RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

It seems that people are putting their spin on the subject as to what they want to read into the bill/law. On the you tube presentation the guy claims that the law may force the end to all RC flying, yet in the highlighted text it plainly states " capable of taking video either in the air or on the ground. "

The Texas Bill also states "cabable of taking video or pictures". So where are all the "Doomsday" theorists getting this "End to All RC flying" coming from.

I, personally, am glad to see this legislation because it really bothers me that some Yahoo (Peeping Tom) looking through windows and over fences to get his jollies from posting on You Tube. This is what the law is trying to prevent.

As for Law Enforcement using this technology, a Search Warrant is needed.

Frank

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Back on topic: from this weeks AVWEB a current news report of things that affect all full scale aviation Comericial and General.

</span></span></span><div style="font: normal 9pt verdana;">

</p><h2><a name="208143"><font face="arial,helvetica,geneva">Drone Use List Grows</font></a></h2><p class="copy">http://www.avweb.com/newspics/uassmall.jpg</p><p class="copy"></p>

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the FAA has released an updated list of public agencies that have applied for permission from the FAA to operate unmanned aerial systems (UAS). There are now at least 81 agencies that want to fly drones. Most are universities or other research-oriented institutions, and law-enforcement agencies make up the next largest group. Under current FAA rules, drones of all sizes can only be legally operated for non-hobby use through special authorization by the FAA. The list does not indicate which applications have been approved or rejected. The agency was mandated by Congress last year to start allowing more general use of small drones but the FAA said earlier this year it needs more time to figure out how to do that safely. Meanwhile, at least nine states are considering legislation to restrict drone use, one city has banned them entirely for at least two years, and industry groups, from the film industry to agriculture, are stamping their feet with impatience. Trying to reconcile the various factors and factions is the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, and Vice President Gretchen West told AVweb in a podcast interview that education is key to smoothing the process.</p><p class="copy"></p>

West said that thanks to the coincidental increased public awareness of civilian drones due to the congressional mandate and high-profile controversies like the one over the authorization of assassinations by drones, the perception of civilian drone use is skewed. "Most of the systems we're talking about weigh less than 25 pounds," she said. Those used for law enforcement have limited range and endurance that make them suitable only for short-term operations like tracking suspects or search and rescue and not the kind of persistent surveillance that seems to worry many opponents of the technology. She said it's understandable that the FAA and many other countries are wrestling with regulating drones because the technology is relatively new and it's very powerful.</p>

</p><h2><a name="208145"><font face="arial,helvetica,geneva">Podcast: Drones Under Fire</font></a></h2><h4>File Size 8.4 MB / Running Time 9:11</h4><table width="127" border="0" align="right" id="podcastSponsors-bose"> <tbody> <tr> <td>http://www.avweb.com/media/ads/8/Bos...de_122x135.gifhttp://media.avweb.com/banmanavweb/a...mNumber=565148</td> </tr> </tbody></table><p class="copy"></p><p style="font-weight: bold;">Podcast Index | How to Listen | Subscribe Via RSS</p><p class="copy"></p>

Unmanned aerial systems are getting a lot of attention, and public perception is often far from reality about the remotely piloted aircraft. AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Gretchen West, VP of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) about the issues, the opportunities, and the uphill battle to explain the technology to governments, the aviation community, and the public.</p><p class="copy"></p>

This podcast is brought to you by Bose Corporation.http://media.avweb.com/banmanavweb/a...omNumber=87496</p><p class="copy"></p><blockquote>

Click here to listen. <font size="-1">(8.4 MB, 9:11)</font></p></blockquote><p class="copy">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N5305.A...91;timestamp]?</p></div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Yeah, but it's good "Off Topic". ;) OTOH, finding myself in strong agreement with LCS and SP is kinda demoralizing. :D

One day, a couple years ago, I watched a visiting RCer launch one of those multimotor helocopter "thinges" and let it disappear into the complete overcast clouds for a while, then return right back to him.

Absolutely amazing. However as our field is about 15 miles from Houston's Bush IC Airport, a major airport, and there are times when airliners are turning from a long downwind to to intercept the ILS final to land (still some 3-4000 ft. above ground level) I do wonder that when IFR conditions exist and one is launched into the clouds on any possible flight path of IFR aircraft by folks that are unlearned about 1:1 scale aviation, be it traffic pattern Approach/Take-Off, or enroute IFR aircraft that get IFR clearances point to point be they low minimum altitude or climbing to VFR on Top (BTDT) One airliner or business jet etc. lost by someone playing with a drone RC just seems to me that it isn't worth it except to those mfgers. and/or importers that simply are after sales.
It's like cell phones. The majority just has to have the latest gadget. I used a TRAC phone for years. Then comes a new thing and then better and better. Wife needs an upgrade, but we got I-Phones for 99 cents vice multi dollars as all were trading in the I-4 for I-5. (I think that is the proper names) Far more phone than I need when about all I use it for is to say "I'm off the flying field home - be home in 20 minutes." :D

Now as to OFF TOPIC: Folks posting here are a bit more learned in the overall RC Spectrum than those in "Walsmart", Toys are US, etc. Is it not RC when we get into discussions about what is happening that could definitely effect our entire sport in numerous different ways, especially the use of "toys", new gadgets, and/or the latest fun things being promoted by importers and such?
Again there are inputs here that make me question my own stance concerning drones. Certainly RCU needs to control inputs as well as we ourselves should honor that control. OTOH just what is and/or is not Off Topic when there is so much to be learned with these discussion, especially using examples of how our society operates?

P.S. I do not personally fear a drone over or beside my home, garage, barn or property. I can easily handle that sort of invasion, and I rather think I would enjoy the opportunity. :D

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Not really, it is about basic rights. And Iam pointing out we have less of them. And we seem more tolerant of our rights being taken away. Thus nobodymay care if our right to fly modelairplanes is taken away.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

<div>
</div><div>Tho I shudder to think of such a prospect, it's doubtful even a 2-lb. quadcopter or similar RC or FPV could do more than cause an engine failure (still a 6- or 7-digit bill!) on a biz jet or airliner. Pressurized aircraft have amazingly strong, thick multi-ply plexi windshields that hold up to even 20+lb bird strikes. The unpressurized general aviation birds are at much more risk for calamity. </div><div>In any event, an RC striking any aircraft would have huge headlines and definitely paint our hobby in a bad light. All the more reason to distance ourselves from the drone community.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>I and the nearby gun club would also welcome such an opportunity. </div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Hoss,

The unsafe operation you observed wasn't caused by the type of flying machine (could as well have been any sort of flying model other than CL), but by the operator's negligent actions. And what of rules in effect at the site?...........I'm sure your site is under control of an AMA chartered club. Did anyone call him on it? AMA rules for MA that some would call 'drones' are pretty recent, but it has long been required that the pilot maintain visual contact with the aircraft.

May seem picky, but the public association of 'drones,' which can stretch to any remotely piloted aircraft, with undue hazard to their welfare and rights like privacy is misdirected similarly. As with NRA's concern, the problem isn't the gun, it's the felons and nut cases that abuse them.

CJ

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Most everybody has tried to take up a camera or video at some point, that would be illegal. Besides first we let them make FPV illegal, then any RC with a camera, then all RC capable of a camera (vertially everything).

They don't care its just about power.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

No they don't. No search warrant is needed for something that can be seen from above. The only issue is entering your airspace.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

My  Ayn Rand quote was totally on topic.  The topic isn't drones, its the right to fly Drones and RC, so all discussion of rights is on topic!

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

If i want to take pictures of land or trees i take my camera on my motorcycle and take them but i wont attatch a camara to my rc plane. First of all i think its boring to watch and second i dont want to get my rc plane hobby caught up in what i see these citys and faa laws on drones comming down the road. I hope the AMA and us rc pilots are smart eough to see that or our hobby might get looked at badly and suffer. The drone people want to stand with us because they have no one else to stick up for them. I say let them stand on their own two feet and deal with their own problems ,we have enogh of our own problems and dont need theirs. joe

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

3 different news reporter / camera crews have been attacked in broad daylight and robbed in Oakland California..recently. They were just doing typical curb side reporting and were attacked while the cameras were rolling. This could become a future trend.
Those who control the news media will be pushing like mad for the ability to use drones in the parts of our country that are approaching "war zone" status. Those who control the media, control much, much more than just the media..so it will be interesting to see how far the "anti-dronists" will be able to hold off the inevitable, routine usage of drones.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> </span><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">
</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">I fly a 'keychain camera' on an electric old-timer. It's a re-purposed car remote that takes video with sound. It's a lot of fun to take footage and let other club members view low-and-slow flybys of the flight line, and the higher altitude flights give an overview of surrounding farmlands. We had an oil well going in next door, so had to do a few recon flights.  ;)  It's no more dangerous than the &lt;2lb free flight planes we would sometimes find in the neighborhood 40 years ago. No cries of the sky is falling, no ambuchasers back then either. </span></div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Well said, CP. <div>
</div><div>I've always held we should be as well-equipped (and armed) as our allies, and our enemies!</div><div>
</div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

<span style="font-family: Courier New;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Just a quick count of the IFR published Approaches in to</span></span> Bush International (IAH) there 38 differant approaches into the 3 E/W and and 2 NW/SE runways. how low Planes come to the ground and where depends a lot on the published vectoring altitude for a particular airport. For example IAH RW 27 Threashold height is <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">80'</span>MSL and the FAF (final Aproach Fis) altitude is <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">1500'</span> MSL and 6.1 NM fron the end of the runway so ineffect directly East of the center of the field air craft can be anyware fron <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">200</span>' AGL for an ILS or <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">474</span>' AGL on a Localizer approach.
Here are two URL If U are interested in studing Instrument approaches:

http://www.fltplan.com/AwListAppPlates.exe?a=1

and to listen to the Tower and Aproach Control for hundereds of air ports on the Net.
http://www.liveatc.net/ <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">&lt;- enter an airport 3 letter ID and follow the instructions .... </span>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Dead link, hound dog. One has to log in (free if anyone wants to. No spam.)<div>To save others searching, aircraft on those approaches are about 2,900' above ground 9 nautical miles from the runway end, then start descent. If its on the ILS, they maintain 3.0-degree descent and arrive less than 1/4-mile from the runway end at 200' AGL. Not much problem for RCers. On the localizer approach they can initiate a steeper descent, but have to level off at 600' AGL until about 1-1.5 miles from the runway end. </div><div>
</div><div>We fly at one club near the outer marker (usually 4.5-5 mile fix) for the local airport. Aircraft are visible to us, they are about 1,600 AGL, but we are no threat and its almost impossible to pick out our flying site, much less a 6'-span model. 
<div>
</div><div>
</div></div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

<span style="font-family: Comic Sans MS;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Vectoring altitudes are as low as 1800' agl ... we have to RC fields in the Phoenix aera limited to 400' AGL by the County because some one got too close to an FAA Desiginageted flight examinor with a large IMAC plane and the FAA talked to the county and the county said 400" max ... There was also a nit wit in Milwaukee thet was flying his FPV glidet within 4 miles of MWC and at 4000'msl and posted it on UTUBE he also lost the model because at 4000' the 2.4 went out of range ...excuse the color I just noticed it ...</span></span></span>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz19D...em-uploademail

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

We flew for many years at a grass airport in the country, no tower, and would alert anyone flying if an airplane was anywhere nearby. They would land if it looked like the full-size was fixin' to land. <div>I helped organize an impromptu club at (*gasp*) a tower-controlled field. Flew on the soccer field behind the tower, no taxiways or runways near. Needless to say, we stayed low but still had a ball. 
<div>We fly at a private field now and do the same. If one of the partners is out flying, as indicated by open hangar door and missing plane, we keep eyes and ears open. If its him, we land and critique his approach.  :)</div></div><div>It's all about respect, common sense and then having fun. </div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Come on everyone knows you can't have any fun until its properly regulated. How else will we know if its safe, if we're hurting anyones feelings or disruping their right to keep others from having fun?

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Goto google maps and type in 0wi8 that's Zero double hiter enter and U eye eight. then switch from map to Satalite SE Corner is LakeLand R/C field been there since before 1976. Never so much as an incident between a Model or Ulterlite or Full Sacle aircraft... After the 4th of july when the corn starts to get high we post a Watch men by the Tetrehederan to watch for aircraft taxing out for take off on 18.

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Recent Nova special about drones..........  very informative.<div>
</div><div>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html</div><div>
</div><div>Brad</div><div>
</div>

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Joe................. just Google "first they came"
<br type="_moz" />

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

test

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

Sorry I see my quote was on another thresd. Sorry!

RE: AMA emails on Drones/Right to Fly
 

I think that the FAA has caused this huge mess by failing to do their job and administrate the use of the national airspace.

I do not like all the comments, especially the tone of the "old fart" (his words) military pilot. There are some fine pilots out there that did not get a DOD stamp on their forehead.

I do not think we have a "Right" to fly unmanned aircraft, I think we should have a license to fly ALL unmanned aircraft including that 40sized model. Maybe not a model designed to fly indoors. The license to fly an RC aircraft could be as simple as taking a test to acknowledge what you can and cannot do. Just what harm is that? Yet I hear people screaming about loosing their rights. For larger aircraft (size to be determined) the knowledge test should increase. As the capability of the aircraft flown increases so should the knowledge demonstrated to fly it.

If you are flying FPV (broadcasting camera) you will need to have equipment such as an encoding altimeter, ADSB in and out so that you can both see and be seen in the airspace. Yes I know the cost of that statement. A fixed camera is just not enough when you cannot look around. You are in fact an aircraft like all others, so act like it. You will have to be trained in a manner like all pilots are currently trained... especially Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) to fly into Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Gone will be the days of visual flight into the clouds. The planes will have to be of better construction with backup systems so they don't drop out of the sky like so many RC airplanes I see currently. If you want to fly commercially, you will have to train for that privilege. I fully support the private use of unmanned aircraft.

Manned aircraft can currently do all the "spying" people are complaining about. If your wife likes to sunbathe in the nude, she should expect pictures of her posted on the internet. The sky does not belong to the property owner... much case law on that.

The FAA owns the skies, so FAA get on the stick and issue some rules before we have all this legislation that creates all sorts of fences.