FAA will require a pilot's license to fly a drone
12-16-2014, 06:32 AM
#126
12-16-2014, 07:46 AM
#127
Most are perfectly safe. There are many reasons to fail a medical and be completly safe to fly an ultralight. Certain types of causes for vertigo BPPV for example may never happen but some examiners may flunk (or the FAA will if fowarded to them) you if it has happened within several years. Or past heart conditions which may never occur again. Plus an ultralight will not cause as much damage when it crash's. I think the same attitude should be held for model airplanes.
12-16-2014, 11:08 AM
#128
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-16-2014, 02:11 PM
#129
(1) I feel sooooo much better about people without medical's flying in the same airspace I do
(2) At least when someone is in the aircraft, one might believe them to be a bit more responsible, in that if they crash into something or something crashes in them, they die. Not so with a drone, only loss for crashing into something is the money they spent on the drone. No personal risk.
(2) At least when someone is in the aircraft, one might believe them to be a bit more responsible, in that if they crash into something or something crashes in them, they die. Not so with a drone, only loss for crashing into something is the money they spent on the drone. No personal risk.
12-16-2014, 03:35 PM
#130
Thread Starter
(1) I feel sooooo much better about people without medical's flying in the same airspace I do
(2) At least when someone is in the aircraft, one might believe them to be a bit more responsible, in that if they crash into something or something crashes in them, they die. Not so with a drone, only loss for crashing into something is the money they spent on the drone. No personal risk.
(2) At least when someone is in the aircraft, one might believe them to be a bit more responsible, in that if they crash into something or something crashes in them, they die. Not so with a drone, only loss for crashing into something is the money they spent on the drone. No personal risk.
12-16-2014, 04:04 PM
#131
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't fly over people and their things
Always give way to other aircraft
I've seen many manifestations of Darwin's Law at club flying sites, thankfully none resulting in injury to others (though some self-inflicted injuries like the too familiar hand in the prop trick and minor property damage). Our good safety record is primarily due to having a safe place for our models to crash, much more so than skill, equipment reliability, and preparation to prevent crashes.
12-16-2014, 04:23 PM
#132
Thread Starter
Yes, cj_rumley, there's a difference. But the difference isn't so much the type of RC equipment. It's the people who are on the sticks. For example: Most folks who buy a drone at a toy store, have no affiliation with aviation. NONE. It doesn't matter to them that a full-scale aircraft may be in the vicinity, and they'll carry the belief that the full-scale is totally unreachable anyway. What harm can a toy do, right?
On the other hand, probably a good number of hobbyists who fly their miniature replicas of full-sized planes, have had at least some form of contact with the full-scale community. And for that, they will likely have more empathy for the full-scale pilots. There is that "fraternal instinct" that many modelers carry when they are at the club, versus the back yard flyer with significantly reduce inhibitions. Am I right?
On the other hand, probably a good number of hobbyists who fly their miniature replicas of full-sized planes, have had at least some form of contact with the full-scale community. And for that, they will likely have more empathy for the full-scale pilots. There is that "fraternal instinct" that many modelers carry when they are at the club, versus the back yard flyer with significantly reduce inhibitions. Am I right?
12-16-2014, 05:53 PM
#133
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, cj_rumley, there's a difference. But the difference isn't so much the type of RC equipment. It's the people who are on the sticks. For example: Most folks who buy a drone at a toy store, have no affiliation with aviation. NONE. It doesn't matter to them that a full-scale aircraft may be in the vicinity, and they'll carry the belief that the full-scale is totally unreachable anyway. What harm can a toy do, right?
On the other hand, probably a good number of hobbyists who fly their miniature replicas of full-sized planes, have had at least some form of contact with the full-scale community. And for that, they will likely have more empathy for the full-scale pilots. There is that "fraternal instinct" that many modelers carry when they are at the club, versus the back yard flyer with significantly reduce inhibitions. Am I right?
On the other hand, probably a good number of hobbyists who fly their miniature replicas of full-sized planes, have had at least some form of contact with the full-scale community. And for that, they will likely have more empathy for the full-scale pilots. There is that "fraternal instinct" that many modelers carry when they are at the club, versus the back yard flyer with significantly reduce inhibitions. Am I right?
Yes, I think you are right. You are talking about a different sort of drone than I had in mind, though. I was thinking primarily of what FAA refers to as civil or public UA rather than flying toys. As for 'toys' I don't have concerns over the vast majority of them, as most are smaller than what what AMA defines as a park flyer and have little mass, and so little kinetic energy to do much harm. I think you are talking about larger and heavier craft, e.g., the ubiquitous DJI Phantom that seems to pop up in an inordinate percentage of negative news reports. They are problematic to us because of their capabilities including range, FPV, can carry HD aerial photography and video equipment, etc., and perhaps most enabling of all, can be flown from a very small launch area. At this time I think AMA is doing all should do regarding them, by allowing them to be flown for just for the sport of flying at chartered clubs (if the club allows, some don't), subject to the same rules everyone else flying in that venue is. I think that is where AMA involvement with them should stop. For the majority that will not want be constrained to club flying sites and rules, I think our neighbors to the north got it right; after a near miss incident at a major airport, MAAC's response to the civil aviation authority and the press was to the effect "they aren't us." FAA has set limits on FPV operation in section 336 and will likely limit them to non-commercial use, along with 400' AGL ceiling for their operation. FAA can make it stick by taking enforcement action against at least the most egregious violators of the rules. AMA can't, and won't make a significant dent in the risks of operating them by conducting safety 'programming' and selling them insurance, and so would best follow MAAC's lead. I think the chances of that happening are represented numerically by a quantity that is small enough to be ignored.
12-17-2014, 01:36 AM
#134
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of them involved ultralights and gliders (>25) with most of the crashes caused by a lack of understanding the aerodynamics or the structural limitations.
Of the eleven crashes involving licensed pilots - four of them should not have been flying as they had undeclared (known) medical conditions which were a factor in the accidents.
Two further accidents occurred due to heart attacks in flight. (with no previous known medical issues)
Last edited by Rob2160; 12-17-2014 at 01:39 AM.
12-17-2014, 03:33 AM
#135
My 2 cents worth on this - I am a qualified air crash investigator and during a 4 year period attended over 40 fatal aviation incidents. The majority of them involved ultralights and gliders (>25) with most of the crashes caused by a lack of understanding the aerodynamics or the structural limitations. Of the eleven crashes involving licensed pilots - four of them should not have been flying as they had undeclared (known) medical conditions which were a factor in the accidents. Two further accidents occurred due to heart attacks in flight. (with no previous known medical issues)
12-17-2014, 08:18 AM
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately yes it was self correcting in those cases, too bad for the 'healthy' passengers though.
12-17-2014, 10:45 AM
#138
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major difference is that when a manned aircraft crashes due to a medical issue (known or unknown) the consequence are very often fatal to people in the aircraft and possibly people on the ground. With a camera equipped multicopter the consequences of a medical issue with the pilot are far less likely to be as severe and are almost certainly not going to involve a fatality.
If I pass out from a coronary while flying my Phantom quad it will stop and hover in place. I die while flying a 172 over the congested areas of Orange County and something very bad is likely to happen. So decisions have consequences, but not all consequences are equivalent.
If I pass out from a coronary while flying my Phantom quad it will stop and hover in place. I die while flying a 172 over the congested areas of Orange County and something very bad is likely to happen. So decisions have consequences, but not all consequences are equivalent.
12-17-2014, 11:06 AM
#140
The major difference is that when a manned aircraft crashes due to a medical issue (known or unknown) the consequence are very often fatal to people in the aircraft and possibly people on the ground. With a camera equipped multicopter the consequences of a medical issue with the pilot are far less likely to be as severe and are almost certainly not going to involve a fatality.
If I pass out from a coronary while flying my Phantom quad it will stop and hover in place. I die while flying a 172 over the congested areas of Orange County and something very bad is likely to happen. So decisions have consequences, but not all consequences are equivalent.
If I pass out from a coronary while flying my Phantom quad it will stop and hover in place. I die while flying a 172 over the congested areas of Orange County and something very bad is likely to happen. So decisions have consequences, but not all consequences are equivalent.
12-17-2014, 11:15 AM
#141
Thread Starter
By requiring a medical certificate for commercial drone use, it appears to me like the FAA is targeting issues that may compromise public safety, such as personality and mood disorders. It's probably more a public safety issue. For now, anybody can get a drone. No background check required, no training required, and no need for any kind of knowledge about airspace and legal requirements.
12-17-2014, 11:15 AM
#142
Thread Starter
By requiring a medical certificate for commercial drone use, it appears to me like the FAA is targeting issues that may compromise public safety, such as personality and mood disorders. For now, anybody can get a drone. No background check required, no training required, and no need for any kind of knowledge about airspace and legal requirements.
Last edited by NorfolkSouthern; 12-17-2014 at 11:18 AM.
12-18-2014, 09:45 AM
#143
(1) I feel sooooo much better about people without medical's flying in the same airspace I do
(2) At least when someone is in the aircraft, one might believe them to be a bit more responsible, in that if they crash into something or something crashes in them, they die. Not so with a drone, only loss for crashing into something is the money they spent on the drone. No personal risk.
(2) At least when someone is in the aircraft, one might believe them to be a bit more responsible, in that if they crash into something or something crashes in them, they die. Not so with a drone, only loss for crashing into something is the money they spent on the drone. No personal risk.
12-18-2014, 12:43 PM
#144
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, cj_rumley, there's a difference. But the difference isn't so much the type of RC equipment. It's the people who are on the sticks. For example: Most folks who buy a drone at a toy store, have no affiliation with aviation. NONE. It doesn't matter to them that a full-scale aircraft may be in the vicinity, and they'll carry the belief that the full-scale is totally unreachable anyway. What harm can a toy do, right?
12-19-2014, 11:39 AM
#145
My Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rio Rancho,
NM
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read what all of you are saying. If the FAA does require a commercial pilot certificate and a second class medical to fly drones commercially, does it mean that all drone operators will abide by the law and get a medical and a commercial certificate? NO! People still drink and drive and some still fly in IMC without an instrument rating. Some idiots still drink and fly, fly without a medical and fly out of currency. The sad things is that we hear about these people in the news. These idiots are the exceptions, not the rule. Remember, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". We as RC hobbyist should set a good standard, be vigilant and abide by the law.
N410DC, I have hit birds at 140 kts and yes, the damage done by a 5 lbs. bird is significant. A 3 lbs drone would cause a lot of damage too, or maybe take down an aircraft.
Franklin_m, don't be so negative. This is a good forum.
Dave
N410DC, I have hit birds at 140 kts and yes, the damage done by a 5 lbs. bird is significant. A 3 lbs drone would cause a lot of damage too, or maybe take down an aircraft.
Franklin_m, don't be so negative. This is a good forum.
Dave
12-19-2014, 12:33 PM
#146
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read what all of you are saying. If the FAA does require a commercial pilot certificate and a second class medical to fly drones commercially, does it mean that all drone operators will abide by the law and get a medical and a commercial certificate? NO! People still drink and drive and some still fly in IMC without an instrument rating. Some idiots still drink and fly, fly without a medical and fly out of currency. The sad things is that we hear about these people in the news. These idiots are the exceptions, not the rule. Remember, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". We as RC hobbyist should set a good standard, be vigilant and abide by the law.
N410DC, I have hit birds at 140 kts and yes, the damage done by a 5 lbs. bird is significant. A 3 lbs drone would cause a lot of damage too, or maybe take down an aircraft.
Franklin_m, don't be so negative. This is a good forum.
Dave
N410DC, I have hit birds at 140 kts and yes, the damage done by a 5 lbs. bird is significant. A 3 lbs drone would cause a lot of damage too, or maybe take down an aircraft.
Franklin_m, don't be so negative. This is a good forum.
Dave
Recreational drone activities, we like to call it model aviation, are not regulated. We are expected to follow the guidance of existent FAA advisories (these are not regulations) to the extent that we don't endanger people, property or the NAS. When the new interpretation of section 336 of the FAA modernization act goes into effect, we will be expected to do essentially the same thing. Nothing will change for us.
12-20-2014, 11:06 AM
#149
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't get me going on the danger of FPV RC boats and swimmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by bradpaul; 12-20-2014 at 11:09 AM.
