People that fly Drones do Not Accept Responsibility. Here is another clown in the UK, flying a Quad copter at 1500 FT, thus missing a full size aircraft by a few feet. This to me is complete Stupidity. These guys and their types will force RC Aircraft flying for recreational fun, AMA sanctioned Meets, and if it continues could spell big trouble for the RC Industry as a whole to cease. Please read the attached Link.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/10/...tcmp=obnetwork

Thanks for bringing this up. It will surely help us in the long run... The article also talks about an incident involving a "regular" model as well:

"The incident occurred at about 2,300 feet near Tallahassee Regional Airport in Florida. In this case, the pilot of the 50-seat plane judged the remotely operated flying machine to have been a hobbyist’s model aircraft rather than a quadcopter."

We need to stay ever vigilant and bring to the forefront all the stupid things model aviators do or could possible do... That is one sure-fire way we can help our cause... Thanks again for making us aware of all the stupidity.

Got space? I have nearby thousands of sq, miles of Sonoran desert to lose myself in with my model airplanes. More protection of my right to fly than any organization can/will offer. How about you?

Just checked the NTSB.GOV website and their is no mention of the "Near miss" in Florida. Either the information that the news article used is incorrect or the NTSB did not get this information from the FAA.

that florida incident was right around a year or more ago.
was some threads here with info about it somewhere.

if that helps ya with yer search.

1 thread
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...not-f-4-a.html

Well no expansive desert near... Texas is a bit different. We have ranches big enough to be a small state.LOL Just another way we are different...just got back from a rather large model event where beer tasting was the theme...

I thought jet engines are designed to withstand geese being sucked into them? So how could a little drone be so "catastrophic?"

Duh! "Miracle on the Hudson"?

Because everyone that don't like quadcopters says so...

Feathered, soft tissued birds I think are easy for an engine to digest, even the bones. And I i know the testing usually involves both frozen and soft bird carcasses. Some of these UAVs are pretty large and carry 5-10,000 mah batteries, and sometimes in pairs. I've got to imagine those could cause some serious damage to engines/systems.

Good point, Aside from the mass and density of the batteries/servos/motors I've often wondered what happens to the stored energy in the battery packs during catastrophic destruction of the batters? Would that energy add to the destructive power of being ingested in a jet engine?

Frank

I can tell you what happens to the balance of power in a 6 cell 5000 mah battery when it's driven into the back end of a motor mount, having just went from 60 to zero in one second. First the crunch, then the pop, immediate white smoke and a fierce, bright white and blue fire, not stoppable with water. I can only imagine what two of those would do to a fan blade of even a smaller jet. Or better yet to the windshield of a 172 cruising right along. Not good.

Good point! I think we ought to get the government to ban them pesky electrics altogether. The chances of them going though the windshield of a motor vehicle is probably a million times more likely.... Can you just imagine a electric plane going through the windshield of a bus filled with nuns and orphans?

^^^ My idol,

crank,
Your sarcasm is only exceeded by your ignorance. A motor vehicles windshield is made of laminated safety glass, a small aircraft windshield is made of acrylic plastic.

http://www9.buyerpricer.com/Video.as...indscreen&vx=0

Frank

Thanks for enlightening me!

So what you are saying is the aircraft industry is lacking on making safer windshields and based on that you are against quad copters...and the FAA should essentially ground model airplanes with their ever expanding air grab...interesting logic.

No, I'm saying your ill informed sarcasm lends nothing to the discussion. I'm quite sure the aircraft industry can design a windscreen that is bird/drone/bullet proof but will it be light/affordable/or practical? I'm not saying the FAA should ground anything including quad copters however anyone flying anything directly in the approach path to an airport (subject of this thread) should be caught and punished.

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/...3%20-%20v2.pdf

Frank

So... The only way I can "bring something to the discussion" is to join in on this witch hunt to portray model aviation as a dangerous activity that needs the privilege regulated... Keeps getting more interesting to the further we delve...

What witch hunt? Do you condone flying a Quad at 1500 ft directly in the approach path to an airport? Do you think mocking other's posts with sarcasm brings anything of value to the discussion?

MY MY ////// How touchy we all care. Can't seem to discuss anything without getting at each others throats.

Do you condone a father and son flying a quad copter in their back yard which happens to be within 3 nm of Disney World?

It would be interesting to look into this forum's archives to ferret out all the "Progressives" at this forum who were calling folks like me "TIN FOIL HATS". for suggesting that The Drone Flyers would end up creating wasted time, energy and negative public opinion for our hobby.
There IS such a thing as having too much fun and not having enough wisdom or fore thought to know where to draw that line.
The AMA would have been miles ahead if they decided to NOT EMBRACE [that's "Yuppie Speak" to replace the word, "reject"] a mode of toy plane flight that invites such easy access for any yayhoo to abuse.

Aircraft windshields are made of plastic to save on weight.

CP, are you off your meds again. Sometimes you sound further out than usual. Are you suggesting that the AMA Advanced Flight Systems Operations program, which appears to embrace FPV, is actually rejecting FPV?

With Ya! ....