FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
08-26-2010, 05:20 AM
#26
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Sorry, but you are mistaken on this. Your misinformed determination to ascribe evil motives to the AMA's involvement with the ARC is mystifying to me.
Sorry, but you are mistaken on this. Your misinformed determination to ascribe evil motives to the AMA's involvement with the ARC is mystifying to me.
WHOA mule, stop I say!
[X(] [X(] 
08-26-2010, 09:39 AM
#27
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Here is a recent interview with Rich Hanson of the AMA talking about the upcoming UAV/UAS regulations
http://diydrones.s3.amazonaws.com/mp...isode%2027.mp3
http://diydrones.s3.amazonaws.com/mp...isode%2027.mp3
08-26-2010, 10:05 AM
#28
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
The major difference between a model aircraft and an sUAV is the 400 foot ceiling (prior to the AMA getting all model aircraft defined as sUAVs) sUAVs. Everyone ignored (including the AMA) it because it was "just a suggestion" and it has now bit you on the but. If you want to go above 400' you were under UAV regulations (and still are until the new rules are finalized in 2011).
If you stand in the woods with a scoped Mausser it is a hunting rifle, stand on the roof of a building in a city with it is now a sniper rifle.
Sorry, those of us who have model aircraft and follow the FAA guidelines are not affected. Those who have RC aircraft and fly them outside the guidelines set down for model aircraft are the ones who the FAA is concerned about.
You brought that on yourselves.
If you stand in the woods with a scoped Mausser it is a hunting rifle, stand on the roof of a building in a city with it is now a sniper rifle.
Sorry, those of us who have model aircraft and follow the FAA guidelines are not affected. Those who have RC aircraft and fly them outside the guidelines set down for model aircraft are the ones who the FAA is concerned about.
You brought that on yourselves.
08-26-2010, 10:19 AM
#29
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
You are lost in your own semantics. In your example in both cases the Mauser is still a rifle. The use is what makes a difference as to regulations that apply. One is fine (hunting) one is not.
Same thing here.
The major impetus for these regulations (or one of them at least) was the fact that a fair number of commercial UAS operators were trying to get by by claiming that they were "models" and therefore AC 91-57 applied. The FAA disagreed.
As Rich mentions in the podcast, the FAA has long made differences that are distinctions. Flying a C-172 for recreational purposes can be done under one set of rules. However, flying for hire subjects the operation to additional rules. Same aircraft, it is the use that makes the difference. In your thinking it appears in one case you would have to say that the 72 is no longer an aircraft.
Same thing here.
The major impetus for these regulations (or one of them at least) was the fact that a fair number of commercial UAS operators were trying to get by by claiming that they were "models" and therefore AC 91-57 applied. The FAA disagreed.
As Rich mentions in the podcast, the FAA has long made differences that are distinctions. Flying a C-172 for recreational purposes can be done under one set of rules. However, flying for hire subjects the operation to additional rules. Same aircraft, it is the use that makes the difference. In your thinking it appears in one case you would have to say that the 72 is no longer an aircraft.
08-26-2010, 10:36 AM
#30
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
You neglect to mention that the AMA ignores AC 91-57 and made up their own rules.
As I have said many, many times. Follow AC 91-57 and you are not going to have problems.
Now it seems the FAA will make the suggestions into enforceable rules.
Nothing has change except the people who ignore AC 91-57 are going to have to go through a lot of red tape and money to fly because they are no longer within the parameters of AC 91-57.
As I have said many, many times. Follow AC 91-57 and you are not going to have problems.
Now it seems the FAA will make the suggestions into enforceable rules.
Nothing has change except the people who ignore AC 91-57 are going to have to go through a lot of red tape and money to fly because they are no longer within the parameters of AC 91-57.
08-26-2010, 11:30 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
The FAA didnt give a hoot about metal props, gaseous boosts, nor adding methylethymermanzine to your toy airplane fuels.... til that AMA junk showed up in the sUAS ARC for ALL MODELERS (aka section3) except ComStand Orgs (aka section2AMA Excluded)
This is all FAA's fault,
for trying to leave Model Aicraft out of regulation for the past few decades,
but failing to define just what a Model Aircraft was.
They dropped the ball in ac91-57,
then tried to slap bondo on that with ASF400 saying modelers have to us the AC
... the AC that was STILL saying voluntary compliance.
Then we see Guidance 0801 that defines what happens when modelers dont follow the AC,
... yet the AC even then still said it was all voluntary compliance.
Even when they try to clear the mess up with the 07 Policy Statement, it still just points to AC91-57,
and like watching a train wreck, we see all that does is say there is some voluntary advice to follow or not.
In that light,
I could slap a couple servos on the yoke of a C172,
spraypaint the words "Recreational MODEL AIRCRAFT" on the side,
and fly it RC without any concern for nuthin the FAA ever said, since the ONLY requirement is that I get Advice (ac91-57) but I am in no way mandated to HEED that advice since the AC itself states it is voluntary compliance. Nowhere was there any real limit or definition (including size/wt) of what a model aircraft "is"
FAA has tried to get by on basicly saying A Model Aircraft is an aircraft flown like a model, and is unregulated
This is all FAA's fault,
for trying to leave Model Aicraft out of regulation for the past few decades,
but failing to define just what a Model Aircraft was.
They dropped the ball in ac91-57,
then tried to slap bondo on that with ASF400 saying modelers have to us the AC
... the AC that was STILL saying voluntary compliance.
Then we see Guidance 0801 that defines what happens when modelers dont follow the AC,
... yet the AC even then still said it was all voluntary compliance.
Even when they try to clear the mess up with the 07 Policy Statement, it still just points to AC91-57,
and like watching a train wreck, we see all that does is say there is some voluntary advice to follow or not.
In that light,
I could slap a couple servos on the yoke of a C172,
spraypaint the words "Recreational MODEL AIRCRAFT" on the side,
and fly it RC without any concern for nuthin the FAA ever said, since the ONLY requirement is that I get Advice (ac91-57) but I am in no way mandated to HEED that advice since the AC itself states it is voluntary compliance. Nowhere was there any real limit or definition (including size/wt) of what a model aircraft "is"
FAA has tried to get by on basicly saying A Model Aircraft is an aircraft flown like a model, and is unregulated
08-26-2010, 11:35 AM
#32
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
The FAA didnt give a hoot about metal props, gaseous boosts, nor adding methylethymermanzine to your toy airplane fuels.... til that AMA junk showed up in the sUAS ARC for ALL MODELERS (aka section3) except ComStand Orgs (aka section2AMA Excluded)
This is all FAA's fault,
for trying to leave Model Aicraft out of regulation for the past few decades,
but failing to define just what a Model Aircraft was.
They dropped the ball in ac91-57,
then tried to slap bondo on that with ASF400 saying modelers have to us the AC
... the AC that was STILL saying voluntary compliance.
Then we see Guidance 0801 that defines what happens when modelers dont follow the AC,
... yet the AC even then still said it was all voluntary compliance.
Even when they try to clear the mess up with the 07 Policy Statement, it still just points to AC91-57,
and like watching a train wreck, we see all that does is say there is some voluntary advice to follow or not.
In that light,
I could slap a couple servos on the yoke of a C172,
spraypaint the words ''Recreational MODEL AIRCRAFT'' on the side,
and fly it without any concern for nuthin the FAA ever said, since the ONLY requirement is that I get Advice (ac91-57) but I am in no way mandated to HEED that advice since the AC itself states it is voluntary compliance. Nowhere was there any real limit or definition (including size/wt) of what a model aircraft ''is''
FAA has tried to get by on basicly saying A Model Aircraft is an aircraft flown like a model
The FAA didnt give a hoot about metal props, gaseous boosts, nor adding methylethymermanzine to your toy airplane fuels.... til that AMA junk showed up in the sUAS ARC for ALL MODELERS (aka section3) except ComStand Orgs (aka section2AMA Excluded)
This is all FAA's fault,
for trying to leave Model Aicraft out of regulation for the past few decades,
but failing to define just what a Model Aircraft was.
They dropped the ball in ac91-57,
then tried to slap bondo on that with ASF400 saying modelers have to us the AC
... the AC that was STILL saying voluntary compliance.
Then we see Guidance 0801 that defines what happens when modelers dont follow the AC,
... yet the AC even then still said it was all voluntary compliance.
Even when they try to clear the mess up with the 07 Policy Statement, it still just points to AC91-57,
and like watching a train wreck, we see all that does is say there is some voluntary advice to follow or not.
In that light,
I could slap a couple servos on the yoke of a C172,
spraypaint the words ''Recreational MODEL AIRCRAFT'' on the side,
and fly it without any concern for nuthin the FAA ever said, since the ONLY requirement is that I get Advice (ac91-57) but I am in no way mandated to HEED that advice since the AC itself states it is voluntary compliance. Nowhere was there any real limit or definition (including size/wt) of what a model aircraft ''is''
FAA has tried to get by on basicly saying A Model Aircraft is an aircraft flown like a model
08-26-2010, 11:48 AM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
I am not putting the blame on the FAA, the AMA blatantly said to ignore the FAA guidelines.
If someone asks you nicely to do something and then you repeatedly do what they asked you not to do, you are basically telling them to make it a law. The community would like it if you didn't spit your gum on the sidewalk. A bunch of people say, "there ain't no law against it" and go out and spit gum all over the sidewalks. What do you think the next law passed is going to be?
Everyone who has ignored the guidelines forced the FAA's hand in this.
If the AMA had said,"We are going to follow the FAA guidelines" none of this would have happened. The FAA cut so much slack a bunch of idiots got us all hung with it.
Keep under 400' and you are a recreational model aircraft enthusiast, go above 400' and you are a UAV pilot. That was the way it has been since 2005, except everyone wanted to see what they could get away with before the FAA stepped in.
Don't blame the FAA because they trusted us to at least try and follow their guidelines, not spit on them.
If someone asks you nicely to do something and then you repeatedly do what they asked you not to do, you are basically telling them to make it a law. The community would like it if you didn't spit your gum on the sidewalk. A bunch of people say, "there ain't no law against it" and go out and spit gum all over the sidewalks. What do you think the next law passed is going to be?
Everyone who has ignored the guidelines forced the FAA's hand in this.
If the AMA had said,"We are going to follow the FAA guidelines" none of this would have happened. The FAA cut so much slack a bunch of idiots got us all hung with it.
Keep under 400' and you are a recreational model aircraft enthusiast, go above 400' and you are a UAV pilot. That was the way it has been since 2005, except everyone wanted to see what they could get away with before the FAA stepped in.
Don't blame the FAA because they trusted us to at least try and follow their guidelines, not spit on them.
08-26-2010, 12:03 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
to ignore the FAA guidelines
The FAA had decades to change those requests to get some teeth behind them,
and AMA has had decades to get those requests altered to better suit all aeromodling in the us.
Yes, for decades folks (including Muncie) have kicked those requests to the curb.
And now its time for FAA to get rid of folks option to do so.
The AMAs problem regarding the sUAS ARC is that they wrote one thing in the arc text, but say other stuff out loud.
They say the want just one set of rules for all modelers,
yet the arc they were part of have 2 sets of rules for models. What set of rules would they be talking about, the AMA junk that is in section 3, or the Do Whatever You Want in section 2? Further, when FAA tells AMA to just use OMB119 to write themselves out of regulations, last we heard AMA is balking at those instructions.
The FAA had decades to change those requests to get some teeth behind them,
and AMA has had decades to get those requests altered to better suit all aeromodling in the us.
Yes, for decades folks (including Muncie) have kicked those requests to the curb.
And now its time for FAA to get rid of folks option to do so.
The AMAs problem regarding the sUAS ARC is that they wrote one thing in the arc text, but say other stuff out loud.
They say the want just one set of rules for all modelers,
yet the arc they were part of have 2 sets of rules for models. What set of rules would they be talking about, the AMA junk that is in section 3, or the Do Whatever You Want in section 2? Further, when FAA tells AMA to just use OMB119 to write themselves out of regulations, last we heard AMA is balking at those instructions.
08-26-2010, 12:10 PM
#36
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Hasn't this all been beat to death on 3 or 4 other threads already?
When it comes to Federal Regulations of any type one really needs a doctorate in both legalese and double speak with a masters in alternative word definitions and situationally flexible interpretation to attempt to make any sense of it at all. ("That all depends on what the definition of is, is....")
Unfortunately, when any "membership" type organization tries to quantify of protect the rights of their membership it only leads to more confusion, regulation and erosion of both the rights/privledges of the membership along with the rest of the population as well in the form of unintended consequence. (AMA, NRA, AOPA........)
You know you're in a world of Crap when someone with a badge says, "hi, I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help....."
When it comes to Federal Regulations of any type one really needs a doctorate in both legalese and double speak with a masters in alternative word definitions and situationally flexible interpretation to attempt to make any sense of it at all. ("That all depends on what the definition of is, is....")
Unfortunately, when any "membership" type organization tries to quantify of protect the rights of their membership it only leads to more confusion, regulation and erosion of both the rights/privledges of the membership along with the rest of the population as well in the form of unintended consequence. (AMA, NRA, AOPA........)
You know you're in a world of Crap when someone with a badge says, "hi, I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help....."
08-26-2010, 12:43 PM
#37
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
You neglect to mention that the AMA ignores AC 91-57 and made up their own rules.
You neglect to mention that the AMA ignores AC 91-57 and made up their own rules.
Nothing has change except the people who ignore AC 91-57 are going to have to go through a lot of red tape and money to fly because they are no longer within the parameters of AC 91-57.
You also seem to want to ignore the fact that AC 91-57 is NOT a rule, law or regulation. It is an "Advisory". Beyond that, what that the FAA is doing now with the new sUAS rules is being driven by their desire to have actual regulations governing commercial and public use sUAS. They want to exclude models as much as possible and to do so they must define what exactly comprises a model aircraft operation.
To get back on point, your assertion that AMA has caused any of this is completely wrong and unsupported by any evidence.
08-26-2010, 12:53 PM
#38
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
To get back on point, your assertion that AMA has caused any of this is completely wrong and unsupported by any evidence.
To get back on point, your assertion that AMA has caused any of this is completely wrong and unsupported by any evidence.
BTW, many of the UAVs they are talking about trying to use the AC as an excuse are AMA members following the AMA advice.
Anyway, I am not a deprogrammer. Believe whatever you want.
I will leave you with this. I told everyone this would happen if everyone ignored the AC 91-57, and the AMA was the biggest ignorer of all.
08-26-2010, 01:18 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
You neglect to mention that the AMA ignores AC 91-57 and made up their own rules.
As I have said many, many times. Follow AC 91-57 and you are not going to have problems.
Now it seems the FAA will make the suggestions into enforceable rules.
Nothing has change except the people who ignore AC 91-57 are going to have to go through a lot of red tape and money to fly because they are no longer within the parameters of AC 91-57.
You neglect to mention that the AMA ignores AC 91-57 and made up their own rules.
As I have said many, many times. Follow AC 91-57 and you are not going to have problems.
Now it seems the FAA will make the suggestions into enforceable rules.
Nothing has change except the people who ignore AC 91-57 are going to have to go through a lot of red tape and money to fly because they are no longer within the parameters of AC 91-57.
Frank
08-26-2010, 01:28 PM
#41
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
You forgot the "Neener, neener, neener"[sm=bananahead.gif]
It simply baffles me that people appear to think that the FAA is promulgating sUAS rules because of some alleged ignoring of AC 91-57 on the part of the AMA or its members.
It simply baffles me that people appear to think that the FAA is promulgating sUAS rules because of some alleged ignoring of AC 91-57 on the part of the AMA or its members.
08-26-2010, 01:41 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
Thanks Frank and KE. I amend my comment to WE told you so.
Thanks Frank and KE. I amend my comment to WE told you so.
If we act reasonably and responsibly we will reduce the FAA's concerns about hobbiests causing problems for full scale aviation.
If we go around screaming "you can't regulate us"... we will get hammered. All it takes is a ffew DEMONSTRATING irresponsibility, without AMA (and modelers in general) denouncing the unsafe actions, to cause the government to decide that ALL of us are irresponsible.
Thus... if we see someone bragging about doing something or planning to do something that is irresponsible, we NEED to be vocal about denouncing thier actions.
If we go around screaming "you can't regulate us"... we will get hammered. All it takes is a ffew DEMONSTRATING irresponsibility, without AMA (and modelers in general) denouncing the unsafe actions, to cause the government to decide that ALL of us are irresponsible.
Thus... if we see someone bragging about doing something or planning to do something that is irresponsible, we NEED to be vocal about denouncing thier actions.
Frank
08-26-2010, 01:47 PM
#43
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
You forgot the ''Neener, neener, neener''[sm=bananahead.gif]
It simply baffles me that people appear to think that the FAA is promulgating sUAS rules because of some alleged ignoring of AC 91-57 on the part of the AMA or its members.
You forgot the ''Neener, neener, neener''[sm=bananahead.gif]
It simply baffles me that people appear to think that the FAA is promulgating sUAS rules because of some alleged ignoring of AC 91-57 on the part of the AMA or its members.
The AMA flat out ignores them.
Sorry, you are completely wrong.
08-26-2010, 01:51 PM
#44
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
Do not include me in that WE. Read that thread. A quote from that thread.
Rather complaining about some perceived fault with the AMA how about some suggested solutions.
Frank
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
Thanks Frank and KE. I amend my comment to WE told you so.
Thanks Frank and KE. I amend my comment to WE told you so.
If we act reasonably and responsibly we will reduce the FAA's concerns about hobbiests causing problems for full scale aviation.
If we go around screaming ''you can't regulate us''... we will get hammered. All it takes is a ffew DEMONSTRATING irresponsibility, without AMA (and modelers in general) denouncing the unsafe actions, to cause the government to decide that ALL of us are irresponsible.
Thus... if we see someone bragging about doing something or planning to do something that is irresponsible, we NEED to be vocal about denouncing thier actions.
If we go around screaming ''you can't regulate us''... we will get hammered. All it takes is a ffew DEMONSTRATING irresponsibility, without AMA (and modelers in general) denouncing the unsafe actions, to cause the government to decide that ALL of us are irresponsible.
Thus... if we see someone bragging about doing something or planning to do something that is irresponsible, we NEED to be vocal about denouncing thier actions.
Frank
I called them on it and was told (way too many times) that they can ignore the FAA because they are only suggestions.
What part do you disagree with?
08-26-2010, 01:56 PM
#45
Junior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Charleston,
SC
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Found this on the news wires just now.....I imagine they got lucky, 30 minutes uncontrolled could have been bad.
[link]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100826/tc_yblog_upshot/renegade-unmanned-drone-wandered-skies-near-nations-capital[/link]
[link]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100826/tc_yblog_upshot/renegade-unmanned-drone-wandered-skies-near-nations-capital[/link]
08-26-2010, 02:06 PM
#46
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
From one of the links in the above article:
http://news.cnet.com/Drone-aircraft-...3-6055658.html
BTW - this if from an article written in 2006
Egging on Congress and the FAA are manufacturers of UAVs, who see a lucrative market in domestic surveillance and aerial photography.
BTW - this if from an article written in 2006
08-26-2010, 02:17 PM
#47
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
From one of the links in the above article:
http://news.cnet.com/Drone-aircraft-...3-6055658.html
BTW - this if from an article written in 2006
From one of the links in the above article:
Egging on Congress and the FAA are manufacturers of UAVs, who see a lucrative market in domestic surveillance and aerial photography.
BTW - this if from an article written in 2006
Rather model aircraft being used beyond the scope of the FAA guidelines for model aircraft.
Strapping a spy cam on a Hirobo to do surveillance is like taking your deer rifle into Times Square, it is now a sniper rifle.
08-26-2010, 02:55 PM
#48
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Here are two threads of AMA members ignoring the FAA: [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333465]1[/link] [link=http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=371415]2[/link]
[link=http://www.draganfly.com/]Here[/link] is a company selling a model aircraft for commercial uses.
[link=http://www.drones.com/RC-faq.html]Here[/link] is a site advocating the questionable use of model aircraft for altitude records(read the part on altitude records).
All this from the first page of a google search. Anyone who can't find what I am referring to is not even looking.
edit to add [link=http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56173]This one[/link] clearly not following FAA guidelines. These are the kind of things the FAA and pilots are worried about.
[link=http://www.draganfly.com/]Here[/link] is a company selling a model aircraft for commercial uses.
[link=http://www.drones.com/RC-faq.html]Here[/link] is a site advocating the questionable use of model aircraft for altitude records(read the part on altitude records).
All this from the first page of a google search. Anyone who can't find what I am referring to is not even looking.
edit to add [link=http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56173]This one[/link] clearly not following FAA guidelines. These are the kind of things the FAA and pilots are worried about.
08-26-2010, 04:19 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
08-26-2010, 04:31 PM
#50
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.