Originally Posted by
mike1974
I will take your word for being able to spot objects (whatever they may be) since I have no high speed flight experience.
I do agree that the expectation should be zero and that would be great if it could be achieved. The problem is that there is always going to be some idiot (include me if you want since I fly BLOS) that fliys in areas that are not safe. I think geo-fencing (at least from what I have read) is probably one of the better ideas at this point.
I know I ranted and stomped my feet in some of my posts, but I'm not against safety at all; I am against this kneejerk registration. I want to see the FAA implement something that will actually work, like maybe the geofencing idea. I'm pretty sure DJI now limits their MR's to 360 alt. Not sure if that can be hacked already. I can set all kind of limits on my Eagle Tree Vector flight controller. I would also have no problem adding some kind of small, lightweight transponder like device that can make any of my FPV craft visible to full scale craft. I would also welcome collision avoidance tech built into flight controllers used for FPV. It would just be new cool tech that can also make FPV safer. I love FPV and will continue to fly FPV no matter what the FAA decides, but at the same time I would just as willingly implement safety devices onto my FPV aircraft. I got a little long winded there, so hopefully I am making sense. lol.
Anyway, I am really only trying to argue against this FAA registration and not safety itself and to a smaller degree that BLOS can in fact be done safely, under certain circumstances and location.
Mike,
No worries. All of us have things that get under our skin from time to time. I think that many would welcome a technological solution, however unless it's mandated and enforced, there will some (AMA members even) who take the "I refuse approach." AMA can talk about what's worked for 80 years and such, but we don't live in the world of the last 80 years. The explosion of low cost, easy to fly consumer MRs has fundamentally changed the operational playing field. Heck, some could argue that even the readily available ARFs have done the same thing - as now if you crash it's just a matter of writing another check to make up for carelessness or overly aggressive flying. In the days of kit only flights, I suspect folks were much more careful when each and every rib had to be glued (without CA) - an investment of countless personal hours - and hence an incentive to not be reckless.
If FAA mandates an altitude encoding transponder of some type for certain classes / sizes of aircraft, I'd be fully supportive. I fear though that current technology might make that too expensive. Instead of using 180,000 members to try and beat down registration (which I see as a losing battle), why not use that power to drive manufacturers to develop this technology? Geofencing would be another tool, but I think to be done right would have to include an altitude sensing component, so why not just go for it all and use a transponder? I could see that some would argue size, weight, and effective radiated power issues, some of which might be valid, but I have faith in US engineering skill that they could find a solution.