How about this?!!!!
#226
My Feedback: (49)
HD, you have grievously misinterpreted my remarks. The FAA and all other government agencies only enforce the laws of congress. Any time they stray, which happens occasionally (bureaucrats are only human) they catch heck from congress and the public. One of the reasons that the interpretive rule is so narrowly phrased is because the FAA is making every effort to interpret the letter of the law exactly.
If U believe that I have 2 bridges for sale One In San Francisco and one in Brooklyn.
#227
This is why drones are banned at Disney
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...t222651-1.html
Disney Sees Drone-Operated Entertainment
Disney "imagineers" have found some unique uses for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that could eventually see airborne puppets controlled by drones pulling the strings. The company has filed three patent applications to use the increasingly sophisticated little aircraft to widen its entertainment offerings at its theme parks. A couple of the patents address a proposed improvement to the spectacular but apparently limiting use of fountains as an outdoor projection screen. The patents envision using multiple UAS vehicles to hoist lightweight materials that don't have a lot of wind resistance. The materials would act as screens or light diffusers which, working in concert, could create visuals that float in the air or "autonomously work together to deliver an interactive image in three dimensional space," according to Stitch Kingdom. The patents call the image-making light sources floating pixels or "flixels." A third patent would use drones to bring to life Disney characters in the night sky.
The imagineers see using UAS vehicles working in concert to articulate the limbs, joints and other moving parts of gigantic marionettes made of lightweight materials or balloons. Drawings accompanying the patents show dozens of UAS attached to various parts of the huge puppets working together to make it move. The patents do not address the many regulatory roadblocks in the way of these kinds of uses but the investment by Disney may suggest hope that such uses may eventually be legal.
And some of you thought it all had to do with the FAA protecting safety in the NAS..................... when it was actually getting the FAA to help Disney protect the patents.
Disney Sees Drone-Operated Entertainment
Disney "imagineers" have found some unique uses for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) that could eventually see airborne puppets controlled by drones pulling the strings. The company has filed three patent applications to use the increasingly sophisticated little aircraft to widen its entertainment offerings at its theme parks. A couple of the patents address a proposed improvement to the spectacular but apparently limiting use of fountains as an outdoor projection screen. The patents envision using multiple UAS vehicles to hoist lightweight materials that don't have a lot of wind resistance. The materials would act as screens or light diffusers which, working in concert, could create visuals that float in the air or "autonomously work together to deliver an interactive image in three dimensional space," according to Stitch Kingdom. The patents call the image-making light sources floating pixels or "flixels." A third patent would use drones to bring to life Disney characters in the night sky.
The imagineers see using UAS vehicles working in concert to articulate the limbs, joints and other moving parts of gigantic marionettes made of lightweight materials or balloons. Drawings accompanying the patents show dozens of UAS attached to various parts of the huge puppets working together to make it move. The patents do not address the many regulatory roadblocks in the way of these kinds of uses but the investment by Disney may suggest hope that such uses may eventually be legal.
And some of you thought it all had to do with the FAA protecting safety in the NAS..................... when it was actually getting the FAA to help Disney protect the patents.
Last edited by bradpaul; 11-09-2014 at 01:39 PM.
#228
My Feedback: (1)
I don't have a problem with these regulations as long as they are reasonable. I don't want to be at a sports event and have Joe Blow buzzing his Hobby King flyer over my head. I don't like the idea of crap falling into hot pots at Yellowstone. I don't care to see packages from Amazon being delivered by drones. I have no problem with them being used for agriculture, or other regulated services, but otherwise FPV needs to be within site by a spotter and follow AMA rules. Unless you're in the middle of nowhere.
#230
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...t222651-1.html
And some of you thought it all had to do with the FAA protecting safety in the NAS..................... when it was actually getting the FAA to help Disney protect the patents.
And some of you thought it all had to do with the FAA protecting safety in the NAS..................... when it was actually getting the FAA to help Disney protect the patents.
In addition, "REASONABLE" has only one side. All others are totally "Unreasonable".
Last edited by Hossfly; 11-10-2014 at 10:02 AM.
#232
#233
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sandy, OR,
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't really speak for the community. I have been to a couple of businesses that have autographed pictures of the crew on the wall. The Hoffman's own a local private airport, and the Turin name is pretty well known through the family paving business. I had them put in a long asphalt drive a few years back when I had a shop built in back of the property. I am barely related through a series of marriages (so not at all) to another Turin brother and yet another brother and I had kids in sports at the same time so I knew him. Nice guys. My club used to fly right at the Sandy River Airport for a year or two, but we had another field as well and we voted to not pay two leases on two sites. I would see Jack or Todd when I was down flying, but just to say a quick Hi, how's it goin'. They have a big banquet room on the airport property that we used for our meetings, and Jack spoke to us at a banquet a few years back and the subject was Alaska. Mining (he had done it before) and flying. He is a private pilot who has some Alaska flying experience. He wrapped it up by saying he was planning to go back and gold mine, but I didn't think about it one way or another at the time. I just happened to show up one day to fly, and as I drove past the hangars, I saw heavy equipment being loaded onto trucks and big flatbed semis and they were being filmed (taped?) by a couple guys with cameras, and it still didn't click with me what might be going on. It wasn't until I watched the first season that I realized I had been there when those early scenes were being shot. As for the show, my wife and I watched the first two seasons but I guess we just got tired of it. I think all those shows are the same. I don't really watch any of them, but I did do a couple seasons of that one and the one in Alaska that featured Era Air. Completely fake "reality", but nicely shot and fun to watch. I can tell you this based on what I know, the mining came first, then the show. They were going to go anyway, and Todd found a company online that was looking to film something, anything, and do a reality show. He applied and they were interested. It is my opinion after seeing some of the later seasons that this has changed completely, and the show comes first above all else, which is why it feels to me to be so produced and acted out. Because I think it is. But aren't they all? Very formulaic and boring to me.
The last time I saw Todd was at the health club. No, he wasn't working out, his kids were swimming in the pool. After season 1, we walked into the local Thai food joint and Jack and wife were there. The place was kinda full, but they recognized us from the club meetings and banquet and we joined them for dinner. The show didn't really come up much. Jack told us about the back problems he had been having, and told us the story of how he obtained his dog, Blue. That was about it. I think I read recently that Blue wasn't long for the world. I loved that dog. He could play fetch until your arm wore out. Good ol' Blue, who you see often in the first couple seasons.
Now I've gone WAY OFF topic!
The last time I saw Todd was at the health club. No, he wasn't working out, his kids were swimming in the pool. After season 1, we walked into the local Thai food joint and Jack and wife were there. The place was kinda full, but they recognized us from the club meetings and banquet and we joined them for dinner. The show didn't really come up much. Jack told us about the back problems he had been having, and told us the story of how he obtained his dog, Blue. That was about it. I think I read recently that Blue wasn't long for the world. I loved that dog. He could play fetch until your arm wore out. Good ol' Blue, who you see often in the first couple seasons.
Now I've gone WAY OFF topic!
#234
It's Official - FAA Denies Indoor flight request
My house sits 2.6NM from an NCAA Division 1 football stadium. I decided to probe the lunacy of the NTSB ruling & FDC 4/3621, the NOTAM that establishes Temporary Flight Restrictions around NCAA Div 1 events (and a host of others). So yesterday I used the FAA process to request a waiver to the TFR for a micro-helicopter flight -- INSIDE MY OWN HOUSE. Today the FAA denied that request.
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
Last edited by franklin_m; 11-20-2014 at 07:07 PM. Reason: better organize attachments
#236
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really, a refusal like this may be newsworthy but it points out inconsistences in the laws. With no means of granting his request under the current laws they (FAA) had no choice but to refuse it. While the novelty of this extreme may appear "ridiculous" what would happen if an annually scheduled club fly in were to be affected by one of these sporting event NOTAM/TFRs? Said club event applies for a waiver and is denied. Granted that one event is much larger than the other but why should one sporting event be able to trump the other? Who reimburses the club for lost revenue?
Frank
Frank
#237
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Agree. Meaningless and futile, and for what purpose? To say see, I didn't get my way? To highlight what everyone already knows, that the current decision isn't perfect ? Is this supposed to do something, other than waste a govt agencies time? Or was is done just to say see see, the AMA failed and here is what the result is? Oh wait, we now see there are inconsistencies with a law? Color us shocked, it's a first! Please. The AMA did what they did, as best as possible. The outcome wasn't optimal, but they say they are still working on it. Any other group out there working on behalf of the modelers, or are we all supposed to band together now and bury the FAA with these silly requests. That will work wonders for our cause I'm sure.
#238
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (1)
Agree. Meaningless and futile, and for what purpose? To say see, I didn't get my way? To highlight what everyone already knows, that the current decision isn't perfect ? Is this supposed to do something, other than waste a govt agencies time? Or was is done just to say see see, the AMA failed and here is what the result is? Oh wait, we now see there are inconsistencies with a law? Color us shocked, it's a first! Please. The AMA did what they did, as best as possible. The outcome wasn't optimal, but they say they are still working on it. Any other group out there working on behalf of the modelers, or are we all supposed to band together now and bury the FAA with these silly requests. That will work wonders for our cause I'm sure.
#239
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Not really, a refusal like this may be newsworthy but it points out inconsistences in the laws. With no means of granting his request under the current laws they (FAA) had no choice but to refuse it. While the novelty of this extreme may appear "ridiculous" what would happen if an annually scheduled club fly in were to be affected by one of these sporting event NOTAM/TFRs? Said club event applies for a waiver and is denied. Granted that one event is much larger than the other but why should one sporting event be able to trump the other? Who reimburses the club for lost revenue?
Frank
Frank
But if this were to happen on any meaningful scale, this is something the AMA should be able to use to seek further discussions with whatever agency will be dealing with this issue. At least they will have a real world example to show, rather than a "what if".
#240
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My house sits 2.6NM from an NCAA Division 1 football stadium. I decided to probe the lunacy of the NTSB ruling & FDC 4/3621, the NOTAM that establishes Temporary Flight Restrictions around NCAA Div 1 events (and a host of others). So yesterday I used the FAA process to request a waiver to the TFR for a micro-helicopter flight -- INSIDE MY OWN HOUSE. Today the FAA denied that request.
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
#241
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I think I'll file a request with the NRC today to see if I can build and maintain a nuclear reactor in my home. Two guesses as to how they will respond. Then I'll post their response here and highlight the absurdity of their response and complain that my property right are being being infringed upon.
#242
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Just got this e-mail today:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx
[h=2]AMA Answers Your Questions[/h]
On Tuesday, November 25 at 1pm EST AMA's Rich Hanson will answer your most commonly asked questions regarding sUAS and the FAA. If you have a questions you would like possibly addressed, email Rich at [email protected]. We will compile all the questions and answer as many as we can from 1pm-2pm.
To view the live broadcast, please visit this page at 1pm on Tuesday, November 25. There is no need to preregister and no special software is needed to view the event.
After the broadcast, we will post the recorded video on this page. This will allow anyone who missed the broadcast or who may want to watch it again to see the program.
Thank you. We look forward to addressing your questions live, right here, on Tuesday.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx
[h=2]AMA Answers Your Questions[/h]
On Tuesday, November 25 at 1pm EST AMA's Rich Hanson will answer your most commonly asked questions regarding sUAS and the FAA. If you have a questions you would like possibly addressed, email Rich at [email protected]. We will compile all the questions and answer as many as we can from 1pm-2pm.
To view the live broadcast, please visit this page at 1pm on Tuesday, November 25. There is no need to preregister and no special software is needed to view the event.
After the broadcast, we will post the recorded video on this page. This will allow anyone who missed the broadcast or who may want to watch it again to see the program.
Thank you. We look forward to addressing your questions live, right here, on Tuesday.
#243
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I agree both are ridiculous to some degree. Private property right are not unconditional and without constraints.
I think I'll file a request with the NRC today to see if I can build and maintain a nuclear reactor in my home. Two guesses as to how they will respond. Then I'll post their response here and highlight the absurdity of their response and complain that my property right are being being infringed upon.
I think I'll file a request with the NRC today to see if I can build and maintain a nuclear reactor in my home. Two guesses as to how they will respond. Then I'll post their response here and highlight the absurdity of their response and complain that my property right are being being infringed upon.
#247
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My house sits 2.6NM from an NCAA Division 1 football stadium. I decided to probe the lunacy of the NTSB ruling & FDC 4/3621, the NOTAM that establishes Temporary Flight Restrictions around NCAA Div 1 events (and a host of others). So yesterday I used the FAA process to request a waiver to the TFR for a micro-helicopter flight -- INSIDE MY OWN HOUSE. Today the FAA denied that request.
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
Therefore, in such an event, you will be able to alert the FAA and the Dept. of Homeland Security well in advance of her possible "attack."
PS.
It's funny that the Director's name is Hatfield. Reminds me of the old scenario of the redneck/hillbilly idiot families of the Hatfield's and McCoy's. Is this guy a descendant of that family? It sure seems so. He shows a real disdain for people and society.
And what a waste of our government dollars!!!! I hope that letter goes viral on the internet.
I wonder what the F.D. stands for. I can come up with a few guesses, but most of them couldn't be printed here.
Last edited by BobbyMcGee; 11-21-2014 at 07:55 AM.
#248
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My house sits 2.6NM from an NCAA Division 1 football stadium. I decided to probe the lunacy of the NTSB ruling & FDC 4/3621, the NOTAM that establishes Temporary Flight Restrictions around NCAA Div 1 events (and a host of others). So yesterday I used the FAA process to request a waiver to the TFR for a micro-helicopter flight -- INSIDE MY OWN HOUSE. Today the FAA denied that request.
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
It would appear that the AMA's efforts have had little measurable effect, as the FAA is willing to go on record denying model aircraft flights inside private homes if those homes sit inside a TFR.
My request and their response are attached.
[ATTACH]2048961[/IMG]
[ATTACH]2048962[/IMG]
We should change the old expression from "as the crow flys" to "AS THE DRONE FLYS"