AllModesR/C

I will be concerned when I notice a drone hovering outside my window spying on me.LOL So far that has not happened.

metaldriver

I have been silently watching threads similar to this one but have to chime in after looking at the spreadsheet. What bothers me the most are the number of incidents listed at or above 2000 ft. I have pretty good eyesite for a 50 plus year old man but at that distance tracking direction seems a bit difficult. And I do think a lot of these occurances are people who either don't know the rules or don't think they have to follow them. Just my 2 cents worth

franklin_m

Take away FPV and autonomous navigation technologies and I have to wonder if people will be so excited to fly aircraft they'll likely never see again.

binns aero

If it's a one time fling maby it will get old.But the cost of some equipment is at the piont of learning to fly real aircraft for that special feeling may make more sense.

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

Without the ability to TRACE an offending drone back to the law breaking pilot, I see no possible way to regulate the activity. It is here to stay and FPV/drone activities are forever harnessed to model aviation.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

for what it is worth, the most current firmware for one autopilot/stabilization unit such as used in multirotors already has "no fly zone" coordinates to limit altitude and proximity to known airport facilities.
you should hear the complaints from the users about this. i am expecting to see other makers of the electronics units follow suite.
they know how damaging the "near miss" reports can be to their business model.

airraptor

My Feedback: (66)

handyman that model airplane you fly is a drone also by definition...

franklin_m

While that's a step in the right direction, 5NM/1300 AGL still puts it inside class B & C airspace around many airports (i.e. Seattle approach corridor is surface to 10K out to 6nm). Staying with Seattle as an example, the 1300 foot limit isn't a protection either, as the DJI video indicates this is relative to the launch point. So it wouldn't be difficult at all to put the thing into the class B ring that starts at 1800 MSL. More importantly, the DJI airport list omits thousands of class D airports that operate commercial jets. Also absent are all military facilities, restricted airspace (didn't see any of the R coded airspace around Nellis, the Chesapeake Bay, etc.), as well as prohibited airspace (White House, Camp David, etc.). So again, while it's a step in the right direction, it's not a panacea.

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

...

Tony Iannucelli

My Feedback: (193)

'DJI did $130 million last year... and are expected to triple those sales next year.' That's from the Wall Street Journal this morning. The statement was part of an article outlining the 'near misses' with private and commercial aircraft recently. ("Just because we're paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get us.")

I think the quads are boring myself. Sort of like those home videos I have that no one watches after the first time they view them. Like many of you, I've been through a lot of fads in the hobby over the last 40 years or so. This may not be a fad in the classic sense of the term. I don't think the toy quads will have a lasting audience, but the more sophisticated ones may. I hope so. Whatever it is, if it flies, I like it.

BobbyMcGee

So true. Drones (except for military drones) don't kill people ... People do!

And while I'm at it. Guns don't kill people ... People do!

bradpaul

The uncomfortable fact is that we AMA members are a minority of rc flyers. By this year end there will be likely be more quadcopter flyers then plane/heli flyers. The AMA understands this and has gone "all in", The teenager or twenty something that grew up on video games is going to fly new technology, and has little interest in great grandpa's warbirds.

If you fly the circle at an AMA field YOU HAVE Sec 336 on your side and little to worry about.

If you fly, gliders, jets or pattern aerobatics you have something to worry about, a potential 400' cap.

If you fly FPV outside the FAA limits you will need a spotter (to watch out for LEO).

The hobby will survive......................

Rob2160

One of our local Hobby Stores said that every DJI order they place is pre sold out before they receive it. The appeal is being able to take very high quality aerial video easily and I know several people who never showed any prior interest in RC that now own a DJI Phantom for this reason.

I also thought quads would be boring and was happy flying my planes and helis. I have to admit, I have the bug now after flying an aerobatic Armattan quad which can do amazing things in the hands of a good pilot. (This is not my video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMEVVLG3EZ4

The larger sedate quads I have built to carry cameras are boring to just fly, but the satisfaction comes from experimenting and tweaking them to fly smoothly, efficiently and produce perfect vibration free video, and there is something cool about a machine that knows how to look after itself. I could fly my larger quads out of sight, turn off the TX and they will fly back to the take off position, land and shut down automatically.

N410DC

I agree. Keep in mind that almost all of the recent incidents that have been in the news and investigated by the feds were being flown in violation of the AMA safety code. My guess is that most/all of these pilots have never even heard of the AMA, or its safety code. Does anyone know if a single incident that was investigated by the FAA or NTSB, where the aircraft was clearly being flown in accordance with the AMA safety code?

Many of the manuals that are included with model aircraft I have purchased recently contain information about the AMA, and the safety code. I don't think this notice would deter pilots who are making the six o'clock news, but it would give the feds some leverage over pilots who fly recklessly. If the pilot contests enforcement action, it will be more difficult for the pilot to plead ignorance if the safety code was mentioned in the manual.

franklin_m

I didn't realize that thermals do not exist below 400'. Nor did I realize that turbine and aerobatic flight is impossible below 400'. Physics and aerodynamics must not exist below 400'. Who knew.

Timeflys

As usual, the few that don't think rules apply to them ruin it for the many. People BETTER take this drone problem seriously. And by the way if it isn't obvious by the way the government is, they can do what they want when they want. So some people need to wake up to reality.

cublover

My Feedback: (47)

WOW.... you guys bash someone when he has a concern about how STUPID people are getting with these things!!!! You know,,,your not to worried about it now,,, but it WILL happen,,,you WILL NOT be able to fly where ever you want soon.... RC Airports WILL be shut down if they are withing 5 miles of an airport...just for this reason ALONE... you know,,,you guys that bash all the time,,might want to grow a brain!! This place as well as other forums are getting loaded with people who think that just because its a hobby, that NOBODY and f*@k with us....your wrong... Look at gun rights!!! Look at your rights period...your being told what type of insurance you can have!! you told how fast to drive....ALL OF IT IS REGULATIONS!!!! the more you piss off the officials of the US,,,, the more there gonna restrict us.... its simple really,,, fly safe,,,and keep that kind of problem out of our hobby.. but that will never happen,,,because you THINK you can just fly anywhere,,,,"Its just a toy".... TRUST ME JAKE,,,,, someone is gonna get killed, or there is gonna be a crash somewhere with a cessna,,,,and then you'll find out that all of us ol' 'Geezers" might not be as dumb as you are!!!...Do what you want dumbass!!!

cublover

My Feedback: (47)

ohh,,,,and by the way,,,I just got my new FPV stuff,,,and I love it,,, but I don't misuse it at all... I have fun with it!!!

azalner

My Feedback: (8)

I agree. I didn't realize how serious this issue has become and it seems to me will only get worse. The frequency and severity of incidents will continue to increase until there is a collision with general or commercial aircraft. It's inevitable as long as incidents like the following continue to occur.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...rones-on-rise/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...=nl-eve&wpmm=1

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

The hobby stores go where the money ithats how they stay in business.personally I find quads boring as hell but that's just me.the biggest issue that I see is the altitude these things go.the skies are busy with full scale planes costing millions of doors carry thousands of living passengers.uncontrlled for flights are a potential real threat to the flying public.the far wants these pilots to secure a pilots license of some sort.regulation of this aspect is a no brainer.but having said that flying for at 4 or 500 ft isn't going to threaten full scale pilots if the user exerc burying your head in the sand does nothing to ises common sense.they have no place near a airport nor d planes.rouges are are flying carelessly feeling the sky is free space.airports and military installations might just disagree.city parks should be judged on a case to case basis depending on the spaces available.finally I do have privacy concerns but I don't want the government controlling that from washington.As I said I find this aspect of the hobby boring but there are a heck of a lot who embrace it and they need their space.i do feel the ama is at a crossroads.if commerce is the primary goal that's counter to what the ama is about.the hobby will survive and name calling and riding y deepen the divide.

franklin_m

A quad at 500' can do considerable damage. Consider the Military Training Routes. Up to ten miles wide, altitudes below 1500AGL (there are a few that have legs surface to above 1500AGL), speeds in excess of 250KIAS, and all over the US. I know AMA doesn't publish those NOTAMS. routes are on VFR sectionals.

mike31

My Feedback: (67)

Drones fly drones!

husafreak

My Feedback: (3)

I would like to see a proposal for AMA club flying sites with published and enforced restrictions agreeable to the FAA put in place. I think we already have that but lets make it official and put them on the national airspace map.
So there would be a bubble of protected airspace over and around our hypothetical AMA club field. In it RC aircraft/helis/FPV/drones/rockets/whatever, are limited to "line of sight" distances from the pilot and out of full size aviation airspace. Roof is 400, feet max speed is 200 mph, diameter is 1/2 mile, something like that. Just like the national airspace restrictions around airports but for our tiny RC airfields. And at these fields we can do what we want, in our little bubble, with the FAA's blessing. Traditional RC flying can continue without worry at our club fields. FAA or government restrictions and police actions on unlawful model aircraft flying would not apply to us at our AMA sanctioned flying fields.
We need the AMA to protect our right to fly RC models and we have to disassociate ourselves from those who would cost us our right to fly by irresponsible acts outside of the AMA umbrella. The type of models flown is irrelevant. This is purely a safety, privacy, and security issue.

bradpaul

However:

Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2"]Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,500 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.


[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So the solution is actually very simple, IF the concern of the FAA is safety.

As flying at a AMA club field would constitute an "open air assembly of persons" the minimum altitude for full scale must be 1500'. And as the FAA has now classified "model aircraft" as "Aircraft" then our flying fields need to be shown on sectional charts with a minimum altitude of 1500' within 5 miles of the center of the field.

After all we all want safety in the NAS don't we?

bradpaul

sorry duplicate post