FAA will require a pilot's license to fly a drone
12-02-2014, 12:03 PM
#76
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Genie is out of the bottle, I don't think that anyone, let alone our Government can put it back in. The laws can be passed and most likely will but I really doubt that they can and will be enforced at a local hobbyist level. Commercial is a different story and really of little relevance to the hobbyist, imho. If they were able to muster even a quarter of the success as the war on drugs I would be surprised.
12-02-2014, 12:14 PM
#77
500 feet is the limit for towers without approval from the FCC. But there is no need for a 100 foot margin because once you measure out 500 feet the tower will stay there. Kites however can vary in altitude but if you only use 500 feet of cable it will be no more than 500 feet high, but usually a lot less.
12-02-2014, 12:22 PM
#78
I guess the American Kite Association has more clout then the AMA as the NOTAM for D.C. excluded almost everything but kites.
4. ADDITIONS TO OPERATING IN THE DC FRZ 14 CFR SECTION 93.341. ALL OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
FRZ (INCLUDING TRANSIT) UNLESS OUTLINED BELOW:
A. THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT,
PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING,
BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT
OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL
ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS
OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.
4. ADDITIONS TO OPERATING IN THE DC FRZ 14 CFR SECTION 93.341. ALL OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE
FRZ (INCLUDING TRANSIT) UNLESS OUTLINED BELOW:
A. THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT,
PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING,
BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT
OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL
ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS
OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.
12-02-2014, 12:44 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Feds are not too bright. They never figured you could put a bomb on a kite and use the kite to drop it into a stadium. But of course when they figure that out they will ban them too. Really supprized that Penske and U-Haul can still rent trucks. Maybe they bribed the feds. And maybe there is some large kite company bribing them as well.
12-02-2014, 03:19 PM
#80
Again with the blanket statements , Mr. She ? 
If ya do a tiny bit of research , you will discover that the US Army , at the onset of WW1 , was experimenting with MAN CARRYING KITES to be used for troop observation ! This is FACT as I have personally researched this and if you check with the Smithsonian Institute you will find it to be true . AMAZING photos were taken of these Kites and brave souls being hoisted 100s of feet in the air .
So tell me , Mr. She , just how much damage COULD 200 lbs of explosives do , the weight of the average human ?????? 
How big , indeed !
12-02-2014, 03:48 PM
#81
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again with the blanket statements , Mr. She ? If ya do a tiny bit of research , you will discover that the US Army , at the onset of WW1 , was experimenting with MAN CARRYING KITES to be used for troop observation ! This is FACT as I have personally researched this and if you check with the Smithsonian Institute you will find it to be true . AMAZING photos were taken of these Kites and brave souls being hoisted 100s of feet in the air .
So tell me , Mr. She , just how much damage COULD 200 lbs of explosives do , the weight of the average human ?????? How big , indeed !Now when will the nervous Nellie's chime in with they need to be banned as a danger to be ingested into full scale jet engines or propellers!!!!!!!!!
Wingspan : 3.29m. / 120 inches
12-02-2014, 04:22 PM
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again with the blanket statements , Mr. She ? If ya do a tiny bit of research , you will discover that the US Army , at the onset of WW1 , was experimenting with MAN CARRYING KITES to be used for troop observation ! This is FACT as I have personally researched this and if you check with the Smithsonian Institute you will find it to be true . AMAZING photos were taken of these Kites and brave souls being hoisted 100s of feet in the air .
So tell me , Mr. She , just how much damage COULD 200 lbs of explosives do , the weight of the average human ?????? How big , indeed !Right, in a museum of impractical ideas.
12-02-2014, 05:37 PM
#83
First , Thank You Brad , your post is the perfect modern day representation of the kind of Kite required to carry out such nefarious mission . And in response to Mr. She ;Twenty years ago no one would have believed that the combined security forces of our great nation could have got it so wrong with the threat assessment of hijacked jetliners being flown into buildings , and for it to actually have happened proves that a determined half smart/half deranged soul can weaponize ANYTHING from a fist to a rock to a kite or any other thing handily available . Hell , the US Army has specialized training in "field expedient weapons" specifically dealing with weaponizing common items in times of need . With all I've seen go on in the last 50 years , I believe anything is possible and that no banning of anything from fists to quads to kites is going to solve the problem of folks hatin on each other .
I know it seems I single out a few of your posts Mr. She , And to tell ya the truth it's cause I'd hate to see ya hurt something , jumping to all them thar fancy conclusions bout Kites N all ....
12-02-2014, 06:14 PM
#84
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First , Thank You Brad , your post is the perfect modern day representation of the kind of Kite required to carry out such nefarious mission . And in response to Mr. She ;Twenty years ago no one would have believed that the combined security forces of our great nation could have got it so wrong with the threat assessment of hijacked jetliners being flown into buildings , and for it to actually have happened proves that a determined half smart/half deranged soul can weaponize ANYTHING from a fist to a rock to a kite or any other thing handily available . Hell , the US Army has specialized training in "field expedient weapons" specifically dealing with weaponizing common items in times of need . With all I've seen go on in the last 50 years , I believe anything is possible and that no banning of anything from fists to quads to kites is going to solve the problem of folks hatin on each other .
I know it seems I single out a few of your posts Mr. She , And to tell ya the truth it's cause I'd hate to see ya hurt something , jumping to all them thar fancy conclusions bout Kites N all ....
12-02-2014, 06:38 PM
#85
One more time, yes you can load a big enough kite with a bomb. But a big enough kite is very obvious, there is no stealth at all. Don't forget that they scramble a pair of F16s every time a Piper Cub brushes the edge of the DC no fly zone. Don't you think they will do the same thing for an excessively large kite. Your whole line of speculation is little more than a joke.
Actually , the kite idea was Brad's (see post #70) and I was just backing him up on the possibility of one becoming , indeed , weaponized . Highly unlikely ? Hell yea . Impossible ? Do we REALLY have to go there again ? OF COURSE it's possible , just as possible as any other nefarious plan believed in by enough deranged folk . kinda like the World Trade center destruction . 
We need to ban NOTHING as a reaction to perceived evil , else we admit evil has truly won !
You have a good night , Mr. She , and be careful of those absolutes , the devil is in the details and evil truly knows no bounds .
12-02-2014, 06:46 PM
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually , the kite idea was Brad's (see post #70) and I was just backing him up on the possibility of one becoming , indeed , weaponized . Highly unlikely ? Hell yea . Impossible ? Do we REALLY have to go there again ? OF COURSE it's possible , just as possible as any other nefarious plan believed in by enough deranged folk . kinda like the World Trade center destruction . We need to ban NOTHING as a reaction to perceived evil , else we admit evil has truly won ! You have a good night , Mr. She , and be careful of those absolutes , the devil is in the details and evil truly knows no bounds .
12-02-2014, 09:23 PM
#88
Senior Member
There are some interesting little problems in all of this
A quad coptor has multiple motors. Does this mean that a qualifying license must carry the multi-engine rating?
Motors are not "engines". How about a rotor-craft rating?
A quad coptor has multiple motors. Does this mean that a qualifying license must carry the multi-engine rating?
Motors are not "engines". How about a rotor-craft rating?
12-02-2014, 09:55 PM
#89
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Whitewater,
CO
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original post-#78 The Feds are not too bright. They never figured you could put a bomb on a kite and use the kite to drop it into a stadium. But of course when they figure that out they will ban them too. Really supprized that Penske and U-Haul can still rent trucks. Maybe they bribed the feds. And maybe there is some large kite company bribing them as well.
Mr. She-#79 How big would the kite have to be to drop a decently destructive bomb? You need to think about this, it isn't practical. I don't think it would work to load a giant scale jet with a bomb either.
Bradpaul-#81 Gives an example of a modern kite capable of carrying a load.
Mr. She-#82 Right, that is what I said. A kite large enough to carry an effective bomb would be impractical. Where are your man carrying kites now?
Right, in a museum of impractical ideas.
Mr. She-#84 One more time, yes you can load a big enough kite with a bomb. But a big enough kite is very obvious, there is no stealth at all. Don't forget that they scramble a pair of F16s every time a Piper Cub brushes the edge of the DC no fly zone. Don't you think they will do the same thing for an excessively large kite. Your whole line of speculation is little more than a joke.
Mr. She-#86 I never said impossible, I said impractical. Two very different things. Try to read more carefully. It seems that the whole issue was one of misinterpretation.
Mr. She, I hope you and yours are well. I would like to take a moment and compliment you on your “spinning ability”. You are truly a master. You were able to maneuver yourself out of a situation where by your comments were called into question. It was obvious that the comments concerning the useful load of a kite was incorrect and with the precision of a hall of fame running back you were able weave your way out of it. A lesser man. like myself. would have simply stated “I stand corrected”. My hat is off to you sir. Well done.
James
Mr. She-#79 How big would the kite have to be to drop a decently destructive bomb? You need to think about this, it isn't practical. I don't think it would work to load a giant scale jet with a bomb either.
Bradpaul-#81 Gives an example of a modern kite capable of carrying a load.
Mr. She-#82 Right, that is what I said. A kite large enough to carry an effective bomb would be impractical. Where are your man carrying kites now?
Right, in a museum of impractical ideas.
Mr. She-#84 One more time, yes you can load a big enough kite with a bomb. But a big enough kite is very obvious, there is no stealth at all. Don't forget that they scramble a pair of F16s every time a Piper Cub brushes the edge of the DC no fly zone. Don't you think they will do the same thing for an excessively large kite. Your whole line of speculation is little more than a joke.
Mr. She-#86 I never said impossible, I said impractical. Two very different things. Try to read more carefully. It seems that the whole issue was one of misinterpretation.
Mr. She, I hope you and yours are well. I would like to take a moment and compliment you on your “spinning ability”. You are truly a master. You were able to maneuver yourself out of a situation where by your comments were called into question. It was obvious that the comments concerning the useful load of a kite was incorrect and with the precision of a hall of fame running back you were able weave your way out of it. A lesser man. like myself. would have simply stated “I stand corrected”. My hat is off to you sir. Well done.
James
12-03-2014, 04:45 AM
#90
Again with the blanket statements , Mr. She ? If ya do a tiny bit of research , you will discover that the US Army , at the onset of WW1 , was experimenting with MAN CARRYING KITES to be used for troop observation ! This is FACT as I have personally researched this and if you check with the Smithsonian Institute you will find it to be true . AMAZING photos were taken of these Kites and brave souls being hoisted 100s of feet in the air .
So tell me , Mr. She , just how much damage COULD 200 lbs of explosives do , the weight of the average human ?????? How big , indeed !
12-03-2014, 05:33 AM
#91
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually , the kite idea was Brad's (see post #70) and I was just backing him up on the possibility of one becoming , indeed , weaponized . Highly unlikely ? Hell yea . Impossible ? Do we REALLY have to go there again ? OF COURSE it's possible , just as possible as any other nefarious plan believed in by enough deranged folk . kinda like the World Trade center destruction . We need to ban NOTHING as a reaction to perceived evil , else we admit evil has truly won ! You have a good night , Mr. She , and be careful of those absolutes , the devil is in the details and evil truly knows no bounds .Look how quickly the FPV market is growing. Long range FPV has been readily available for a long time now. It is easier and cheaper then ever to get long range equipment. How are you ever going to stop FPV? It is a rapidly growing market that has expanded outside of the traditional modeler. How many people are really going to follow the rules? Especially the ones that live out in the middle of nowhere.
Just for the record, I do not have anything FPV right now. I also doubt I would ever delve into long range FPV, BUT I am interested in flying short range FPV WITH goggles. When I say short range I mean what I would normally fly LOS. I will go on record right now and say I WILL fly like that WITH goggles no matter what the FAA or AMA says. With that said I would most certainly fly in a safe area with spotter. I know, i'm such a lawbreaking rebel! lmao!
The RC industry is changing quickly (i've seen 30 years of change) and you can eiter be stuck in the mud of no change or embrace all the new, wonderful technologies that are available now and in the future.
Last edited by mike1974; 12-03-2014 at 05:37 AM.
12-03-2014, 12:47 PM
#92
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oviedo,
FL
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on to your seat for the upcoming over reaction where responsible pilots are lumped in with the idiots.
Senator Feinstein writing to the FAA
Link to official document: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...c-86414a24c1f2
Senator Feinstein writing to the FAA
It is my intent to introduce legislation to codify and expand the moratorium on private drone use without specific authority from the FAA that is already in place. ... it would require a safety certification for expansions of private drone use, ....
Dear Administrator Huerta:
The recent reports of near-collisions between drones and manned aircraft in our nation’s airspace are alarming. I urge you to vigorously enforce safety laws and regulations against the unsafe operation of drones and to warn operators about the potential hazards and consequences of their reckless behavior.
In July, I wrote to express my deep concern about the dangers posed by expanded domestic drone use in the national airspace. I requested data from the Federal Aviation Administration so I could get a full sense of the problem we face. Last week, I received data from your staff that corroborated my concerns about expanded domestic drone use.
According to this data, more than 190 incidents have been reported to the FAA over the last nine months. Since July, the reports average more than one incident per day. These numbers include more than two dozen reports of near mid-air collisions with other aircraft and more than 100 reports of drones spotted in proximity to other aircraft. In addition, the reports reveal a litany of drone crashes, overflights of stadiums and a power plant, and unlawful commercial use.
Examples from this year include:
I recognize that the proliferation of highly-capable, inexpensive drones operated by untrained individuals is a new challenge. But the FAA is responsible for the safety of the airspace, and it must aggressively confront this challenge now, before an airliner is brought down. I urge you to pursue vigorous enforcement and strong safety regulations, and to warn operators about the consequences of their behavior.
It is my intent to introduce legislation to codify and expand the moratorium on private drone use without specific authority from the FAA that is already in place. This expanded moratorium would cover any such use that could threaten the airspace, it would require a safety certification for expansions of private drone use, and it would be backed up by substantial criminal penalties if manned aircraft or people are put at risk. I would very much appreciate your comments and technical assistance on such legislation.
Thank you for your full attention to this matter. Please respond to this letter by no later than December 15, 2014.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
In July, I wrote to express my deep concern about the dangers posed by expanded domestic drone use in the national airspace. I requested data from the Federal Aviation Administration so I could get a full sense of the problem we face. Last week, I received data from your staff that corroborated my concerns about expanded domestic drone use.
According to this data, more than 190 incidents have been reported to the FAA over the last nine months. Since July, the reports average more than one incident per day. These numbers include more than two dozen reports of near mid-air collisions with other aircraft and more than 100 reports of drones spotted in proximity to other aircraft. In addition, the reports reveal a litany of drone crashes, overflights of stadiums and a power plant, and unlawful commercial use.
Examples from this year include:
- October 12: an aircraft came within 10-20 feet of a drone and took evasive action to avoid collision at 4,800 feet in elevation near Oklahoma City.
- September 30: an aircraft inbound to LaGuardia Airport reported a drone that “almost hit” the aircraft at 4,000 feet in elevation;
- August 23: in Burbank, California, an aircraft reported a drone “off [its] left wing passing opposite direction while [north] bound at 8,000 feet”;
- May 29: two aircraft on approach to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) reported seeing a “trash can sized” drone at 6,500 feet;
I recognize that the proliferation of highly-capable, inexpensive drones operated by untrained individuals is a new challenge. But the FAA is responsible for the safety of the airspace, and it must aggressively confront this challenge now, before an airliner is brought down. I urge you to pursue vigorous enforcement and strong safety regulations, and to warn operators about the consequences of their behavior.
It is my intent to introduce legislation to codify and expand the moratorium on private drone use without specific authority from the FAA that is already in place. This expanded moratorium would cover any such use that could threaten the airspace, it would require a safety certification for expansions of private drone use, and it would be backed up by substantial criminal penalties if manned aircraft or people are put at risk. I would very much appreciate your comments and technical assistance on such legislation.
Thank you for your full attention to this matter. Please respond to this letter by no later than December 15, 2014.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Link to official document: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...c-86414a24c1f2
12-03-2014, 01:38 PM
#93
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank God for Dianne Feinstein, she is proposing a moratorium on "drones" that the next Republican Senate will have nothing to do with because she proposed it..................... Does that waste of breathable oxygen have anything in her play book other then ban?? Assault Weapon Ban, and now Drone Ban......................... Well they don't refer to California as the "land of fruits and nuts" for no reason.
12-03-2014, 04:42 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank God for Dianne Feinstein, she is proposing a moratorium on "drones" that the next Republican Senate will have nothing to do with because she proposed it..................... Does that waste of breathable oxygen have anything in her play book other then ban?? Assault Weapon Ban, and now Drone Ban......................... Well they don't refer to California as the "land of fruits and nuts" for no reason.
Her letter is unclear on many levels, Impractical on others. Does she mean private recreational or commercial drones? The only existing "moratorium" as she calls it may refer to the FAA policy restricting commercial and public service use only to that permitted by the FAA. The only thing that she has right is that there is an incredible number of stupid people doing incredibly stupid things.
12-03-2014, 05:32 PM
#98
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Her letter is unclear on many levels, Impractical on others. Does she mean private recreational or commercial drones? The only existing "moratorium" as she calls it may refer to the FAA policy restricting commercial and public service use only to that permitted by the FAA. The only thing that she has right is that there is an incredible number of stupid people doing incredibly stupid things.
12-03-2014, 05:50 PM
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, that is how it is done on all sides of politics. There are very few, like you and I, that can see through the chicanery.