HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Why do U want to make things hard for a non problem like 99.9% of R/C
We all know that it is Quads flown where they should be is the only problem.
So let's not swat the fly with a base ball bat.

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

i agree.i belong to 2 clubs.one is fairly close to a major airport and has existed 30 years with no issues. planes are not the issue and if one does come over we immediately land .but we have a good working relationship but the drones are are likely going to cause issues.

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

near misses are trending my friend and are being talked about on tv.i know you might not believe it but it in fact happens alot and are not bogus.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Absolutely but it's NOT regular R/C planes nor is it Quads flown by AMA members (I HOPE).
So why not go after the real problem i.e. those that fly QUADS in the proximity of full scale
air planes and leave every thing elsw alone.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I guess if all else fails, just go right to the ridiculous, or just make stuff up. Your earlier comment said the FAA needed to start "somewhere", as such it doesn't appear that you are aware they already have started, years ago in fact. But don't let reality get in the way. I don't think anyone hear has indicated that there are no possible conflicts, or that concerns are unfounded, where do you come up with this stuff? A ban on these won't stop problems, nor will stricter laws, only the people flying these things can make the problems go away.

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

I warned you ira d, I hope you see it for what it is.

ira d

Yes I see. porcia83 was the one who said the FAA is doing something about the RC conflicts with full scale and we don't need any other ideas. But from a common sense point of view its obvious that the current laws whatever they may be aren't working and its
also obvious that we need some new ideas that will bring about some new laws to deal with the RC flyers that are causing the problem. Of course porcia did not say how we can deal with the people causing the problem without some new rules being brought to
the table.

ira d

I don't think we should for one set a precedent for going after just one type of model, As I said any RC model can be used to interfere with full scale and if we did get quad copters of the market these guys would IMO use something else. having all
to get a license IMO is not a bad thing in fact it could be a online class I don't think it would make things that hard. I just believe that while this is a issue that needs to dealt with I don't see a fair way to deal with it unless any new rules apply to
all RC craft even though we know quad copters are a big part of the problem and probably will feel the brunt of the enforcement action.

Hydro Junkie

How about this, have all quads equipped by the factory with a low power transponder. If it's close enough to the airport for the radar to pick it up, it's close enough for them to get police out to it where it lands. If it's being flown too high over a known flying field, the ATC would know that as well and could call or send someone out to let the people know there is a problem. This could also be retrofitted to all receivers at time of manufacture that are used in all RC aircraft over a period of time.

ira d

While your idea has some merit I don't know that it would be cost effective. Again I don't think its a good idea to single out just quads, Also if the transponder was required on all RC aircraft it should make it more cost effective IMO.

Hydro Junkie

I'm not singling out just quads, just making them the initial target with all radio gear added over time. Since the problem, at this time anyway, is quads being flown stupidly by what I can only call unknowing idiots, by targeting them you now have a way to find and stop the people that think they can do whatever they want since no one will be able to catch them anyway. At the same time, keeping the transponder power lower than on manned aircraft, they would only show up if within a specific range of the airports radar station(s).

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well you continue to be unintentionally either disingenuous and try to either twist or distort what I said, or better yet put words in my mouth. You are factually incorrect on all accounts with that post. The FAA has done something about it, that's not even in question, so has the AMA. What the outcome will be is yet undetermined, it's a work in progress deals with issues far greater than us playing with our toys. I never said other ideas aren't needed. If the current laws as you say, from a common sense point of view aren't working, I'm not sure how a ban (which would be impossible to apply at this point), or a license or online training course would do any better. It's the pilots that are the problem, not the means by which they are flying. You either didn't read my prior comments about what to do with these people, or you are just ignoring them to make some type of point. Find them, arrest them, FINE them, prosecute them, and put them in jail if needed. You think 20 or 30k in fines/legal fees will make them do it again? Publicize that as well to serve as a deterrent. Ya, I've said that repeatedly, but hey, you've been "warned". LoL.

There are laws on the books already that can deal with these people, at a state level to start with. I guess we can have more laws, but that nor what I suggested above will stop being from being stupid. So when that happens, throw the book at them.

N410DC

At this point, anyone who is using a quad to count nose hairs in a airliner cockpit knows dang well that they are violating federal law. Anyone who wants to fly close to an airport will simply disable the transponder, and any other equipment that might get them caught. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US, but converting some rifles from semi-automatic to fully automatic is not difficult. The same fact would pertain to transponders.

Equipping quads "at the factory" is also problematic, given the rising number of quads that are being built from kits or from scratch. Even if the FAA demands that all R/C aircraft be equipped with transponders, it will always be possible to build an aircraft that does not contain the equipment.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie How about this, have all quads equipped by the factory with a low power transponder. If it's close enough to the airport for the radar to pick it up, it's close enough for them to get police out to it where it lands. If it's being flown too high over a known flying field, the ATC would know that as well and could call or send someone out to let the people know there is a problem. This could also be retrofitted to all receivers at time of manufacture that are used in all RC aircraft over a period of time.

Originally Posted by ira d
While your idea has some merit I don't know that it would be cost effective. Again I don't think its a good idea to single out just quads, Also if the transponder was required on all RC aircraft it should make it more cost effective IMO.

Additionally there are airports served by commercial carriers that have no radar and most of the airport radar systems probably do not have the resolution to direct the LEO's to the landing site of said 'object'.

This whole thing is really a society problem writ dangerous. We have gone from a country of law abiding folks with some common sense to a nation of "I will do it my way no matter what you and the law say" people committed to nothing beneficial to their neighbors.

flycatch

My Feedback: (26)

The debate rages on just like gun control. Who is the real culprit is it the drone or the operator. You and I both know the answer so address the real issue. Apprehend the operators and have a show trial that will send shock waves on a national level. You all saw what happens when you kill a lion illegally.

wcmorrison

My Feedback: (2)

I am sure March AFB has a clear zone. It is still a very active air operation and not very far from Moreno Valley. Until just a few days ago, there was an active RC club flying off parts of Norton AFB (now known as San Bernardino Airport). Your idea would shut down dozens of RC operations. I know of one flying off a private runway in Georgia and our own field is not more that three miles from a private strip. So I would be a bit careful about a 10 mile clear zone.

N410DC

Any device that has a transponder would appear as a secondary target on an airport's radar, since the secondary target is nothing more than a depiction of the source of an RF signal. However, you are connect that it would not likely appear as a primary target. Some of the smaller full-scale aircraft may not even appear as a primary target on most radar systems. Of course, the aircraft must be within line of sight of the radar antenna to be detected, since the transponder's RF signal (roughly 1.0gHz) is generally limited to LOS. Most quads flying at low altitude will not be within LOS of the radar antenna, unless they are somewhere that they shouldn't be.

What is the difference between primary and secondary radar?

Technicalities aside, your larger point is very valid, and far more important. Most airports that have Part 121 airline service have radar. However, the vast majority of airports, including most airports with control towers and commercial operations (e.g. field that cater to private jets), do not have radar at the field. Mandating that all RC/Aircraft to have transponders makes no sense, as that vast majority of these aircraft will never fly close enough to a radar antenna to be detected, even as a secondary target.

I am not familiar with the power requirements of an aircraft transponder. How much power would a transponder require (e.g. how large of a battery is needed) to transmit a signal any significant distance? I have a feeling that most R/C aircraft (and certainly most quads) could not handle the additional weight, unless the technology is miniaturized substantially.

cloudancer03

My Feedback: (22)

oh well.today it was just reported in ohio that a drone tried to drop weed into a mansfield prision yard. wonderful.and they stated there have been other incidents as well.you cant fix stupid .just find these numbskulls and arrest them and put them in jail.

TheEdge

My Feedback: (788)

I was just reading about this incident.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ors_picks=true

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o3usKUcFVeY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

When it started I thought my god, not firemen doing this. At least it was in a controlled situation.

ira d

I don't know if you are referring to my post about a 10 mile clear zone but if you are I did not say anything about shutting down any RC flying sites.

FLAPHappy

My Feedback: (209)

True: here's another link that shows the same thing.http://news.yahoo.com/drone-drops-dr...155039206.html

This Technology will never end, but in fact become more advanced than anything we have ever seen before,
It will continue, to confuse radar, and who knows what else can happen.? I think it will lead to Future Terrorism and future wars.
You may think I am compleatly nuts, but just think about it for a few minutes. What can be done with this Technology?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Actually you did, but in a roundabout way. If read quickly, or taken out of context (as can happen here ) I could see where what you said would mean closing an RC flying site.

"..I think the FAA needs to come out with some new rules one being no RC aircraft can operate within 10 miles of any airport at a altitude over 100 feet unless it is being operated from a designated RC flying site.."


First what is designated? You might mean AMA chartered field, or a "club" in the truest sense of the word. But, keep in mind there are private clubs not AMA affiliated, and some that might not even be "clubs", just a group of people who get together and fly responsibly. I can actually think of one a few towns over from me that is just a group of guys who fly in a field on a regular basis who are not a "club", and they would be shut down given this suggestion. The 100 foot cap seems harsh though.

So it's not what you said, but the effect of what you said may cause some "clubs" to end. Meanwhile, there are some clubs that are actually at airports that would continue to operate as they are "designated" clubs per your suggestion. I visited one such club last year in NH, was amazed at how well they get along with the airport and work together to promote aviation.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Besides all aircraft with an electrical system (Lights ect.) from the factory will need added equipment called
ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) + a special Transponder. It certainly would fix the problem. They would be unable to get off the ground because of the added weight.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

They most certainly do have a clear zone just under 5000' on both ends of runway 14/32.