Originally Posted by init4fun

Yep , here it is right here folks , the total collapse of the other side's point , the tacit admission that laws are laws whether we like the wording of them or not , and to them only "model citizens" (read Nerds) follow laws , right ? Smart people , like the people Mike mentioned with the CB radios , pushed back and got the law changed , all the while most of em DID have their FCC required callsigns I know so cause I was involved with the CB hobby at the time ! And yes Mike , If I can dig up a picture of it , I still have my first CB after all these years , but then I'll be too far off topic for some .

So let's see , It seems the general consensus is that the law needs work and is a bit TOO far reaching in it's present form . But , right now today , it seems , as written , the law does right now require reporting just as Franklin said it did . Now , whether we like the law's wording or not , Franklin is STILL 100% correct in his assertion that the second degree burns received by the jet in the incident mentioned 4 pages back were supposed to be reported under the present language of the law .

See how easy that was ? and it only took 4 pages , a record for the AMA forum for sure ........

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

Again laws and regulations are not the same. The FBI cannot even investigate you for any violation of a regulation only the agency that published the regulation can do that. Most agencies cannot imprision you and then only if backed by a law. As I said the NTSB is not requiring that we report model airplane accidents though they will take your report.

Originally Posted by init4fun

Oh thread purity , why hast thou forsaken me so !!!!

Originally Posted by mike1974

Drones vs aircraft - midair collisions? Anybody?

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie

here is what I have gotten from the thread so far.


6. What has been done up to this point to keep MR aircraft out of restricted areas has been of little value.

Originally Posted by TimJ

http://www.cnn.com VIDEO drones-airplanes-collision-faa-TESTING-ar-origwx.cnn ^^^^--Click the link.

Originally Posted by TimJ

http://www.cnn.com VIDEO drones-airplanes-collision-faa-TESTING-ar-origwx.cnn ^^^^--Click the link.

Originally Posted by init4fun

Oh look , right on time .

So I guess this IS the admission that Franklin's point IS correct !

Time for the hasty retreat back to the safety and sanctity of "thread purity"

How can you honestly take yourself seriously with such , pedestrian , tactics ?

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

Totally!

How did Franklin measure and conclude those second degree burns were > 5% of the victims body?

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Read the 49 USC 830.2 definition of "Serious injury" and note the punctuation. It says "; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or ... [emphasis added]"

The thing about the 5% comes after the last ",or" above. Pretty straightforward sentence structure.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie

here is what I have gotten from the thread so far.

1. Drone collision with aircraft less likely then bird strike.
2. Any collision with aircraft is bad.
3. There has not been a collision between full scale and MR at this time.
4. Things are being done to mitigate bird strikes but nobody seems to know any details.
5. If I witness any MR operation in a restricted location or in an unsafe manner I'm calling 911
6. What has been done up to this point to keep MR aircraft out of restricted areas has been of little value.

Originally Posted by TimJ

http://www.cnn.com VIDEO drones-airplanes-collision-faa-TESTING-ar-origwx.cnn ^^^^--Click the link.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie

here is what I have gotten from the thread so far.

1. Drone collision with aircraft less likely then bird strike. Absolutely correct. Currently available data validates that 100%.
2. Any collision with aircraft is bad. Absolutely, the rabbits and turtles that have struck airplanes have caused damage. Even the plastic bag that was reported to have been a drone might have caused damage if ingested into the fans.
3. There has not been a collision between full scale and MR at this time. Not a single one. 0.0 And these have been flying for at least 10 years. Prior to geofencing, stab systems, etc.
4. Things are being done to mitigate bird strikes but nobody seems to know any details. Those not willing to do some legwork will no doubt be out of the loop on the numerous and varied mitigation programs already in place, and have been for years. Even Franklin knows about those. Are you of the belief that nothing has ever been done to keep not only birds, but wildlife away from airports?
5. If I witness any MR operation in a restricted location or in an unsafe manner I'm calling 911 Not a bad idea, if you see something say something. Best not try to take matters into your own hands either, let the pros take care of it. If the perp has done something wrong, he should pay the full price for his actions, either with criminal charges and/or fines. Significant ones too (commensurate with the infraction).
6. What has been done up to this point to keep MR aircraft out of restricted areas has been of little value.

Originally Posted by franklin_m

Read the 49 USC 830.2 definition of "Serious injury" and note the punctuation. It says "; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or ... [emphasis added]"

The thing about the 5% comes after the last ",or" above. Pretty straightforward sentence structure.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...dno=49;cc=ecfr

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

It didn't work for me. But I did see that they put it in the right cagabory,--Politics.

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

Indeed. So a microscopic second degree burn is applicable.

Have you notified the NTSB of the alleged failure to report?

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

Even it he did he would not be able to lay it at the feet of the AMA. It would be the club or SIG putting on the event that would be responsible.

Originally Posted by mike1974

Good summary! I fly fixed wing fpv in a pretty remote area. I have said this before, but it would be nice if the FAA gave me and others a reasonable option to fly legally instead of just saying no. That obviousley does not work. I would be willing to get certified (I already have my private license) and put a ADS device on my plane so I can be seen by radar. There are a lot of people who fly fpv and it is just sad the FAA feels like "no" is the right answer and it is not working.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

It didn't work for me. But I did see that they put it in the right cagabory,--Politics.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

Even it he did he would not be able to lay it at the feet of the AMA. It would be the club or SIG putting on the event that would be responsible.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot

I think they are trying to work out something commercially. Not sure if this is a priority. larger UAF flying in controlled airspace with full scale may be a higher priority. Someday we will be flying in large Boeing and Airbus UAV's. Drones with brains flying stupid people around. Robots will take over the world.

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon

So did porcia83!

Originally Posted by porcia83

Not sure how you arrived at the last conclusion. If the numbers of MR being sold are correct, it's around 400k (give or take). How many incidents a day, week, month, or year are being reported that indicate they are flying in "restricted" areas? It doesn't appear you have all the data to validate that as fact, but I can't argue it as opinion. The amount of flights would also be needed in the equation to get a better idea, at least IMO. Let's not forget folks flying "traditional" or fixed wing aircraft were the first ones to be seen flying in "restricted" areas well before MR were. As always, it's not the aircraft, it's the pilot that's the issue.

7. There are at least 3, possibly 4 amigos in this thread.