Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions

Old 06-28-2016, 08:04 AM
  #26  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
What are you doing about all of the boat collisions? That is a real problem. But you focus on something that hasn't been a problem at all.
It's all done out of "concern for what if" though.....it's a myopic point of view that governs seemingly everything. More rules, more guidelines, more "safety" related protocols just in case, because maybe it might happen, it could happen, sometime in the future. At the end of the day, I think it's just about control....and wanting more of it.
Old 06-28-2016, 08:24 AM
  #27  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
It's all done out of "concern for what if" though.....it's a myopic point of view that governs seemingly everything. More rules, more guidelines, more "safety" related protocols just in case, because maybe it might happen, it could happen, sometime in the future. At the end of the day, I think it's just about control....and wanting more of it.
The last sentence nailed it! IMHO it's all about a spiteful axe to grind with the AMA and the entire modeling community as a whole under the auspices of "safety".
Old 06-28-2016, 12:23 PM
  #28  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
The last sentence nailed it! IMHO it's all about a spiteful axe to grind with the AMA and the entire modeling community as a whole under the auspices of "safety".
I genuinely believe there is a risk to manned aircraft due to sUAS, and it's past time to segregate them in the airspace. I'm an advocate for operational rules:

- 400 foot AGL nationally
- No flight inside lateral limits of class B or C w/o written standard operating procedure agreement w/ cognizant ATC facility
- No flight inside lateral limits of class D w/o approval of cognizant ATC facility using method preferred by the airport / tower
- Mandatory notification of all other airports when flying within 5 miles, with airport reserved the right to deny
- No flight inside lateral limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation
- TFRs that apply to "all aircraft" also apply to "model aircraft" whether or not "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned
- Altitude limits may be exceeded if approved by the FAA and operating under a published NOTAM to ensure full scale aircraft are notified
- Regardless of the circumstances, the sUAS operator is responsible for ensuring the sUAS avoids manned aircraft, people on the ground, or personal property.
Old 06-28-2016, 01:00 PM
  #29  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I genuinely believe there is a risk to manned aircraft due to sUAS, and it's past time to segregate them in the airspace. I'm an advocate for operational rules:
I'm all for safety and mitigating risk, but you haven't presented any credible verifiable evidence to support the risk or even show the risk as it compares relative to bird strikes. If you were genuinely concerned about the "risk to manned aircraft" you'd be focusing your efforts on bird strikes.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_...-1990-2014.pdf
Old 06-28-2016, 02:10 PM
  #30  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
...you haven't presented any credible verifiable evidence to support the risk ...
https://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2015/...onestrike.html
Old 06-28-2016, 02:30 PM
  #31  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Number of sUAS incidents relative to bird strikes?
Old 06-29-2016, 02:33 AM
  #32  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
Number of sUAS incidents relative to bird strikes?
Title of the thread is drones vs. aircraft, not wildlife vs. aircraft. You asked for credible evidence of risk drones pose to manned aircraft, I presented a link to Virginia Tech study of drone damage to modern turbofans. There is risk, it is real, it's being researched by an accredited university.
Old 06-29-2016, 03:20 AM
  #33  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

A computer simulation Is not credible evidence. A programmer can make it say whatever they want it to say. Besides the fact that anything can destroy an engine doesn't mean it ever will. Let alone destroy two engines, kinda hard for one drone to take out two engines.

Again you need to find something more meaningful. Boat collisions for example.
Old 06-29-2016, 04:24 AM
  #34  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Title of the thread is drones vs. aircraft, not wildlife vs. aircraft. You asked for credible evidence of risk drones pose to manned aircraft, I presented a link to Virginia Tech study of drone damage to modern turbofans. There is risk, it is real, it's being researched by an accredited university.
The complete title is "Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions". That being said, how many mid air collisions have occurred to date?

Last edited by Chris P. Bacon; 06-29-2016 at 04:29 AM.
Old 06-29-2016, 05:21 AM
  #35  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
A computer simulation Is not credible evidence. A programmer can make it say whatever they want it to say. Besides the fact that anything can destroy an engine doesn't mean it ever will. Let alone destroy two engines, kinda hard for one drone to take out two engines.

Again you need to find something more meaningful. Boat collisions for example.
So now you're accusing Virginia Tech Engineering Department of falsifying results? Something that would jeopardize their accreditation and their professional reputations? Wow.
Old 06-29-2016, 05:22 AM
  #36  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
The complete title is "Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions". That being said, how many mid air collisions have occurred to date?
One so far (mid-air at the airshow), and many near misses (otherwise known in the safety trade as "leading indicators")
Old 06-29-2016, 05:46 AM
  #37  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
One so far (mid-air at the airshow), and many near misses (otherwise known in the safety trade as "leading indicators")
In the leadership profession we analyze all necessary data and focus efforts in those areas that would have the most beneficial impact (no pun intended).

One of the fundamental key philosophies of the leadership profession is that there's a difference between doing things right, and doing the right things. Another key philosophies is to do the right things, for the right reasons, in the right way.
Old 06-29-2016, 05:57 AM
  #38  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
In the leadership profession we analyze all necessary data and focus efforts in those areas that would have the most beneficial impact (no pun intended).

One of the fundamental key philosophies of the leadership profession is that there's a difference between doing things right, and doing the right things. Another key philosophies is to do the right things, for the right reasons, in the right way.
There has not been a single confirmed inflight fire of a hoverboard, yet they're banned from checked baggage because of reported fires of lithium batteries (but not a hoverboard itself). Using your logic, you'd would not take action until an actual hoverboard catches on fire. Similarly, there's not been a single inflight fire of an electronic cigarette, yet they too are banned. Again, using your logic, we would not take action until such time that an actual electronic cigarette catches fire.
Old 06-29-2016, 06:03 AM
  #39  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
There has not been a single confirmed inflight fire of a hoverboard, yet they're banned from checked baggage because of reported fires of lithium batteries (but not a hoverboard itself). Using your logic, you'd would not take action until an actual hoverboard catches on fire.

Incorrect. Please re-read my original post where I stated "all necessary data".

Similarly, there's not been a single inflight fire of an electronic cigarette, yet they too are banned. Again, using your logic, we would not take action until such time that an actual electronic cigarette catches fire.

Incorrect, same as above.
..
Old 06-29-2016, 06:38 AM
  #40  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
So does repeating the same illogical request to put something in writing to a Governor, over and over and over when someone doesn't agree with your position. As if that somehow proves you are right, or that the letter would have any effect on anything. Useless, meaningless, and ineffective action.
Convenient. If your position was as compelling as you say, then I'd think you'd jump to defend the hobby to the Governor and point out his error in judgement.

On the other hand, I'm providing letters of support for the FAA's actions thus far, and including specific policy recommendations for consideration. In this case, a 400 foot limit for all sUAS, citing FAA's own statements of risk to manned aircraft above 500 feet. It's also easy to include actual examples of dangerous behaviors and crashes - fireballs, crashes into pits, crashes into spectators, crashes of large airplanes that barely miss large crowds, overflights of cars and buildings (violation of AMA code), etc. Links to news stories of injuries and deaths. All are cited as examples of why self regulation may not be working as well as they're being told.
Old 06-29-2016, 06:40 AM
  #41  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot View Post
Which could have been avoided had they made planes you could actually see out of. A flock of geese would have been easy to see. Each engine had dozens of birds.

They could see well enough to land in a river through a major city.
Old 06-29-2016, 06:46 AM
  #42  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
..
You asked for an example of evidence supporting a risk to manned aircraft from drones, I provided link to Virginia Tech Engineering study. You then asked for a single example of a mid-air, and I provided one. Again, if your case is so compelling that there is no risk, put your argument into a letter to the Governor and defend the hobby.

But, as you've said, you won't. Perhaps you can't make a compelling argument? The world wonders.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:00 AM
  #43  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
You asked for an example of evidence supporting a risk to manned aircraft from drones, I provided link to Virginia Tech Engineering study. You then asked for a single example of a mid-air, and I provided one. Again, if your case is so compelling that there is no risk, put your argument into a letter to the Governor and defend the hobby.

But, as you've said, you won't. Perhaps you can't make a compelling argument? The world wonders.
You're the one unable to make a compelling argument why you're focusing all your efforts on mitigating sUAS strikes while wildlife strikes are a much more significant issue.

So then, why can't you answer this question?

What is the number of non-commercial sUAS strikes relative to wildlife strikes by year for years 2010-present?

Last edited by Chris P. Bacon; 06-29-2016 at 07:03 AM.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:05 AM
  #44  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
So now you're accusing Virginia Tech Engineering Department of falsifying results? Something that would jeopardize their accreditation and their professional reputations? Wow.
Falsifying results is common with the government grant system. It is commonly referred to as simply bad science. A group of global warming scientist got in trouble with this a couple of years ago or so. If you do not want to prove something by actual tests then you get a contract with a university to lie for you. I have seen plenty of bad engineering studies which have simply been fed bad data to come up with conclusions the customer wants. IMO scientists and we engineers are as bad as lawyers in this respect.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:10 AM
  #45  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
They could see well enough to land in a river through a major city.
IMO it was a much luck as skill to land on the river. It should not have plowed through the river in the first place. I am referring to aviation expert recommendations made a decade or two ago. The instrument panel would be lowered or completely eliminated so that the pilot has full view, possibly right down to his toes. His instruments would be all heads up except for a few overhead and to the side. That way they don't have to jack up their chair on landing and will be able to avoid collisions with aircraft or flocks of birds that are below them and presently completely out of sight.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:11 AM
  #46  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
One so far (mid-air at the airshow), and many near misses (otherwise known in the safety trade as "leading indicators")
Mid air at an airshow and with a blimp. That's it! Hardly something to worry about.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:14 AM
  #47  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
You asked for an example of evidence supporting a risk to manned aircraft from drones, I provided link to Virginia Tech Engineering study. You then asked for a single example of a mid-air, and I provided one. Again, if your case is so compelling that there is no risk, put your argument into a letter to the Governor and defend the hobby.

But, as you've said, you won't. Perhaps you can't make a compelling argument? The world wonders.
Again with the letter to the Governor. The hobby doesn't need to be defended to him.....we've already clearly and demonstrably proven the hobby doesn't present a danger, but wildlife sure does.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:17 AM
  #48  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
There has not been a single confirmed inflight fire of a hoverboard, yet they're banned from checked baggage because of reported fires of lithium batteries (but not a hoverboard itself). Using your logic, you'd would not take action until an actual hoverboard catches on fire. Similarly, there's not been a single inflight fire of an electronic cigarette, yet they too are banned. Again, using your logic, we would not take action until such time that an actual electronic cigarette catches fire.
Electronic cigarettes are banned because people complain about them, it has noting to do with safety. IMO the hoverboard ban is just as stupid. The ones that burned up were operating or charging. If they are worried about lithium batteries then they should be banning laptops as well.
Old 06-29-2016, 07:32 AM
  #49  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Convenient. If your position was as compelling as you say, then I'd think you'd jump to defend the hobby to the Governor and point out his error in judgement.

On the other hand, I'm providing letters of support for the FAA's actions thus far, and including specific policy recommendations for consideration. In this case, a 400 foot limit for all sUAS, citing FAA's own statements of risk to manned aircraft above 500 feet. It's also easy to include actual examples of dangerous behaviors and crashes - fireballs, crashes into pits, crashes into spectators, crashes of large airplanes that barely miss large crowds, overflights of cars and buildings (violation of AMA code), etc. Links to news stories of injuries and deaths. All are cited as examples of why self regulation may not be working as well as they're being told.
You are the one fixated on writing to some Governor, not quite sure why. He would most likely ignore any letter from either of us, and quite frankly yours would probably be seen as alarmist, overreaching, impossible to enforce, and agenda driven. Sure, you can look back at 80 years of activity and find some one-offs, who couldn't? I'm sure you can find some horrible stuff that happened in the Navy as well, sloppy stupid actions that lead to a poor outcome. So what, what does it prove? We are an imperfect species living in an imperfect world. Burdening everyone because of a few ones offs is no solution. All the rules and regs in the world won't preclude further losses.
Old 06-29-2016, 08:39 AM
  #50  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default


KEEP YOUR DRONE AWAY FROM WILDFIRES
There are lots of great places to fly your drones, but over or near a wildfire isn’t one of them. In fact, drone operators who interfere with wildfire suppression efforts are subject to civil penalties of up to $27,500 and possible criminal prosecution.
Here’s why it’s important: Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as airtankers and helicopters, fly at very low altitudes, just a couple hundred feet above the ground and in the same airspace as hobby and recreational drones. This creates the potential for a mid-air collision that could seriously injure or kill wildland firefighters in the air or on the ground.
As a result of unlawful drone operations near fires this year, fire managers have temporarily grounded all aerial firefighting aircraft on several occasions for safety reasons. Shutting down firefighting operations could cause wildfires to become larger and can threaten lives, property, and valuable natural and cultural resources.
The bottom line is “If You Fly, We Can’t."
Please fly responsibly – keep your drone away from wildfires.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.