Sport_Pilot

Oh yes we know fires kill people, but a drone never has. So we ground the planes and let the homes burn to avoid a few dings on the aircraft!

franklin_m

I strongly encourage you to write a letter to the Governor and let him know that a collision between a drone and a plane will not put the aircrew at risk and merely cause "a few dings."

Sport_Pilot

What do the statistics show? Has there ever been anything more than a few dings? Yes we know there is more damage from military planes hitting drones. But those drones weighed 100's of pounds. Strikes with smaller drones of common size has only resulted in a few dings.

Drones are the modern scape goat. Kinda like witch's in the 15th century.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Why don't you enlighten us with your participation and contributions to the hobby. You already stated the hobby is an economic and logistical burden. I'm curious to know how anyone unwilling to even participate in local club activities has made an effort to truly understand the hobby first hand.

franklin_m

Well, I'm not sure what your royal highness determines acceptable participation, but I fly fixed wing electric, nitro CL, nitro and electric helos from 250 to 600 size. Didn't I say that I'm all about flying? I seem to remember saying that I'm now flying more in one week than I flew all last year? On my last walk to the part, I flew 3x 500 flights, 8x 450 flights, and 3x 250 flights on my helos. That's 14 batteries worth of flying. Two days prior I'd done the same. And a day before that I flew three batteries worth in an electric Me-163, three in an EDF U2, and four in a scratch built electric pylon racer.

Contributions? Where does it say in your "rulebook of the hobby" that anyone needs to make specific contributions?

Sport_Pilot

Take up sailplanes, and tell us how easy it is to stay under 400 feet in a strong thermal.

franklin_m

Oh, so the participation is not complete unless I fly sailplanes?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Are the childish titles part of your expertise?

So you're arguing for a fixed 400' altitude limit for all non-commercial sUAS operations and your only experience is the small-medium sized models you fly?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

When one is making regulatory recommendations their knowledge should be all encompassing.

franklin_m

You didn't specify the entire sum total of everything I've flown. Helicopters is my passion lately, for reasons articulated elsewhere. In prior years, I flew 20cc sized FW, .75 sized glow FW, a turbine powered FW, .40 sized CL, and even sailplanes. I also flew 0.049 scratch built pattern style plane for quite a while - had a buddy that got me interested in those for a bit. Even flown Rogallo wing (old Kyosho AutoKite). Haven't flown models off water, haven't flown turbine powered helos. Have also flown a couple developmental UAVs. Both between 150 and 200 lbs, one turbine / one prop, not FPV (qual eval of landing characteristics).

franklin_m

See below - have flown a wide variety of UAS, over 30 full scale types (gliders, helis, FW, floats, props, jets, air transport, and warbirds), plus formal aviation safety program management education, accident investigation, and 20 years managing aviation safety programs, airfields, and airspace.

Sport_Pilot

I say you have no perspective of the practicality of limiting model airplane usage below 400 feet. You think it is no problem at all.

Sport_Pilot

Prove it. I don't believe you.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

I haven't seen him present any logical justification either.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

It's not just about flying them, it's about understanding the people that fly them and what they do with them. It's about understanding the modeling community as a whole. Due to you economical and logistical burdens you're unable to do this. In my experience I've often run into individuals don't know what they don't know.

franklin_m

Then that must mean the FAA is illogical:

"Most manned aircraft operations transit the airspace at or above 500 feet AGL, and an altitude limitation provides a necessary barrier between small unmanned aircraft and a significant majority of manned aircraft operations in the NAS."

- pg 217 / 218 of US Department of Transportation, RIN 2120–AJ60, "Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems"

franklin_m

So what is the criteria I must meet now before you deem me as "understanding the people that fly them and what they do with them" or "understanding the modeling community as a whole?" It seems you keep moving the goal posts.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

So if everything the FAA does is logical why are we even having this conversation?

So are you also including limiting model rocketry to 400' AGL as well?

Sport_Pilot

You do understand there is a very huge difference in how a commercial drone is operated and observed compared to our recreational LOS aircraft? We are always looking at the aircraft, and will be able to see approaching FS aircraft. Not necessarily so with commercial drones. So that is why this rule only applies to commercial drones.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Let me ask a simple question. When is the last time have U seen an air liner outside the ATA below the altitude of say 2000' AGL. I'd Venture U have never seen any maned airplane where u fly below say 1500' AGL. Just walk out side and tell me how many airplanes of any size U see below 1500' in the next week. Or how many U see with in a mile of any AMA flying sight below 1500' AGL unless the field is located on an airport as the one I frequent every day is.
Due to inactivity in the last 4 or 5 years I see maybe one TO and Landing a week.
99.99999999% of aircraft don't fly at levels that present a problem from Any model Aircraft including Drones flown properly. The Bottom line is that The FAA and some here are making a "Mountain out of a mole hill or better yet a problem where one has never existed". But alas some people will just keep on beating a dead horse just to try and prove they are far superior intellectually than their detractors, No mater the topic.

Sport_Pilot

Hey Frankie!,

I suggest you pick one of these fishing spots instead of this forum!

http://www.hookandbullet.com/c/fishing-franklin-tn/

franklin_m

I support the FAA's efforts with respect to sUAS and segregating sUAS to that portion of the airspace where one does not find a significant majority of manned aircraft, as stated by the FAA above.

On model rocketry, if there's metal parts in them, 400' AGL and below unless they're operating under a NOTAM.

franklin_m

I agree with the FAA. If you think they're making a mountain out of a mole hill or a problem where one never existed, then so be it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

franklin_m

"§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation. (a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight..."

So, just like the hobby operator, the commercial operator will be able to see the approach FS aircraft. In fact, the Pilot in Command, Observer, and pilot at the controls all have to have the sUAS in sight w/o aid of anything other than corrective lenses.

franklin_m

Why? Because I agree with the FAA? Because I want to prevent a mishap rather than react to one? Because I don't agree with your assertion that hitting a drone in flight is not a safety of flight issue for FS aircraft? Because I dare to ask questions? Because I dare to express my opinion to legislators using the FAA's own logic?