Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions
07-10-2016, 09:09 PM
#476
I seem to recall "accidents happen and there's nothing that can be done" being the answer provided in response to wildlife strikes that are increasing annually at alarming rates and posing a far greater risk to the safety of manned aircraft than non-commercial sUAS operations.
Complete and blatant LIE!
What was said is that I agreed that the odds were higher of a bird strike then a quad AT THIS TIME and asked you directly what could be done to reduce bird strikes. You gave some BS answer and danced around the question. Do you have an answer with any real substance now?
Im anxious to see how you are going to spin this in your favor. Perhaps you should stop wasting time here and hook up with Hillary, you would make a great running mate.
07-10-2016, 09:22 PM
#477
Complete and blatant LIE!
What was said is that I agreed that the odds were higher of a bird strike then a quad AT THIS TIME and asked you directly what could be done to reduce bird strikes. You gave some BS answer and danced around the question. Do you have an answer with any real substance now?
Im anxious to see how you are going to spin this in your favor. Perhaps you should stop wasting time here and hook up with Hillary, you would make a great running mate.
What was said is that I agreed that the odds were higher of a bird strike then a quad AT THIS TIME and asked you directly what could be done to reduce bird strikes. You gave some BS answer and danced around the question. Do you have an answer with any real substance now?
Im anxious to see how you are going to spin this in your favor. Perhaps you should stop wasting time here and hook up with Hillary, you would make a great running mate.
07-11-2016, 02:50 AM
#479
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Where was the personal attack? You three are the ones that have belittled anything referencing documents coming from a government or college source, claiming they are all putting out lies to get funding. If you would like, I can go back and find some of the post numbers and add them to a future post. My comment was to Franklin to use caution in how he approached his "contacts in high places", no more and no less, based on the posts you three are known for. If you don't like my post, you are more than welcome to contact the admins and complain though, for some reason, I doubt it will get very far.
Franklin, would doing so lower you to the level of the "Three Amigos"?
Back on point though, since you seem to be a ardent supporter of Franlin, what did you think about the comments he made? These specifically;
Originally Posted by franklin_m 
Actually, that's a great idea. I'm thinking:
- Letters to my elected representatives
- Hotline email to FAA
- Hotline email to NTSB
Of course all will include citations of these and other incidents that required reporting under the law, yet were not reported. Pointing them where to look for examples of a not so "impeccable" safety record, which will inform their decisions with respect to future legislative, regulatory, and enforcement action.
I don't know there's a cause and effect, I could certainly never prove it, but I can't help but note that after I asked for copies of the AMA's IRS990's last year (ones that should have been published but were not) under the law / FOIA ... suddenly there's an IRS look at AMA? Things that make you go "hummmmm." But I digress.
So, be careful what you ask for Crispy....I'm just the guy who knows not just who and where to send these, but how to frame it in a way that makes it tough for regulators to ignore. That's the thing about government agencies, when you make it easy for them by telling them exactly where to look, and provide proof of clear and documented violation of law, policy, or regulation, they're more than happy to go look (even more so when you have friends that work there).
Do they seem reasonable, or do they seem to be exactly what they are? Is this someone you think is operating to benefit the hobby, or is this an action that would be taken with the biggest of axes to grind? I'm interested to hear what your thoughts are, if this was something you and your club (assuming you belong to one) had to do.
07-11-2016, 03:05 AM
#480
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
In the interest of brevity I'm not going to include the entire post, these are getting a bit long winded, and I'm as guilty as anyone.
That said, I'll admit some of the frustration and mention of injury attorneys was in the heat of the moment out of exasperation with some individuals that just refuse to accept that the view that "accidents happen" and there's nothing that can be done is outdated. I maintain that luck remains a major reason why there's not been a serious injury. With more of these large and fast ARF / near ARF turbines out there, we're rolling those dice more often. I also know that just because nothing bad has happened the last 100 times does not mean nothing catastrophic won't happen on the 101st.
Yes, I have advocated a variety of reporting systems, some more detailed and data intensive than others, all with the intent of taking a more professional view of safety practices to meet a changing operational environment. I don't think I advocated every hobby knife cut though. Aligning reporting with existing standards perhaps, OSHA recordables for example, for the reason that there's a large body of writing out there to help with deciding what is and isn't reportable.
On the subject of lawyers, I know from personal experience that sometimes even large organizations aren't fully aware of requirements. For example, in Verizon Wireless' legal department was unaware of their obligation under California law to provide victims of identity theft unredacted copies of all records for accounts obtained in the ID theft victim's name. After providing copies of the statute, they sent me a nice letter thanking me along with a couple hundred pages of data. So I never assume that lawyers know it all. Especially when the lawyer is not an aviation law specialist.
So, back to the data. Hey, I'm a believer in shoot for the moon but be prepared to accept less. As I intimated above, I'd be happy to see AMA issue a statement much like the one AOPA issued - that they expect their members to report per 49 USC 830 - nothing more and nothing less. Now, if AMA decides that this code does not apply to their members, ok, but then so state. But you're a smart guy. I challenge you to read the statute and convince me why it does not apply.
As to any signals sent by AMA. Yep, I'm pretty much convinced they have no interest in hearing from me, at least on any issue that approaches the delicate subject of a safety record. I also see that this unwillingness to consider other perspectives applies even when an idea is forwarded by another EC member (see minutes from last meeting, search "energy" and read the concern of one member part). As a safety professional, that troubles me. It usually represents a blind spot, meaning the organization is hoping that by ignoring an issue it will magically go away. The energy and destructive potential from some types of AMA sanctioned operations continues to concern me. More so when I see that some folks want to suppress ideas out of a desire to avoid unintended consequences.
For the record, as I outlined above, I'm going to send formal written and signed letters to a couple regulatory agencies and see if I can get a definitive answers on a few specific questions. I'll be happy to share the answers here when I get them.
That said, I'll admit some of the frustration and mention of injury attorneys was in the heat of the moment out of exasperation with some individuals that just refuse to accept that the view that "accidents happen" and there's nothing that can be done is outdated. I maintain that luck remains a major reason why there's not been a serious injury. With more of these large and fast ARF / near ARF turbines out there, we're rolling those dice more often. I also know that just because nothing bad has happened the last 100 times does not mean nothing catastrophic won't happen on the 101st.
Yes, I have advocated a variety of reporting systems, some more detailed and data intensive than others, all with the intent of taking a more professional view of safety practices to meet a changing operational environment. I don't think I advocated every hobby knife cut though. Aligning reporting with existing standards perhaps, OSHA recordables for example, for the reason that there's a large body of writing out there to help with deciding what is and isn't reportable.
On the subject of lawyers, I know from personal experience that sometimes even large organizations aren't fully aware of requirements. For example, in Verizon Wireless' legal department was unaware of their obligation under California law to provide victims of identity theft unredacted copies of all records for accounts obtained in the ID theft victim's name. After providing copies of the statute, they sent me a nice letter thanking me along with a couple hundred pages of data. So I never assume that lawyers know it all. Especially when the lawyer is not an aviation law specialist.
So, back to the data. Hey, I'm a believer in shoot for the moon but be prepared to accept less. As I intimated above, I'd be happy to see AMA issue a statement much like the one AOPA issued - that they expect their members to report per 49 USC 830 - nothing more and nothing less. Now, if AMA decides that this code does not apply to their members, ok, but then so state. But you're a smart guy. I challenge you to read the statute and convince me why it does not apply.
As to any signals sent by AMA. Yep, I'm pretty much convinced they have no interest in hearing from me, at least on any issue that approaches the delicate subject of a safety record. I also see that this unwillingness to consider other perspectives applies even when an idea is forwarded by another EC member (see minutes from last meeting, search "energy" and read the concern of one member part). As a safety professional, that troubles me. It usually represents a blind spot, meaning the organization is hoping that by ignoring an issue it will magically go away. The energy and destructive potential from some types of AMA sanctioned operations continues to concern me. More so when I see that some folks want to suppress ideas out of a desire to avoid unintended consequences.
For the record, as I outlined above, I'm going to send formal written and signed letters to a couple regulatory agencies and see if I can get a definitive answers on a few specific questions. I'll be happy to share the answers here when I get them.
07-11-2016, 04:56 AM
#481
The regulation said serious injury. People go to the hospital for paper cuts. A second degree burn on a portion of your arm is no serious injury and a bit silly to report.
07-11-2016, 05:48 AM
#482
I'll post the whole thing,no need to save any internet trees. There is no doubt a reason why you can't seem to get a response from the AMA that you want, and based on what you've said recently and in the past, it should be evident. They haven't felt the need to implement whatever data collection process you want, and it's abundantly clear this is frustrating to you. So now you'll go the regulators route, all under the auspices of doing your "civic" duty. You don't enjoy being part of a club, and appear to have nothing but disdain for the AMA and everything they represent, but on the other hand you want to dictate how both of those entities should operate, ie your rules. Cognitive dissonance at it's best. It's your time so obviously what you do with that is yours. I would think getting more involved with a local club, then becoming a Leader Member, perhaps a club officer, and then perhaps an AVP in your state would be far more fulfilling, and probably lead to more ability to make change.
You keep pushing this club, leader member, AVP as it would "probably lead to more ability to make change [emphasis added]."
I contend this is nonsense and a false solution, and I offer the following proof. At a recent meeting of the council of elders, that rarified inner round table of the "elites," an safety idea was forward by the #2 position. And how was it met? With a comment that "we don’t want to call attention to numbers; there could be unintended consequences."
So my point is rather simple...if the organization opposes a proposal from the #2 guy, then why would I have "more ability to make change" as a lowly leader member or AVP making the same suggestion?
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-11-2016 at 05:56 AM.
07-11-2016, 05:50 AM
#483
Whether you consider a second degree burn a serious injury or not is immaterial. Congress considers it important enough that they want the event reported.
07-11-2016, 05:55 AM
#484
And Porcia...
If the organization is as safe as it says it is, why should you be at all concerned about what I might send regulators or legislators?
Failure to comply with the law with respect to incident reporting is part of the reason there's not a lot of data on actual safety performance. And the actual performance and actual compliance (or non-compliance) with AMA guidelines is what concerns me with respect to the danger of collisions between drones and manned aircraft.
NASA's safety database has several reports that show the "impeccable" record is not so "impeccable." Furthermore, it shows that these near misses often involve "model aircraft." I counted a number of times manned aircraft had to maneuver to avoid a collision with a "model aircraft". Not so "impeccable" as people have been told.
If the organization is as safe as it says it is, why should you be at all concerned about what I might send regulators or legislators?
Failure to comply with the law with respect to incident reporting is part of the reason there's not a lot of data on actual safety performance. And the actual performance and actual compliance (or non-compliance) with AMA guidelines is what concerns me with respect to the danger of collisions between drones and manned aircraft.
NASA's safety database has several reports that show the "impeccable" record is not so "impeccable." Furthermore, it shows that these near misses often involve "model aircraft." I counted a number of times manned aircraft had to maneuver to avoid a collision with a "model aircraft". Not so "impeccable" as people have been told.
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-11-2016 at 06:01 AM.
07-11-2016, 06:22 AM
#486
Yup, I'm sure there's nothing Congress would love to hear about more than the guy who didn't report a second degree cigarette burn he got while flying an 8oz foamy.
07-11-2016, 06:27 AM
#487
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s030.htm
07-11-2016, 06:45 AM
#488
NASA's safety database has several reports that show the "impeccable" record is not so "impeccable." Furthermore, it shows that these near misses often involve "model aircraft." I counted a number of times manned aircraft had to maneuver to avoid a collision with a "model aircraft". Not so "impeccable" as people have been told.
07-11-2016, 06:53 AM
#489
And your our point Is? Another lame attempt to discredit rather then offer some accurate information. Notice how Chis yet again deflected answering the question with a sarcastic comment backed up by you with a second one. Who's on first base? Still wondering how the phrase " Three Amigos " came about?
As I do beleive Chris has a point about bird strikes and he has made a point of bringing it up multiple times he should also have a solution in mind. We have been pointing out that MR aircraft when used irresponsibly is an issue and have suggested a solution. Where is Chris' solution to bird " mitagation"?
07-11-2016, 07:21 AM
#490
Some organizations change their view on safety because they're visionary, willing to have their assumptions challenged, and ultimately see that what proved true in the past is not valid now. Others change only after a catastrophe (i.e. Deepwater Horizon). Yet another group have change pushed on them by changes in regulation, policy, or law. I tried the "challenge thinking" route and ran into a group that "doesn't want to talk about numbers, as there could be unintended consequences." I really don't want to see there be a catastrophe, say if either that turbine or the B29 had crashed into a group of kids. So that pretty much leaves me one route.
You keep pushing this club, leader member, AVP as it would "probably lead to more ability to make change [emphasis added]."
I contend this is nonsense and a false solution, and I offer the following proof. At a recent meeting of the council of elders, that rarified inner round table of the "elites," an safety idea was forward by the #2 position. And how was it met? With a comment that "we don’t want to call attention to numbers; there could be unintended consequences."
So my point is rather simple...if the organization opposes a proposal from the #2 guy, then why would I have "more ability to make change" as a lowly leader member or AVP making the same suggestion?
You keep pushing this club, leader member, AVP as it would "probably lead to more ability to make change [emphasis added]."
I contend this is nonsense and a false solution, and I offer the following proof. At a recent meeting of the council of elders, that rarified inner round table of the "elites," an safety idea was forward by the #2 position. And how was it met? With a comment that "we don’t want to call attention to numbers; there could be unintended consequences."
So my point is rather simple...if the organization opposes a proposal from the #2 guy, then why would I have "more ability to make change" as a lowly leader member or AVP making the same suggestion?
07-11-2016, 07:26 AM
#491
No, but I'll trust regulators, policy makers, and legislators to look at NASA ASRS incidents involving near midairs with "model aircraft" or instances when manned aircraft had to maneuver to avoid collision with a "model aircraft" and then decide for themselves whether they likely involved AMA members.
07-11-2016, 07:29 AM
#492
There's been a number of drunk full scale pilots. In the interest of safety, do you support full scale pilots submitting to a breathalyzer tests before every flight? A drunk full scale pilot could easily crash into a playground full of kids or in the event of a large airliner wipe out an entire neighborhood.
07-11-2016, 07:33 AM
#493
They said serious injury. An injury that would incapacitate is a serious injury. He was back on the field the same day.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s030.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s030.htm
Second degree burn = NTSB report whether or not you agree.
07-11-2016, 07:39 AM
#494
The law is explicit. If there's a second degree burn, Congress wants it reported to the NTSB. Whether he was back at the field the same day isn't mentioned in the law. Second degree burn? Yes or no. If yes, then report to NTSB, if no, then unless it falls under one of the other categories, no report.
Second degree burn = NTSB report whether or not you agree.
Second degree burn = NTSB report whether or not you agree.
07-11-2016, 07:53 AM
#495
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
Glad to see everyone is still getting along as always. lmao!!
Read this whole thread. Fun!
I am just going to make one comment about the 400ft limit.
When I go to fly my fpv plane, I take off flying los and get to an altitude that looks safe and I put my plane in loiter (250ft radius around gps position when engadged) and get situated to fly fpv. You know what the funny thing was? Everytime I put the goggles on I was very suprised to see my altitude between 450-550ft. I would have never guessed I was that high up and I could very easily fly los at that altitude. I was not trying to take the plane to the edge of my vision, but just flying up to a safe altitude before I put it in loiter. This is a 5ft wingspan foam, whate glider. About the size of my GP .40 non-clipped Piper Cub. That 400ft limit is a joke.
Ok, I'm done. Carry on with the arguing. lol.
Oh, porcia, I will be in CT the end of Aug. I will get at ya.
Glad to see everyone is still getting along as always. lmao!!
Read this whole thread. Fun!
I am just going to make one comment about the 400ft limit.
When I go to fly my fpv plane, I take off flying los and get to an altitude that looks safe and I put my plane in loiter (250ft radius around gps position when engadged) and get situated to fly fpv. You know what the funny thing was? Everytime I put the goggles on I was very suprised to see my altitude between 450-550ft. I would have never guessed I was that high up and I could very easily fly los at that altitude. I was not trying to take the plane to the edge of my vision, but just flying up to a safe altitude before I put it in loiter. This is a 5ft wingspan foam, whate glider. About the size of my GP .40 non-clipped Piper Cub. That 400ft limit is a joke.
Ok, I'm done. Carry on with the arguing. lol.
Oh, porcia, I will be in CT the end of Aug. I will get at ya.
07-11-2016, 07:56 AM
#496
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The law is explicit. If there's a second degree burn, Congress wants it reported to the NTSB. Whether he was back at the field the same day isn't mentioned in the law. Second degree burn? Yes or no. If yes, then report to NTSB, if no, then unless it falls under one of the other categories, no report.
Second degree burn = NTSB report whether or not you agree.
Second degree burn = NTSB report whether or not you agree.
07-11-2016, 07:56 AM
#497
"Serious injury means any injury which:
(1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received;
(2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose);
(3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage;
(4) involves any internal organ; or
(5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface. [emphasis added]"
So, regardless of whatever that website thinks, the Congress explicitly defined (above) what they consider to be a serious injury for NTSB reporting purposes. You'll note it's an "or" at the end, which means that if any of the enumerate conditions are met, then it is considered a "serious injury." Oh, by the way, the above is contained in the part of the stature labeled "Definitions."
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr
07-11-2016, 08:04 AM
#498
They said serious injury. An injury that would incapacitate is a serious injury. He was back on the field the same day.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s030.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s030.htm
Who are you to determine if someone is in need of medical attention or not? This person could very well have had high blood pressure or diabetes. Either one would be a contributing factor. Especially Diabetes as infections are a serious matter. Burns are very suseptable to infection and it would be a wise decision to get the burn properly cleaned.
The point is that there very well could have been some underlying health issues beside the burn.
07-11-2016, 08:08 AM
#500
Any burn affecting more than 5% of the body is the key part of that. The way it is worded is vague as to the extent of second degree burns. Having had several small second degree burns in the past. Including one involving my entire hand, I do not consider this serious. As someone said a common cigarette burn is usually second degree, sometimes a third degree burn.
Of course you are again making mountains out of mole hills!
Of course you are again making mountains out of mole hills!