View Poll Results: Was it a mistake or not for the AMA to embrace drones ?
Voters: 356. You may not vote on this poll
Yes or No , Do you think the AMA was right or wrong to embrace DRONES ?
01-11-2016, 04:42 PM
#705
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I agree the real problems started when GPS equipped multi rotors hit the scene in large numbers.
Last edited by Rob2160; 01-11-2016 at 05:29 PM.
01-11-2016, 04:53 PM
#706
The Problem with the FAA Confiscating sUAS/UAV/Drones/FPV Equipped fixed wing is they have to catch the Perpetrator. Out of the hundreds of sightings not one person or their Drones have been Apprehended Prosecuted or even Photographed. Not even the Drunken Federal employes that crashed a DJI DRONE on the White House lawn. Despite Out of all the sightings by commercial aircraft and their ability to report the sightings in REAL TIME not one DRONE has been captured nor has any of their Owners ... U just can't catch something that is there for a minute than disappears into the ground clutter and is gone in seconds. The FAA will never have the Personal to catch more than a couple out of the Hundreds of just the sightings, what about all the DRONES flying that are never sighted by any one. The FAA or Local Law Enforcement confiscating DRONES Just ain't' gonna happen... To Protect the Flying Public and people to EDUCATE DRONE PILOTS NOT to FLY "When Where and How" they are Illegal is going to take a very Large and Long Media Campaign by the FAA / AMA/ LHS/ Manufactures / Distributors / and anyone involved in anyway at all. It's not much different than traffic laws, Everyone over 16 and has a drivers liscense knows the traffic laws and if they obeyed the traffic laws there would be no need for traffic cops. Education is far easier that enforcement. I ask out of all the sitings below how many were apprehended or Prosecuted.
"NONE".
August 12- Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, from a total of , 238 sightings in all of 2014 to more than 650 by August 9 of this year. The FAA wants to send out a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.
Pilots of a variety of different types of aircraft – including many large, commercial air carriers – reported spotting 16 unmanned aircraft in June of 2014, and 36 the following month. This year, 138 pilots reported seeing drones at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet during the month of June, and another 137 in July.
"NONE".
August 12- Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, from a total of , 238 sightings in all of 2014 to more than 650 by August 9 of this year. The FAA wants to send out a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.Pilots of a variety of different types of aircraft – including many large, commercial air carriers – reported spotting 16 unmanned aircraft in June of 2014, and 36 the following month. This year, 138 pilots reported seeing drones at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet during the month of June, and another 137 in July.
Last edited by HoundDog; 01-11-2016 at 04:58 PM.
01-11-2016, 05:07 PM
#707
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never say Never HD... you have been around long enough to know that...
http://abc7.com/news/drone-operator-...copter/960511/
I don't know if they eventually apprehended this next guy but they certainly did photograph him. Watch the video.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-...licopte/nkYk7/
Last edited by Rob2160; 01-11-2016 at 05:22 PM.
01-11-2016, 05:11 PM
#708
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The Problem with the FAA Confiscating sUAS/UAV/Drones/FPV Equipped fixed wing is they have to catch the Perpetrator. Out of the hundreds of sightings not one person or their Drones have been Apprehended Prosecuted or even Photographed. Not even the Drunken Federal employes that crashed a DJI DRONE on the White House lawn. Despite Out of all the sightings by commercial aircraft and their ability to report the sightings in REAL TIME not one DRONE has been captured nor has any of their Owners ... U just can't catch something that is there for a minute than disappears into the ground clutter and is gone in seconds. The FAA will never have the Personal to catch more than a couple out of the Hundreds of just the sightings, what about all the DRONES flying that are never sighted by any one. The FAA or Local Law Enforcement confiscating DRONES Just ain't' gonna happen... To Protect the Flying Public and people to EDUCATE DRONE PILOTS NOT to FLY "When Where and How" they are Illegal is going to take a very Large and Long Media Campaign by the FAA / AMA/ LHS/ Manufactures / Distributors / and anyone involved in anyway at all. It's not much different than traffic laws, Everyone over 16 and has a drivers liscense knows the traffic laws and if they obeyed the traffic laws there would be no need for traffic cops. Education is far easier that enforcement. I ask out of all the sitings below how many were apprehended or Prosecuted.
"NONE".
August 12- Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, from a total of , 238 sightings in all of 2014 to more than 650 by August 9 of this year. The FAA wants to send out a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.
Pilots of a variety of different types of aircraft – including many large, commercial air carriers – reported spotting 16 unmanned aircraft in June of 2014, and 36 the following month. This year, 138 pilots reported seeing drones at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet during the month of June, and another 137 in July.
"NONE".
August 12- Pilot reports of unmanned aircraft have increased dramatically over the past year, from a total of , 238 sightings in all of 2014 to more than 650 by August 9 of this year. The FAA wants to send out a clear message that operating drones around airplanes and helicopters is dangerous and illegal. Unauthorized operators may be subject to stiff fines and criminal charges, including possible jail time.Pilots of a variety of different types of aircraft – including many large, commercial air carriers – reported spotting 16 unmanned aircraft in June of 2014, and 36 the following month. This year, 138 pilots reported seeing drones at altitudes of up to 10,000 feet during the month of June, and another 137 in July.
01-11-2016, 07:48 PM
#709
Never say Never HD... you have been around long enough to know that...
http://abc7.com/news/drone-operator-...copter/960511/
I don't know if they eventually apprehended this next guy but they certainly did photograph him. Watch the video.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-...licopte/nkYk7/
http://abc7.com/news/drone-operator-...copter/960511/
I don't know if they eventually apprehended this next guy but they certainly did photograph him. Watch the video.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-...licopte/nkYk7/
01-12-2016, 07:12 AM
#711
Slow your role HD....the teacher in NY who flew his DJI into the tennis stadium not only had his phantom confiscated, he was arrested and his case is pending. He was also at risk of losing his job as well. The two guys flying near the police heli (again in NY City area) were also caught and arrested, their cases I'm not sure what's up with them. Yes, only two case, but there aren't a ton of these cases where the perp's are caught.
01-12-2016, 07:18 AM
#713
You never specified, but before we were talking about all infractions. So you got called on it and decided to move the goalpost.
01-12-2016, 07:39 AM
#714
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As Sport noted...you didn't specify. Reminds me of the guy in the other thread who asked for proof of something, then when it was provided, decided to change the request. The issue is not only focused on collisions with aircraft, it's also about the damage or person or property on the ground.
01-12-2016, 07:49 AM
#716
As Sport noted...you didn't specify. Reminds me of the guy in the other thread who asked for proof of something, then when it was provided, decided to change the request. The issue is not only focused on collisions with aircraft, it's also about the damage or person or property on the ground.
around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30
foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.
Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at
Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of
Reservation (AMA SITE)?
Last edited by HoundDog; 01-12-2016 at 07:51 AM.
01-12-2016, 07:51 AM
#717
Why not try it yourself and show us how insignificant it is?
01-12-2016, 08:56 AM
#718
If that were true there would be double walled cages
around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30
foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.
Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at
Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of
Reservation (AMA SITE)?
around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30
foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.
Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at
Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of
Reservation (AMA SITE)?
01-12-2016, 12:50 PM
#719
If that were true there would be double walled cages
around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30
foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.
Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at
Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of
Reservation (AMA SITE)?
around every Pilot Station at every AMA field and an 30
foot chine link fence in front of the Pits.
Maybe the FAA should ban all Model flying except at
Designated Fling sights ... Whens the last time U flew of
Reservation (AMA SITE)?
01-12-2016, 01:07 PM
#720
...still waiting on the rule/regulation/interpretation/whatever from the FAA that says someone "is probably" violating the law for flying a BLOS-capable "drone", whether or not the "drone" is being operated that way; in other words, simply flying a "drone" with BLOS-capability "is probably" illegal.
Surely someone has found it by now. C'mon, we gotta look out for each other here! Don't let someone unknowingly break the law when you know better. As we all have been taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Surely someone has found it by now. C'mon, we gotta look out for each other here! Don't let someone unknowingly break the law when you know better. As we all have been taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
01-12-2016, 06:52 PM
#722
...still waiting on the rule/regulation/interpretation/whatever from the FAA that says someone "is probably" violating the law for flying a BLOS-capable "drone", whether or not the "drone" is being operated that way; in other words, simply flying a "drone" with BLOS-capability "is probably" illegal.
Surely someone has found it by now. C'mon, we gotta look out for each other here! Don't let someone unknowingly break the law when you know better. As we all have been taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Surely someone has found it by now. C'mon, we gotta look out for each other here! Don't let someone unknowingly break the law when you know better. As we all have been taught, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Well , , , A real wordsmith will tell ya , that since in order to be a model aircraft covered under #336 , A model has to be flown in compliance with the CBO's (the AMA , in other words) code of safe flight conduct . Now , since the only CBO at present does not allow BLOS (even though they allow the use of equipment that could fly BLOS at the pilot's whim , but that's a whole 'nother can O worms) that would mean that to fly BLOS one will have lost the #336 exemption and now be subject to the more strict rules of flight plans , pilot testing , and so on . But just carrying the equipment but not flying BLOS ? Well , isn't that what AMA #550 FPV is supposed to be ? You use the camera but the actual craft never leaves the spotter's direct sight ? While this is the very essence of #550 FPV and of course right now not breaking any rules as long as #550 is honestly adhered to , it can't be seen as "illegal" as long as the spotter can see it . Now for the fly in the ointment ...... Just what percentage I wonder of FPV flying IS done in accordance with #550 ? As in , how many FPV flights , whether they start out as #550 compliant flights or not , end up BLOS (even beyond the "spotter's" LOS , if one is present) and now are outside of the #550 , and by virtue of that are outside #336 , and in for a world of legal trouble if theirs is the first BLOS flight that ends in a horribly newsworthy crash ? I see having the equipment to fly BLOS but being told you can't , as being in the same category as giving someone a 200 MPH sportscar and telling them they can not go one MPH over 75 ! Just how many times do you think that car's speedo is gonna be north of 100 ? Oh , Speaking of things sporty ,
OK Sport , Flame suits on , let er rip !!!
01-12-2016, 08:10 PM
#723
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well , , , A real wordsmith will tell ya , that since in order to be a model aircraft covered under #336 , A model has to be flown in compliance with the CBO's (the AMA , in other words) code of safe flight conduct . Now , since the only CBO at present does not allow BLOS (even though they allow the use of equipment that could fly BLOS at the pilot's whim , but that's a whole 'nother can O worms) that would mean that to fly BLOS one will have lost the #336 exemption and now be subject to the more strict rules of flight plans , pilot testing , and so on . But just carrying the equipment but not flying BLOS ? Well , isn't that what AMA #550 FPV is supposed to be ? You use the camera but the actual craft never leaves the spotter's direct sight ? While this is the very essence of #550 FPV and of course right now not breaking any rules as long as #550 is honestly adhered to , it can't be seen as "illegal" as long as the spotter can see it . Now for the fly in the ointment ...... Just what percentage I wonder of FPV flying IS done in accordance with #550 ? As in , how many FPV flights , whether they start out as #550 compliant flights or not , end up BLOS (even beyond the "spotter's" LOS , if one is present) and now are outside of the #550 , and by virtue of that are outside #336 , and in for a world of legal trouble if theirs is the first BLOS flight that ends in a horribly newsworthy crash ? I see having the equipment to fly BLOS but being told you can't , as being in the same category as giving someone a 200 MPH sportscar and telling them they can not go one MPH over 75 ! Just how many times do you think that car's speedo is gonna be north of 100 ? Oh , Speaking of things sporty ,
OK Sport , Flame suits on , let er rip !!!Last edited by cj_rumley; 01-12-2016 at 08:13 PM.
01-13-2016, 04:57 AM
#725
Well , , , A real wordsmith will tell ya , that since in order to be a model aircraft covered under #336 , A model has to be flown in compliance with the CBO's (the AMA , in other words) code of safe flight conduct . Now , since the only CBO at present does not allow BLOS (even though they allow the use of equipment that could fly BLOS at the pilot's whim , but that's a whole 'nother can O worms) that would mean that to fly BLOS one will have lost the #336 exemption and now be subject to the more strict rules of flight plans , pilot testing , and so on . But just carrying the equipment but not flying BLOS ? Well , isn't that what AMA #550 FPV is supposed to be ? You use the camera but the actual craft never leaves the spotter's direct sight ? While this is the very essence of #550 FPV and of course right now not breaking any rules as long as #550 is honestly adhered to , it can't be seen as "illegal" as long as the spotter can see it . Now for the fly in the ointment ...... Just what percentage I wonder of FPV flying IS done in accordance with #550 ? As in , how many FPV flights , whether they start out as #550 compliant flights or not , end up BLOS (even beyond the "spotter's" LOS , if one is present) and now are outside of the #550 , and by virtue of that are outside #336 , and in for a world of legal trouble if theirs is the first BLOS flight that ends in a horribly newsworthy crash ? I see having the equipment to fly BLOS but being told you can't , as being in the same category as giving someone a 200 MPH sportscar and telling them they can not go one MPH over 75 ! Just how many times do you think that car's speedo is gonna be north of 100 ? Oh , Speaking of things sporty ,
OK Sport , Flame suits on , let er rip !!!
