Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I can certainly see every club wanting to protect their interests, but I see no difference between a multi-rotor aircraft (non-FPV, non-GPS), rotary wing aircraft, and a fixed wing aircraft in terms if general flying characteristics. While I understand it's much easier to take the high road and ban things for non-technical reasons, I feel clubs should ban things for technical reasons and not personal perception issues.

wahoo

My Feedback: (59)

LMAO !!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMA3x-bc8iM

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That is one smooooooth ride!

F-16 viperman

Now that is seriously funny! LMAO! 1622 posts! Question, How does He hold the computer keyboard! LOL!

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

You know today, all RC Aircraft are Drones. I don't like the term but it is, what it is.

Who can say what is BLOS? If you flying with googles is any distance BLOS?

Can you use technology to view LOS flying?

If a Multirotor or fix wing have a GPS mode then it also have a manual mode that many new and experience flyers don't know that will save you from a fly away.

So seeing all this hate towards MR is sad and wrong using safety as the mechanism to ban them. What about the true scale heavy wing load warbirds? They are very unsafe compared to ARF warbirds.

Should you ban them? NO that's crazy talk. Same as MR with or without cameras or GPS.

It's just sad for these clubs to show hate!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

You are right...sad indeed. It's human nature though...just look at all the hate here between members who don't agree with one another. Folks want to find a bogeyman and blame sometimes, rather than looking at the big picture. Oh well.

N410DC

We must all understand that, at this time, the FAA absolutely does not allow us to use our AMA numbers in lieu of an FAA registration number. I am commend the AMA's efforts to make this change, and I have high hopes that this will happen in the foreseeable future. Until then, however, the AMA cannot give us any guarantee that the FAA will ultimately agree to allow us to only use our AMA number on our aircraft.

Under the current AMA and FAA rules:
If an aircraft was first operated prior to 12/21/2015, AMA members must have their AMA number or Name/Address in or on their model.
If an aircraft was first operated after 12/21/2015, AMA members must have their AMA number and the owner's FAA registration number on or in their models.

I simply put my AMA and FAA numbers on the same label, along with my phone number. The font is small, but legible.

Silent-AV8R

Flying with goggles is not consider LOS flying, no matter how close the aircraft is to the pilot. The basic definition is essentially "eyeballs" on the plane without the use of any other aids like goggles, binoculars, telescopes, etc.

[/QUOTE]

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

I did hear the registration website will no longer allow you to bypass the I agree page. I did due to I can not agree to fly under 400 feet.

I did make sure I clicked next while IAgree was unchecked to ensure an error would show up in there log.

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

Eyeball, so if a person is able to see a small mr at the field while the pilot is flying with googles, then that is LOS correct?

init4fun

According to AMA doc. #550 , if a person is standing next to the guy wearing the goggles , and is a trained RC pilot fully able to take control of the TX and fly the aircraft if the guy wearing the goggles has some kind of problem ("looses orientation" , has to pee , etc) , and of course has direct visual contact with the aircraft at all times during it's flight , well then yea , that's "AMA legal" FPV .....

But if this "person" who is able to see this "small mr" isn't seeing it while acting as the #550 required LOS spotter/alternate pilot , and instead is just some passer by who happens to be able to see the aircraft , well then your beyond line of sight , beyond the insurance coverage of the AMA cause your violating one of the biggest requirements of #550 , and have pretty much have become "the problem" that has brought the evil eye down on us .

Seems a pretty simple concept to grasp , it would appear .....

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

That was the purpose of my post you quoted.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Some amazing video !


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3AWWM_wPHlA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

corch

My Feedback: (1)

It's going to get worse....rather than better. today on the senate floor:


http://www.c-span.org/video/?c457655...-speech-drones

458-508--listen for yourself

Some snippets at the end include:
embedded software prohibiting near airport, above " a certain altitude"

break limits how to identify? Registration/licenses


Commercial users are great. Hobbyist/kid "probability of accident waiting to happen"


Next two months we will have to come up with answers"

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Typical political speech...lacking a full understanding of the technology involved. That he loves commercial users so much is a pretty clear signal as to who we might be receiving financial support from. The clubs from his district may want to invite him down to the field for a look see.....

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

What are you talking about? They totally understand the technology.

Case in point: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/uo1ore...nes---internet

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I'm with U 99 Just because MR's or fixed wing for that mater have a Gyro stabilizer and/or GPS or even FPV doesn't make them Illegal. Right now according to the FAA flying anything BLOS makes the act Illegal.not the vehicle. Technically, if your big bird it get's out too far (For any Reason at all) And it goes BLOS U are in violation of the FAR's. I still say flying BLOS harms no one if flown anywhere a Full Scale is allowed to fly below 500' or lower. It's a lot safer for a multi rotor to be below 400' AGL than some Wannabe Jet jockey down on the deck just for the fun of it. If a MR or fixed wing R'/C TOY runs out of Juice or a motor quits or runs into a High line or power lines No Harm No Foul.

Same thing racing small FPV quads through a woods or obstacle course should BLOS With FPB Glasses is be No Harm No Foul. the only thing they may pose a danger to is a squirrel or rabbit or two..

Not so with the JET Jockey Full Scale Hot dogger, down on the deck full throttle endangering him self his aircraft and his passengers. What for, a big thrill, and to show off for his friends I Guess ? If a MR or FPV equipped fixed wing goes down NO HARM NO FOUL. Just makes it harder than the FULL SCALE that's going to make a BIG SMOKE'N HOLE with bodies in it.

The FAA is Painting every thing with a large Brush that every on int h country knows won't (With OUT education) will do little to Nothing to solve the real problem. That's uneducated IDIOTS Flying QUADS near the final approach path at large airports. Just Registration will do nothing for this Problem. Idiots will be Idiots and continue to do what ever they please.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

all the political animal has to understand about the technology is, it is putting money in their pocket, and there are so few non commercial users, that P.O.ing them off is not a re-election hazard.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I miss him!

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Me too!

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

Obviously, doesn't hamper his typing skills in fact he makes up for being lame with this ability to in essence, slurry himself about.. You've come a long way Chrissy.

GBLynden

I can't stand DB's like that. It sounds like Amazon and other companies have been putting money in his pocket.

franklin_m

Here's the text of letter Senator Nelson sent to the heads of three agency stakeholders:

To Administrator Huerta, Administrator Bolden, Secretary Carter and Secretary Johnson:

Technological advancements hold immense potential to improve lives, while also creating new, unintended dangers. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are no exception to this. While industries clamor to integrate UAS into their operations to improve safety, increase efficiency, and promote growth, we must be vigilant to mitigate the safety and security risks that this new technology presents.

The characteristics of UAS—small, inexpensive, portable, and anonymous—lend themselves to nefarious uses by a range of actors, from criminals to lone-wolf terrorists. Ground-based fences and other security systems are not a practical deterrent to UAS, unbounded by altitude limitations. Each incident of a UAS sighted near an airport runway, or used to smuggle contraband over a prison wall, reminds us that this technology poses another kind of threat.

Because our national defense and critical infrastructure security systems are vulnerable to this threat, so we must evolve to meet it. To that end, I ask that your agencies increase collaboration to mitigate the risk posed by UAS to aviation, critical infrastructure, and national security.

Additionally, the safety of the skies relies on your agencies’ air traffic control operations to separate and de-conflict tens of thousands of flights per day, transporting millions of passengers and cargo. Rapidly evolving technology, paired with the exponential market penetration of UAS and the ease of use for operators with no aviation experience or knowledge, promise to deliver new challenges.

What strategies or technologies are you pursuing to prevent UAS from entering airspace above or immediately adjacent to critical infrastructure and sensitive locations? Are you considering additional airspace restrictions to address the flight characteristics and capabilities of UAS that differ from manned aircraft? What is the status of federal collaboration to meet these challenges in a manner that promotes safety without stifling growth in the UAS or traditional aviation industries?

Leveraging the expertise and efforts of your agencies through collaboration and communication will enable our nation to meet the threats and challenges posed by UAS and take advantage of the opportunities too. Congress should be your partner in these endeavors, and as we work to reauthorize aviation programs, I ask that you keep me informed of developments to promote safety and security for UAS.

rcmiket

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/exclusive...725436982.html

Mike

Sport_Pilot

He says "I suppose you could shoot at trucks too.". Except trucks are not trespassing on your property, and people know they could hurt someone on the truck. A drone is just a machine.