porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

No sooner did I finish the last post, this pops up to read:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2015...t-park-witness

Thankfully no injuries. The last line summed it up pretty well in describing the pilots:

“I don’t think they’re malicious people, but they kind of don’t get it either,” he said.

franklin_m

It probably came from construction industry, where OSHA and others use the attached chart to determine possible severity of injury based on mass of object and height from which it falls. In these cases, the wearing of standard PPE, eg hard hat, safety boots and eye protection, is assumed.

Safety professionals consider that at 249 gram object can cause:

- a minor injury if it falls from approximately 17 meters to 25 meters (approx 55 to 82 feet)
- a lost time injury if it falls from approximately 25 meters to 40 meters (approx 82 to 130 feet)
- a fatal injury if it falls from 40 meters or more (130 feet or more)




source: http://www.dropsonline.org/resources...ps-calculator/

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

But don't we already have laws in place that would punish someone "dropping" their "drone" on someone or hitting a full scale aircraft? After reading most of what I can find on the subject of registration, I fail to see how this does ANYTHING to help the current PERCEIVED problem/threat.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I plan to fly an aircraft by an airport, in the flight path of a plane, or in a city, over a heavily populated area, in a state park or any number of dumb places to fly, I sure as hell am not going to register or put any info on my aircraft.

How many planes to date have ACTUALLY been damaged/hit/downed by ANY type of rc aircraft? To my knowledge the answer is zero. How many bystanders have been injured by someone flying an rc aircraft in an unsafe manner or in a place they should not have been flying? When I say injured I don't mean a bump/bruise/scrape; I mean INJURED. I would imagine that number is extremely low.

So again I ask, what exactly is the point of this task force or registration and how is it not a total waste of time and money?

On that note, lol, I hope everyone here has a wonderful, safe and happy Thanksgiving!!!!

Sport_Pilot

To my knowledge there have been at least two. One decades ago bounced off a blimp with little or no damage. In another a biplane made an illegal high speed pass and the R/C plane was in the wrong place so the small biplane hit a giant scale aerobatic plane hovering over the runway. Only minor damage to the panes leading edge, the pilot flew it home so he was not concerned about it. Not sure what happened to the R/C pilot but the biplane pilots licensed was suspended for a time.

Sport_Pilot

BTW, the team said there was no data for mid air and sUAV. That kinda tells you something doesn't it? But why can they not use bird strike data. I know it would not be perfect, but better than striking people. They could even calculate the effect of hardness on different materials so the mathematician's In the group could have had even more fun.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

I thought the entire point of this "task force" was because of the "dangers" to full scale aircraft. Now, all of a sudden, it's so "drones" don't fall on peoples heads??!! What?!?! And now Franklin is providing data about objects falling in construction sites??!! I'm so confused at this point! I thought this was ALL about full scale safety!??!?!?

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

So basically a bounce off and the full scale pilots fault. So zero. lol.

Sport_Pilot

No the RC pilot was at fault for hovering the RC craft over the runway. The NTSB said so in their accident report, but the FAA also found fault with the pilot for his high speed pass.

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Got it. So 1. And they knew each other was there.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Typical Government agencies ... Either Do Nothing or Just do something even if it's wrong. U and I and probably the Task Force knows it's a complete waste of Time and Money and will not solve a nonexistent problem. The Alphabet kinds are just covering their Butts like usual. All things flown in the NAS by any/all AMA members already are required to be Identified as to who the Owner is and where to find them. Now granted that not everyone has their AMA number (ON) their craft But I'm certain that each and every AMA member has the required info in their cplane ... Sure.

Silent-AV8R

The incident with a blimp was the Goodyear blimp in Carson, CA. The RC model hit it intentionally and the guy went to jail. The blimp suffered damage and made an emergency landing:

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...goodyear-blimp

The biplane & RC plane incident caused more than trivial damage to the biplane and completely destroyed the RC plane. Bottom line on that one was that neither one was completely in the right on what they were doing.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._204696-1.html

mike1974

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks for the information!

So basically, if i am understanding correctly, there has been 1 INTENTIONAL blimp strike by an rc aircraft since rc aircraft have been flown for 70+ years. What exactly is the point of this task force?

Sport_Pilot

Ok, I did not know there was so much damage to the blimp, but technically it did bounce off as the owner had the plane. The bipe is as I described it damaged but could fly home. More than trivial perhaps. Dented to the first spar, some said the main spar but actually to a spar in front of that probably 6 to 10" behind the leading edge. That is where the engine hit I guess.

Silent-AV8R

"Home" in this case was the runway where the incident happened. Watch the videos and you can see what a cluster #$&! it was. Terrible communications, confusion, and a lack of good procedures.

rcmiket

And they are not the kind of people I want associated with the hobby but it's too late for that.

Mike.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

The Some of the FAR's this guy broke:

[h=2]§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.[/h]Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, He was not 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 1,000 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, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
[h=2]§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.[/h](a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

There are probably many FAR broken here.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The jury is out on the presumption that every time something like this happens, the general public automatically associates them with us, the MA, or the hobby. Some will, some won't. No more than someone caught firing a gun improperly is automatically associated with the NRA.

rcmiket

Really? At this point what does the "jury is still out" matter? The damage is done and continues to be done to our image as a hobby. As far as "automatically associated" there's not a thing we can do about it. We've ( the AMA ) spent a sizable amount that accomplished nothing as far as that goes.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Yes, really. Your comments above and below are nothing more than your opinion, spoken as if you have some type of demonstrable evidence to back it up. It's your perception, and it might be shared by some others, but certainly hasn't been shown to be fact in any way. I guess you can cite a few threads here, but it's hardly indicative of validation. Saying the AMA has accomplished nothing so far only further to undercut the veracity of the rest of the comments. It dovetails nicely with the ongoing narrative of AMA bad, AMA does nothing, AMA incompetent etc etc etc.

And yes, my initial comment above is my opinion as well,but it's one thing to make a comment as sweeping and as generalized as yours, and it's another to question it. I just figured Id respond now since I know that's in the barrel as far as a response.

Meanwhile, still no huge harmful or expensive or game changing edicts that will change how our hobby operates going forward. I know I know not yet.

rcmiket

Anyway you spin it bad press is bad press. While I appreciate your take on it the problem is that's what got us where we are now,

Mike

kmeyers

Don't forget the loss of flying sites!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

No, it's not. A couple people flying some DJIs in a stupid manner did not get the ball rolling, any more than the AMAs involvement did. The proliferation of quads/MR and the rapid rise in commercial interest is what got the ball rolling. A few dopes crashing only highlighted some of the issues. There was no way that every Tom Dick and Harry photographer, as well as Amazon and Walmart was going to just start launching commercial applications without some oversight. And while some have naturally taken the leap that more doom and gloom and bad things are going to happen to the hobby, they are right insofar as there being more rules and regs on the way, but they will be for the commercial applications.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Where, specifically?

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

[QUOTE=porcia83;12132506............... the general public automatically associates them with us.....[/QUOTE]

Sad that you still haven't realized that this was the AMA's most manageable and numero uno task.
A Stitch In Time Saves Nine.
Men like Eisenhower or JFK would have handled this rinky-dink errand by coffee break and then moved on quickly to real challenges.

2walla

My Feedback: (10)

There are two more, the commuter jet that lost a winglet a few weeks ago after hitting the quadcopterr. and back in about 1980 my dad and I hit a falcon 56 while we were flying in our citabria. It caved the leading edge in right to the spar just outboard of the strut attachments. We were at about 1100agl and the guys flying the model on a buddy box didnt think they were anywhere near that high.