Another Drone Pilot does it Again
#3227
It's about advocating for consistency in operational rules based on the FAA's own stated concern for manned aircraft at 500 feet and above. The second is about clarifying an interpretation to remove ambiguity and to make it more painful for those who will eventually be caught creating these dangerous situations.
#3228
#3229
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Charles,
MO
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was on the internet today: "Amateur drones grounding firefighting aircraft is not a new problem. Last year, the US Forest Service started a campaign to try to curb the practice. State lawmakers tried to increase fines for those who are discovered flying a drone too close to fire-fighting operations, although California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed that bill."
I wonder why the governor of California vetoed this, maybe be he has a drone import business!!! I believe a fine of $100,000.00 per occurrence and 10 years in jail without parole would help curb the drone intrusions!!
I wonder why the governor of California vetoed this, maybe be he has a drone import business!!! I believe a fine of $100,000.00 per occurrence and 10 years in jail without parole would help curb the drone intrusions!!
#3230
My Feedback: (49)
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...l#post12228625
1: Man, this totally smacks of a concern trolling approach at it's core. More rules, more stringent govt regs, more more more...all for safety? So if some are stuck at 400 feet, let's point out that the AMA members who don't fly for profit but have 80 years of a proven track record should be limited to that as well, is that your argument?
2: More rules, more fines, more govt involvement. That solves the problem how? It doesn't, just means they might get more money by way of fines. Use the laws already on the books (which again, don't preclude future bad acts).
Why keep digging and digging for a solution to a problem that doesn't really warrant that type of action. Before you say "write that to the governor..." I'll just note that these types of situations are statistically minuscule, must we really have a safety rule and reg for everything?
1: Man, this totally smacks of a concern trolling approach at it's core. More rules, more stringent govt regs, more more more...all for safety? So if some are stuck at 400 feet, let's point out that the AMA members who don't fly for profit but have 80 years of a proven track record should be limited to that as well, is that your argument?
2: More rules, more fines, more govt involvement. That solves the problem how? It doesn't, just means they might get more money by way of fines. Use the laws already on the books (which again, don't preclude future bad acts).
Why keep digging and digging for a solution to a problem that doesn't really warrant that type of action. Before you say "write that to the governor..." I'll just note that these types of situations are statistically minuscule, must we really have a safety rule and reg for everything?
Quads get a bad rap just like Guns, when it the individual that should be prosecuted.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about big/more government:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Really seems to fit our situation doesn't it?
#3231
Same goes to the stupid Governor. Fires kill people, so far it has not been proven that drones can.
#3232
This was on the internet today: "Amateur drones grounding firefighting aircraft is not a new problem. Last year, the US Forest Service started a campaign to try to curb the practice. State lawmakers tried to increase fines for those who are discovered flying a drone too close to fire-fighting operations, although California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed that bill."
I wonder why the governor of California vetoed this, maybe be he has a drone import business!!! I believe a fine of $100,000.00 per occurrence and 10 years in jail without parole would help curb the drone intrusions!!
I wonder why the governor of California vetoed this, maybe be he has a drone import business!!! I believe a fine of $100,000.00 per occurrence and 10 years in jail without parole would help curb the drone intrusions!!
#3233
In 2014 there were 18 accidents involving a recreational vessel that collided with a commercial vessel with 7 deaths and 9 injuries. Model airplanes 0 for 0 for that year and only 2 accidents and no death's or injuries. Seems to me a 400 foot rule is needed for your boat. And oh as for as no commercial vessel's in your lake, there have been 937 accidents with 40 deaths and 652 injuries where recreational vessels collided with other recreational vessels. Seems to me a ban on your boat is needed a lot worse than a 400 foot ban on model airplanes. Maybe a total ban nobody can own a boat except for commercial use and of course the government. Seems to me it makes a lot more sense than your 400 foot ban.
Same goes to the stupid Governor. Fires kill people, so far it has not been proven that drones can.
Same goes to the stupid Governor. Fires kill people, so far it has not been proven that drones can.
#3234
While economics are part of it, so too is what I call logistical overhead. That being defined as the time spent packing aircraft and equipment, driving, unpacking aircraft and equipment, setup of aircraft and equipment, breakdown of aircraft and equipment, repacking of aircraft and equipment, drive home, and unpacking and storing aircraft and equipment in the garage again. In the case of the closest club field, there's at least two hours tied up in that. It mixes in economics when you then add the $100 a year for the club. It does not count waiting for the 3D plane that's hovering over the runway to land / clear to fly.
Do you have written permission to fly on the public property you're using as your flying site?
In my own way, I promote the hobby by reminding folks here and elsewhere that you don't need to fly at a club field to enjoy the hobby. In fact, if you're flexible with respect to the type of aircraft, then there's a number of flying sites available nearby. If you're so inclined, and if you're on a budget, you can then plow club dues into things that fly and just buying access to a flying site.
I enjoy every penny I spend on club dues. The expense only represents a tiny insignificant fraction of my annual income.
Do you have written permission to fly on the public property you're using as your flying site?
In my own way, I promote the hobby by reminding folks here and elsewhere that you don't need to fly at a club field to enjoy the hobby. In fact, if you're flexible with respect to the type of aircraft, then there's a number of flying sites available nearby. If you're so inclined, and if you're on a budget, you can then plow club dues into things that fly and just buying access to a flying site.
I enjoy every penny I spend on club dues. The expense only represents a tiny insignificant fraction of my annual income.
..
#3235
All of what U say here Makes more seance than some around here.
Quads get a bad rap just like Guns, when it the individual that should be prosecuted.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about big/more government:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Really seems to fit our situation doesn't it?
Quads get a bad rap just like Guns, when it the individual that should be prosecuted.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said about big/more government:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Really seems to fit our situation doesn't it?
#3236
You may want to consider adding sunscreen to your safety concerns. Skin cancer is a serious concern these days.
#3237
I welcome your concern. However, when I don't wear sunscreen, I suffer the consequences. When a drone pilot flies too close to fire fighting aircraft, the risk is imposed on others. In the latest example, the drone posed a safety of flight risk to the crews, a property damage risk to property owners on the ground, and economic risk to the state and other agencies that now have to expend additional resources.
#3238
I welcome your concern. However, when I don't wear sunscreen, I suffer the consequences. When a drone pilot flies too close to fire fighting aircraft, the risk is imposed on others. In the latest example, the drone posed a safety of flight risk to the crews, a property damage risk to property owners on the ground, and economic risk to the state and other agencies that now have to expend additional resources.
Seems odd that you both highlight and downplay the importance of "aviation experience" to make your case. If that's not linguistic gymnastics, I don't know what is.
#3239
What was the total duration of the risk? Was the duration of risk increased because the Governor, in charge of the TFR does not have any aviation experience? I've asked several times yet, you fail to disclose the Governor's aviation experience.
Seems odd that you both highlight and downplay the importance of "aviation experience" to make your case. If that's not linguistic gymnastics, I don't know what is.
Seems odd that you both highlight and downplay the importance of "aviation experience" to make your case. If that's not linguistic gymnastics, I don't know what is.
#3240
The Governor's aviation experience is irrelevant. His role is to listen to recommendations from the staff and then make a decision, and his qualification for that role was issued by the voters that elected him. Since you seem to think it was not a good decision, perhaps you'll elaborate why?
#3241
#3242
I welcome your concern. However, when I don't wear sunscreen, I suffer the consequences. When a drone pilot flies too close to fire fighting aircraft, the risk is imposed on others. In the latest example, the drone posed a safety of flight risk to the crews, a property damage risk to property owners on the ground, and economic risk to the state and other agencies that now have to expend additional resources.
#3243
The Snohomish County Parks Department has jurisdiction over a majority of the parks in Snohomish County. To operate R/Cs in the park requires a permit from them, issued before the day of the planned operation. As long as the people participating have the permit available on-site, they are legal to operate their toys. The same goes for school sites. If the school district admins feel it's safe, they give you permission and you're good to go.
#3245
The Snohomish County Parks Department has jurisdiction over a majority of the parks in Snohomish County. To operate R/Cs in the park requires a permit from them, issued before the day of the planned operation. As long as the people participating have the permit available on-site, they are legal to operate their toys. The same goes for school sites. If the school district admins feel it's safe, they give you permission and you're good to go.
#3247
My Feedback: (49)
The Governor's aviation experience is irrelevant. His role is to listen to recommendations from the staff and then make a decision, and his qualification for that role was issued by the voters that elected him. Since you seem to think it was not a good decision, perhaps you'll elaborate why?m
"But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy". Nancy Pelosi
#3249
#3250