would be disseminated to those that are not AMA or registered with the FAA, the ones that would need to know about it the most
06-29-2016, 04:21 PM
#3334
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I've been accused of that, but in fact I have no real problem with non-traditional aircraft, i.e. multirotors, in the hobby with the reasonable condition that they are operated under the same rules that are applied to traditional hobby aircraft. There should be no special rules crafted to accommodate them.
I do have a problem with the AMA's pursuit of the commercial sUAS market, whether involving traditional aircraft or not. It is clear that is where AMA is headed, for example in the Senate version of the FAA Re-authorization Bill. AMA favors it over the house version, as it includes a clause that would grant AMA (as the only qualifying non-profit CBO) monopoly concessions in conduct of sUAS operator training. It's highly unlikely the market for such training will come from the ranks of hobbyists. So yeah, having our hobby models lumped in with commercial unmanned aircraft by the organization that supposedly protects us from the regulatory process is change I won't accept quietly.
I do have a problem with the AMA's pursuit of the commercial sUAS market, whether involving traditional aircraft or not. It is clear that is where AMA is headed, for example in the Senate version of the FAA Re-authorization Bill. AMA favors it over the house version, as it includes a clause that would grant AMA (as the only qualifying non-profit CBO) monopoly concessions in conduct of sUAS operator training. It's highly unlikely the market for such training will come from the ranks of hobbyists. So yeah, having our hobby models lumped in with commercial unmanned aircraft by the organization that supposedly protects us from the regulatory process is change I won't accept quietly.
06-29-2016, 04:35 PM
#3335
I do have a problem with the AMA's pursuit of the commercial sUAS market, whether involving traditional aircraft or not. It is clear that is where AMA is headed, for example in the Senate version of the FAA Re-authorization Bill. AMA favors it over the house version, as it includes a clause that would grant AMA (as the only qualifying non-profit CBO) monopoly concessions in conduct of sUAS operator training. It's highly unlikely the market for such training will come from the ranks of hobbyists. So yeah, having our hobby models lumped in with commercial unmanned aircraft by the organization that supposedly protects us from the regulatory process is change I won't accept quietly.
06-29-2016, 04:36 PM
#3336
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And why would the AMA be to blame? The FAA has taken the lead on enforcing this one and, as we all know, AMA members would probably know better already. Not sure how this would be disseminated to those that are not AMA or registered with the FAA, the ones that would need to know about it the most
I presume that's a purely hypothetical question as you've been in these AMA threads for quite some time. Almost everything bad either real, perceieved, or predicted in the near (just around the corner) future almost always gets laid at the feet of the AMA. When it comes to communications specifically, the one who mocks the FAA press release does the same thing with the AMA press releases. Some people here expect absolute perfection in everything the AMA (or the FAA for that matter) does. It's a continual no win situation, a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
As for your job, it must be cool to see those birds rolling off the assembly line.
Guess it wasn't enough.
06-29-2016, 04:40 PM
#3337
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
It doesn't take being a PIC to know about aviation but since you did ask. I personally don't have a pilots license. I do, however, have extensive training in aviation through the Navy as well as through civilian repair and maintenance facilities. At the moment, I get to watch new jets roll out of the factory every day. I've also had the pleasure of being involved in the repairing of aircraft damaged by bird strikes and replacing engines that had things as innocent as "Bic" pens sucked through them. A common modification on the 737s flying in Alaska is a "Vortex diffuser). Do any of you experts know what that one is and why it's needed?
That being said, I do have to keep up in what's going on in aviation as part of my present job. To not keep up with the what, how, why and when would have me out of a job very quickly. Knowing how a nose radome is constructed, for example, is something I have to be aware of even though someone walking onto a passenger jet wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I don't hear any of the so called armchair experts claiming to have flown below 500ft AGL at 500+ knots, though I bet Franklin has. Then again, I guess it's a mute point as well since at least one person in this thread will ask for proof of doing so
That being said, I do have to keep up in what's going on in aviation as part of my present job. To not keep up with the what, how, why and when would have me out of a job very quickly. Knowing how a nose radome is constructed, for example, is something I have to be aware of even though someone walking onto a passenger jet wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I don't hear any of the so called armchair experts claiming to have flown below 500ft AGL at 500+ knots, though I bet Franklin has. Then again, I guess it's a mute point as well since at least one person in this thread will ask for proof of doing so
A vortex diffuser is a part used to diffuse vortexes.
Did I win?
06-29-2016, 06:02 PM
#3338
06-29-2016, 06:20 PM
#3340
It doesn't take being a PIC to know about aviation but since you did ask. I personally don't have a pilots license. I do, however, have extensive training in aviation through the Navy as well as through civilian repair and maintenance facilities. At the moment, I get to watch new jets roll out of the factory every day. I've also had the pleasure of being involved in the repairing of aircraft damaged by bird strikes and replacing engines that had things as innocent as "Bic" pens sucked through them. A common modification on the 737s flying in Alaska is a "Vortex diffuser). Do any of you experts know what that one is and why it's needed?
That being said, I do have to keep up in what's going on in aviation as part of my present job. To not keep up with the what, how, why and when would have me out of a job very quickly. Knowing how a nose radome is constructed, for example, is something I have to be aware of even though someone walking onto a passenger jet wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I don't hear any of the so called armchair experts claiming to have flown below 500ft AGL at 500+ knots, though I bet Franklin has. Then again, I guess it's a mute point as well since at least one person in this thread will ask for proof of doing so
That being said, I do have to keep up in what's going on in aviation as part of my present job. To not keep up with the what, how, why and when would have me out of a job very quickly. Knowing how a nose radome is constructed, for example, is something I have to be aware of even though someone walking onto a passenger jet wouldn't think twice about it. Then again, I don't hear any of the so called armchair experts claiming to have flown below 500ft AGL at 500+ knots, though I bet Franklin has. Then again, I guess it's a mute point as well since at least one person in this thread will ask for proof of doing so
Nothing New here ... The AGM28B Mound Dog (Look it Up on Wick) had one on in the lower lip of it's Inlet Spike of it's J-52 P3 Engine. It Used Blead air from the 5 or 6 stage compressor to blast a stream of hi sped comprested ait to breack up any vortes (Tornado) developed by the air rushing into the Jet Engines imlet from sucking up FOD. It was automatically turned on by the B-52's gear Squat switch if the engine was running on the ground.
06-29-2016, 06:22 PM
#3341
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie 
About the same as being polite has, just with a bit more flavor. Since some in here don't see anyone but themselves as being right, it really doesn't matter, now does it?
Now that is ironic.....
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie And why would the AMA be to blame? The FAA has taken the lead on enforcing this one and, as we all know, AMA members would probably know better already. Not sure how this would be disseminated to those that are not AMA or registered with the FAA, the ones that would need to know about it the most
I presume that's a purely hypothetical question as you've been in these AMA threads for quite some time. Almost everything bad either real, perceieved, or predicted in the near (just around the corner) future almost always gets laid at the feet of the AMA. When it comes to communications specifically, the one who mocks the FAA press release does the same thing with the AMA press releases. Some people here expect absolute perfection in everything the AMA (or the FAA for that matter) does. It's a continual no win situation, a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Nothing hypothetical about it. I asked a question based on a non-biased view of the situation. The FAA sent out a polite notice about quads in fire zones, okay I get that. The problem is how did they send it out and who did they send it to? The ones that really needed to see it are the ones that probably didn't get it so it's not the AMA or FAA at fault for lack of comunication, rather the failure to use normal media(i.e. over TV and radio station news broadcasts for starters) rather than attempting to use the internet. The FAA can be faulted for using poor measures to communicate but not failing to do so while the AMA is, in this case, an innocent bystander
06-29-2016, 06:34 PM
#3343
a "Vortex diffuser). Do any of you experts know what that one is and why it's needed?
Nothing New here ... The AGM28B Mound Dog (Look it Up on Wick) had one on in the lower lip of it's Inlet Spike of it's J-52 P3 Engine. It Used Blead air from the 5 or 6 stage compressor to blast a stream of hi sped comprested ait to breack up any vortes (Tornado) developed by the air rushing into the Jet Engines imlet from sucking up FOD. It was automatically turned on by the B-52's gear Squat switch if the engine was running on the ground.
Nothing New here ... The AGM28B Mound Dog (Look it Up on Wick) had one on in the lower lip of it's Inlet Spike of it's J-52 P3 Engine. It Used Blead air from the 5 or 6 stage compressor to blast a stream of hi sped comprested ait to breack up any vortes (Tornado) developed by the air rushing into the Jet Engines imlet from sucking up FOD. It was automatically turned on by the B-52's gear Squat switch if the engine was running on the ground.
06-29-2016, 06:40 PM
#3344
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
Nope, it takes more than 50% to get the answer right in this case
Just because the FAA etc make UN-Needed useless rules that won't solve the problem of idiots flying Quads (Drones) where they aren't supposed to be flown. Not anymore than all the Gun laws kep people in Chicago from Killing over a dozen every weekend.
Nope, it takes more than 50% to get the answer right in this case
Just because the FAA etc make UN-Needed useless rules that won't solve the problem of idiots flying Quads (Drones) where they aren't supposed to be flown. Not anymore than all the Gun laws kep people in Chicago from Killing over a dozen every weekend.
06-29-2016, 06:43 PM
#3345
No, it's not ironic. I'm not the one that has habitually attacked others for not seeing the AMA as the end all be all to model aviation for the past several months. I think it's pathetic that some have gone to the belittle, redirect and discredit tactics to make themselves look good at the expense of others. At the same time, I've not attacked the AMA because of what they have or haven't done because I figure the AMA is a very small organization as compared to some, that is unless you think my asking where their multi-million dollar yearly budget goes.
Nothing hypothetical about it. I asked a question based on a non-biased view of the situation. The FAA sent out a polite notice about quads in fire zones, okay I get that. The problem is how did they send it out and who did they send it to? The ones that really needed to see it are the ones that probably didn't get it so it's not the AMA or FAA at fault for lack of comunication, rather the failure to use normal media(i.e. over TV and radio station news broadcasts for starters) rather than attempting to use the internet. The FAA can be faulted for using poor measures to communicate but not failing to do so while the AMA is, in this case, an innocent bystander
Nothing hypothetical about it. I asked a question based on a non-biased view of the situation. The FAA sent out a polite notice about quads in fire zones, okay I get that. The problem is how did they send it out and who did they send it to? The ones that really needed to see it are the ones that probably didn't get it so it's not the AMA or FAA at fault for lack of comunication, rather the failure to use normal media(i.e. over TV and radio station news broadcasts for starters) rather than attempting to use the internet. The FAA can be faulted for using poor measures to communicate but not failing to do so while the AMA is, in this case, an innocent bystander
Got to say U got that one perfectly correct. If they can't Sensationalize a story it ain't a story.
06-29-2016, 06:49 PM
#3346
How do you sensationalize something over the radio? On TV, no need to go crazy beyond stating that due to what happened in Ca, this was sent out by the FAA,then show a close up of the notice, read it out loud, call it good. Print it in all the local papers if you rather, I don't care. Internet dissemination isn't going to cut it in this case
06-29-2016, 07:39 PM
#3347
No, it's not ironic. I'm not the one that has habitually attacked others for not seeing the AMA as the end all be all to model aviation for the past several months.
I've never seen anyone say the AMA is the end all be all to model aviation. In fact, many are upset the AMA has embraced a new type of non-fixed wing aircraft in recent years.
I think it's pathetic that some have gone to the belittle, redirect and discredit tactics to make themselves look good at the expense of others.
Agreed, with the addition of name calling added to the list.
At the same time, I've not attacked the AMA because of what they have or haven't done because I figure the AMA is a very small organization as compared to some, that is unless you think my asking where their multi-million dollar yearly budget goes.
Nothing hypothetical about it. I asked a question based on a non-biased view of the situation. The FAA sent out a polite notice about quads in fire zones, okay I get that. The problem is how did they send it out and who did they send it to?
Why not take a few guess here? First email one of the fastest and least expensive forms of communication available today. I was not surprised I received mine via email. Secondly, the FAA has the email addresses for those who have registered via their website. Thus, now they know everyone who registered as a non-commercial sUAS pilot.
The ones that really needed to see it are the ones that probably didn't get it so it's not the AMA or FAA at fault for lack of comunication, rather the failure to use normal media(i.e. over TV and radio station news broadcasts for starters) rather than attempting to use the internet.
Have you priced the cost of public service announcements these days? The Internet works fine and is more than adequate. Besides who watches commercials anyways? I just fast forward right through them with my TiVo.
The FAA can be faulted for using poor measures to communicate but not failing to do so while the AMA is, in this case, an innocent bystander
Poor measures to communicate are in the eye of beholder. I'd much rather see them use email than any other form of communication.
I've never seen anyone say the AMA is the end all be all to model aviation. In fact, many are upset the AMA has embraced a new type of non-fixed wing aircraft in recent years.
I think it's pathetic that some have gone to the belittle, redirect and discredit tactics to make themselves look good at the expense of others.
Agreed, with the addition of name calling added to the list.
At the same time, I've not attacked the AMA because of what they have or haven't done because I figure the AMA is a very small organization as compared to some, that is unless you think my asking where their multi-million dollar yearly budget goes.
Nothing hypothetical about it. I asked a question based on a non-biased view of the situation. The FAA sent out a polite notice about quads in fire zones, okay I get that. The problem is how did they send it out and who did they send it to?
Why not take a few guess here? First email one of the fastest and least expensive forms of communication available today. I was not surprised I received mine via email. Secondly, the FAA has the email addresses for those who have registered via their website. Thus, now they know everyone who registered as a non-commercial sUAS pilot.
The ones that really needed to see it are the ones that probably didn't get it so it's not the AMA or FAA at fault for lack of comunication, rather the failure to use normal media(i.e. over TV and radio station news broadcasts for starters) rather than attempting to use the internet.
Have you priced the cost of public service announcements these days? The Internet works fine and is more than adequate. Besides who watches commercials anyways? I just fast forward right through them with my TiVo.
The FAA can be faulted for using poor measures to communicate but not failing to do so while the AMA is, in this case, an innocent bystander
Poor measures to communicate are in the eye of beholder. I'd much rather see them use email than any other form of communication.
06-29-2016, 07:47 PM
#3348
How do you sensationalize something over the radio? On TV, no need to go crazy beyond stating that due to what happened in Ca, this was sent out by the FAA,then show a close up of the notice, read it out loud, call it good. Print it in all the local papers if you rather, I don't care. Internet dissemination isn't going to cut it in this case
06-29-2016, 07:58 PM
#3349
I never said PSA or commercials on TV, they are routinely used for bathroom and snack runs. Most watch the local news, for weather and /or sports reports so either lead that segment or put it in between. And, while I do agree that the internet is the cheapest way to go, it's not effective for those that are actually the problem. Those that the FAA can contact already know what's right and wrong so they are not the issue. The issue is those that don't show up on the FAA or AMA lists that fly because they don't think they will get caught. Put out a blanket announcement over the evening news for two or three days and then, if someone gets busted, it's on them and not the FAA.. I am not a proponent of email announcements due to the use of spam filters. Many times, I see an email get blocked or deleted as garbage, using regular media avoids that
06-29-2016, 08:15 PM
#3350
Let me counter with a simple question:
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.
How many more additional airline flights are added each year? Boeing and Airbus, combined, are selling planes in close to record numbers with no where close to that amount being retired. Many nesting areas are being destroyed to let man expand, forcing birds into closer proximity with man. More planes plus closer proximity equals more strikes.