What you and Schumer are advocating will accomplish nothing. The idiots will still be flying in front of airliners with complete ignorance or disregard.

Originally Posted by init4fun
I'll tell you this , Looking at the footage of the quadcopter he was trying to catch in mid flight , he's darned lucky he didn't loose those fingers outright ! This was no little $50 wallmart toy , the machine was certainly big enough to bring serious injury to anyone coming into contact with it's blades . To think that it's being routinely flown over a stadium full of people quite honestly boggles my mind as to the lack of forethought of the safety implications here . Sure , in this instance , the gent invaded the quad's airspace by trying to grab it . Hey , no foul on the quad's part , it did what it was supposed to do , maintain it's airspace and then administer mechanical justice on someone foolish enough to invade that flight envelope . But what of Rob's video of the "runaway drone" , how soon ya think it'll be that something like that ends up happening in a packed stadium now that they seem to have found use as a camera platform over the top of large public events ? Add another risk besides hearing loss and the occasional contact buzz to a night out listening to music I guess ......

In the USA wouldn't this be considered (Being a part of the show) a commercial operation and require all the FAA Certification and training to fly for compensation or hire?

I advocated geographic and altitude restrictions on sUAS flying (in any form) that keeps them clear of the overwhelming majority of manned aircraft. Just today, US Senator Chuck Schumer is quoted in USA Today that the near miss yesterday in New York "should be a wake-up call for stricter limits on drone use."

Sport:
U are absolutely correct, just because there is a limit or a law doesn't mean it will be obeyed. Traffic laws, gun laws, or criminal laws are broken all the time. What laws do accomplish is to make the offender alone responsible for his actions & not penalize every one that obeys the law.. Example when there is a drunken driver arrested and prosecuted they don't close all the bars to prevent drunken drivers. They don't ban cars because they may be driven bu a drunk & kill someone in an accident. Neither should the Powers that be blanketly ban all R/C TOYs because of the irresponsible actions of a few.
As I've said before There is software available when a Quad is equipped with a GPS that limits the Quads max altitude based on it's GPS proximity to airports. I Believe within 3 miles or so of an air port it wouldn't even turn the motors on. There are all kinds of options to control the offenders and let the responsible R/C TOY flyers alone to fly the way we have for the last 70+ years with little or now problems until the introduction of the Quad-rotors. But then this is just too simple a concept for Senators and the like to fathom. Again JMHO

Here's another offering from Horizon Hobby ... Just one of hundreds selling QUADS around the world. No different than the auto mobile when they made it easy for anyone to drive the industry explodes. The only thing to stop Quads will be boredom People will just like other fly by night things they will git it up because every one has seen all the aerial photography on U-Tube they can stand.
That being said look at the new offering from Horizon:

http://www.horizonhobby.com/storefro...m449i8vsl6lhsl

Recently purchased a quadcopter with attached camera. It is the Yuneeq 500 model. It comes equipped with software which will not allow you to fly it in controlled airspace based upon GPS satellite data. Supposedly, according to the software, this can be overridden, but I have not attempted to do so. I took it to the local airport during a recent meeting and it warned me that I was near such an area. If manufacturers want to stay in business, this is the type of modifications they should be looking at.

This has already happened here in Massachusetts , with the resultant injury being too small to raise a fuss over . It was a Memorial day parade where this guy thought nothing of flying a small quad (far smaller than the one the gent attempted to catch) over the crowd to get exactly that , some great footage . When it went out of control and came down it barely scraped a gent's neck and so no charges were filed . The pilot/photographer was darned lucky that it was deemed merely an inadvertent bad judgement call rather than a deliberate disregard for public safety , as that determination most certainly would have merited charges . I believe you , of course , that such incidents will continue to happen and as they become more and more publicized the forgiveness factor will be greatly reduced for those "who shoulda known better" .

I would say it's commercial use , given the event's status as a for profit enterprise . Funny that , if it were a free concert then things may be different but since these folks attending his shows are buying admission tickets it's commercial use 100% as far as I'm concerned . This leaves one to wonder , just how many of our present day reported incidents actually involve what should be deemed commercial rather than hobby use ? as in , guys getting paid to take pictures , crashing or otherwise causing bad press , and the hobby side getting the black eye because it ? Since the clear distinction has been established between hobby vs commercial use It'd be nice to see the news reporters educated as to the difference . As it seems now , to the media , if it isn't a military drone it's some clueless hobbyist , and I don't think it's fair for hobbyists to take the rap for both hobby AND commercial operations ....

Unfortunately, it was the hobbyist organization, AMA, that injected itself into the public discussion as the defacto "CBO." The media is lumping us all together. For while AMA and its members understand the subtleties of the issue, the overwhelming majority of lawmakers, regulators, media, and the public do not.

Another idiot. Another violation of the AMA safety code and NAS laws. Etc, etc.....

Drone spotted at stadium during Phillies game

Well then NAVY Sir:,
Don't U think it would BEHOOVE all of us to wright our congressman, Senators & the AMA and start a campaign to enlighten (EDUCATE) the majority of lawmakers, regulators, media, and the public and have the AMA Start a Media Campaign to Educate the News Media and the general Public so that they won't continue
lumping us all together. Again JMHO

It can't hurt. I fear that we're rapidly losing the initiative. AMA hired a new PR firm with our dues money, and nothing in government relations blog in over a month, and media room is all about the national model aviation day / family day. One might think with these events out there, AMA would be releasing statements highlighting how the organization's rules prohibit such dangerous acts. The value in that would raising awareness of distinction between AMA members and non-AMA members. But I'm sure the PR money is being used for something more important.

Posted: Monday, June 1, 2015, 1:08 AM image: http://media.philly.com/designimages...uirer-2014.jpg


Police questioned the operator of a drone spotted flying briefly above the third-base gate at Sunday's Phillies game at Citizens Bank Park. No charges were filed.

The incident occurred about 4 p.m. when Phillies security staff saw the drone, said Sal DeAngelis, the team's director of security.
DeAngelis said it was unclear how high the drone went but it was easily visible to security personnel who were standing at the third-base gate. It did not reach airspace over the field, he said, or disrupt the game.
Security and Philadelphia police easily located the drone operator outside the stadium. The man cooperated with authorities and was released, he said.




The remote-controlled drone, which had a camera attached, was confiscated by authorities but will be returned, DeAngelis said. Police are investigating and it was not immediately clear whether the operator would face any charges. DeAngelis declined to identify the man.
DeAngelis confirmed that the man was carrying a handgun, but had a license to carry it.
The man could face a Federal Aviation Administration fine. FAA rules bar flying drones below 3,000 feet and within three miles of baseball or football stadiums with a seating capacity of at least 30,000.

Drone sightings have become increasingly common and worrisome over stadiums, especially during college and NFL games.
Poorly supervised drones and remote-controlled aircraft can pose a safety hazard.



Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...VIBWyPibpEo.99

Let me ask all U intelligent AMA members ... Has the NEW FAR's and the
FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 been read into the congressional record
and is now LAW, or is the FAA still sorting things out?
2012

And the alternative was what, do nothing and hope for the best? Was there another organization that would have advocated for us the way the AMA did? Would the outcome as we know it now, and hope to see it in the future, have been better without the AMA involvement? You may have noted or made suggestions in this regard in the past but I haven't looked back that far, nor do I honestly recall. If not the AMA, then who?

I also don't think the media "lumps us all together". They report the news, and when they do a story involving someone doing something stupid it isn't automatically a hit piece on those of us who obey the rules and regs. Most of the time the hobby isn't even mentioned, it's the actions of one or more people. I have however seen stories where they go out of the way to explain what safe flying entails, and then talk about the AMA/FAA partnership. I don't see that as a negative.

Seems to be a no win with you and the AMA and this issue. Have they done anything right in your view? They already spent money and considerable effort (and I think did pretty good job) getting the message out about safe flying. Multiple publications, in person visits at national events, interviews etc. Engaged big govt, the membership, and business partners to get involved by contacting their local pol reps and even the FAA to have our voice heard. Is your issue that they have a new PR firm, and that you don't have a full detailed plan about what they are doing in 30 days? Have you asked your local AMA reps whats going on in your area, or maybe asked how you could be involved? What are your suggestions on moving forward, other than to complain about whats been done in the past? Do you really think that every time a negative news story comes out on quads/drones etc the AMA should issue a press release?

Not a bad idea at all, but I think many of us did just that by writing to the FAA and our local politicians this year and last. The partnering and education process has already started :

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=75599

Remember this?



That didn't just happen by accident.

But....it doesn't and shouldn't stop there. In addition to the work done by the AMA at the national level, your local AMA leadership AND clubs can really make a big difference here. Does your club embrace multi-rotors? Do you have events where they will fly? Contact your local papers and invite some reporters out to do a story on them. Some of the smaller papers are always looking for a good story that deals with current issues, why not make it this one? Even some of the larger papers have an interest, worse case they say no. You might get an intern to come out and get some basic details, or you might get a full time reporter eager for a different twist on the subject. Who knows until you try. Get with your local/regional AMA, or even headquarters to help if needed.

AMA leadership AND clubs can really make a big difference here.
Tried to bring up the subject at two different clubs and they don't want to even here of it.

Does your club embrace multi-rotors.
All depends upon the Mucki Mucks that are running the club. If one or two have on they accept them if not they bad mouth'em and put up with them but try to make all kinds of restrictions.

Contact your local papers and invite some reporters out to do a story on them.
One of the clubs I belong to tried that once (Remember the guy in Boston that wanted to put explosives in a couple of jets?
Well channel 3 sent out this young female reporter and every other question she asked amounted to "How Much C-4 can U pack in a Jet?

We here can't agree on anything but that there is a problem. No consensus here either.

Hey Doc, I have never bought one and I don't intend to. But, I am curious, how about posting a scan of the manual page on safe operations, if there is one.

Well, at least we can agree on not agreeing?

http://www.yuneec.com/download/20150209080300.pdf

pages 3,4,5 specifically. Pretty good warnings/cautions etc.

You are kidding, right? Don't fly over crowds. How big of a crowd? Don't fly near airports. How near? Those instructions are pretty weak. Maybe that is part of the problem.

has any modelplane flyer caught any one flying a drone in a bad way if so what has happen to them

i said befor ill shoot one if i see if and i dont give a darn who owns it i wonder if the people who say things about drones see them in there sleep i think there are a lot of people lie about seeing the drones

OH BOY, Here we go Again.................

I have to ask what do you define as a drone? And what do you think would or should happen to you if fire on someone else's property?

i just had to say something to wake u people up