RCU Forums
Page 119 of 177
« First
19
69
109
117
118
119
120
121
129
169
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RCU Forums (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/)
-   AMA Discussions (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/)
-   -   Another Drone Pilot does it Again (https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11605936-another-drone-pilot-does-again.html)

HoundDog 03-25-2016 07:25 AM
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12194089)
Which is why I like the house bill which not only better for R/C models, but also privatizes the ATC system which would get NextGen going. I don't think FAA wants it.
Sporty what u fail to realize that Privatizations of the ATC system will be the end of General Aviation and Any "DRONE" R/C model flying. User Fees will be the death knell of all but military and commercial air travel.
There are already portable ADS-B's and a club would only need one on a pole to keep full scale air craft away from any Designated Flying field. It could be made to look like a hovering Helio and deter full Scale aircraft to keep at least 1/4 mile away maybe even 2000' horizontally or 1000' above the highest object with in the 2000'
Ref. FAR 91.119(b)


[TABLE="width: 90%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 582"]

Code of Federal Regulations


http://rgl.faa.gov/icons/collapse.gifSec. 91.119

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"]
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Subpart B--Flight Rules[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]
General
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

HoundDog 03-25-2016 07:28 AM
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12194127)
Not likely. ATC is basically the ones that keep planes away from each other. When you think about it, small planes probably aren't going to have most of the hi-tech stuff, they will need to have someone "assisting" them. What worries me is that the FAA may require us to have two way communications with ATC to prevent accidents as well
Wrong Just Wrong all aircraft flying in controled airspace in the USA and Most of the world are already in the rest of the world required to have a working ADS-B unit on board. Come 1 Jan 2020 all in the USA must be so equiped or they don't fly.

HoundDog 03-25-2016 07:39 AM
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12194127)
Not likely. ATC is basically the ones that keep planes away from each other. When you think about it, small planes probably aren't going to have most of the hi-tech stuff, they will need to have someone "assisting" them. What worries me is that the FAA may require us to have two way communications with ATC to prevent accidents as well
Hydro as U probably already Know the only separation of air craft the ATC is required to keep separation are those on an Instrument Flight Plan and only when in IMC. Not with standing they do try (On a workLoad Basics) try to keep other s advised of other aircraft but it is not their Job. It is still the pilots responsibility under the "Seen & Be seen concept) that the ATC system works. At least until after 1 Jan 2020 when all aircraft in controlled air space is mandated to have ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast.

Hydro Junkie 03-25-2016 08:38 AM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194136)
Hydro as U probably already Know the only separation of air craft the ATC is required to keep separation are those on an Instrument Flight Plan and only when in IMC. Not with standing they do try (On a workLoad Basics) try to keep other s advised of other aircraft but it is not their Job. It is still the pilots responsibility under the "Seen & Be seen concept) that the ATC system works. At least until after 1 Jan 2020 when all aircraft in controlled air space is mandated to have ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast.
Agreed but, with a quad, THE OPERATOR ISN'T FLYING EITHER VFR OR IFR. If some one is flying LOS they wont be high enough to be and issue to aircraft so there won't be a need for ATC to be involved. That being said, if the operator has no instrumentation to fly by they can't be flying IFR. FPV isn't VFR compliant either so, that being said, ATC is powerless to do anything other than warn others the quad is there. I see this requiring quad operators to be required to have two way communication with ATC to prevent collisions in the not too distant future

Sport_Pilot 03-25-2016 08:41 AM
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12194127)
Not likely. ATC is basically the ones that keep planes away from each other. When you think about it, small planes probably aren't going to have most of the hi-tech stuff, they will need to have someone "assisting" them. What worries me is that the FAA may require us to have two way communications with ATC to prevent accidents as well
Actually it should be cheaper than the existing transponder so the small planes should have this. Yes we will need some controllers if only as policemen, but eventually every airliner and the more expensive small planes will have a screen that will show the traffic and include CAS which is much better than existing so the controller will be mostly assisting the smallest planes and acting as a traffic cop. It will greatly reduce the numbers, and eventually with improvements such as automatic violation recording, then their will be no need for controllers other than for ground control and emergencies. Oh and processing those automatic violations.

Sport_Pilot 03-25-2016 08:44 AM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194129)
Sporty what u fail to realize that Privatizations of the ATC system will be the end of General Aviation and Any "DRONE" R/C model flying. User Fees will be the death knell of all but military and commercial air travel.
There are already portable ADS-B's and a club would only need one on a pole to keep full scale air craft away from any Designated Flying field. It could be made to look like a hovering Helio and deter full Scale aircraft to keep at least 1/4 mile away maybe even 2000' horizontally or 1000' above the highest object with in the 2000'
Ref. FAR 91.119(b)


[TABLE="width: 90%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 582"]

Code of Federal Regulations


http://rgl.faa.gov/icons/collapse.gifSec. 91.119

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%, colspan: 2"]
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]Subpart B--Flight Rules
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]
General
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I disagree, the FAA has been almost useless for some time now. I think we resolved the fact that the assembly of persons rule does not affect flying fields, but the 1000 foot rule is true for fields near communities.

Sport_Pilot 03-25-2016 08:50 AM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194131)
Wrong Just Wrong all aircraft flying in controled airspace in the USA and Most of the world are already in the rest of the world required to have a working ADS-B unit on board. Come 1 Jan 2020 all in the USA must be so equiped or they don't fly.
ADS-B is just one part of NextGen. Most airports do not have their equipment yet. Also not enough ADB-S ground transceivers out there yet. Also the Data Com is not implemented or fully implemented. I think most of the equipment we are waiting on is the NextGen Weather data reporting. When that is done then all data to include weather will be sent to the pilot. No need to talk to the controller.

HoundDog 03-25-2016 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie (Post 12194173)
Agreed but, with a quad, THE OPERATOR ISN'T FLYING EITHER VFR OR IFR. If some one is flying LOS they wont be high enough to be and issue to aircraft so there won't be a need for ATC to be involved. That being said, if the operator has no instrumentation to fly by they can't be flying IFR. FPV isn't VFR compliant either so, that being said, ATC is powerless to do anything other than warn others the quad is there. I see this requiring quad operators to be required to have two way communication with ATC to prevent collisions in the not too distant future
Maybe for big professional/commercial Drones But all is needed is an ADS-B transmitter and all full scale aircraft will/can avoid any interaction with Hobby Drones. All a person needs is one that is transferable between aircraft (Drones). Like I stated before if a club had one on say a 20 foot pole they could broad cast their position and full scale would avoid the area. Problem solved. Besides if U check some of my posts about FAR 91.119(b), Then it's the full scale plane is required to circumnavigate any place there is an open air assembly of people by a minimum of 2000' horizontally or a thousand + feet. It worked when I referenced 91.119(b) to the local flight school head instructor low over flight have seized by almost 99%. Planes have been above 1640' 500 meters.

franklin_m 03-25-2016 03:24 PM
Latest FAA UAS sighting data released
 
1 Attachment(s)
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=85229

For giggles, I did a preliminary analysis:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154177

Overall rate decreased toward end of the year, but appears to be creeping back up again
50% of them take place in just four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas
25% of all of them take place in just 9 cities: New York, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Chicago, Orlando, Seattle Boston, & Atlanta
NMAC mentions got better for a bit, then appear to be ramping up

Still working a more detailed analysis, trying to reliably sort for fixed wing sightings vs. quads, evasive action required, etc. All have to come from free text field which makes it a bit tougher.

HoundDog 03-25-2016 03:34 PM
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][h=3]Drones in the Zone[/h]http://enewspro.penton.com/site-file...ER-resized.jpgCan UAVs safely share commercial airspace?
FULL ARTICLE
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

porcia83 03-25-2016 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194327)
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Drones in the Zone

http://enewspro.penton.com/site-file...ER-resized.jpgCan UAVs safely share commercial airspace?
FULL ARTICLE[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. The question posed is off a tad, it should really ask "when will they share airspace". I don't think there is a chance they won't, just a question of when.

We've already seen technology and automation reduce the need for more people in the cockpit, the discussions now surrounding drones pertains to commercial use for product deliveries, agricultural, and even filming purposes. Eventually we'll see one pilot in a plane, and then...no pilot. I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime, but that's coming. There are already a couple of mock ups out there.

Sport_Pilot 03-26-2016 07:48 AM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194310)
Maybe for big professional/commercial Drones But all is needed is an ADS-B transmitter and all full scale aircraft will/can avoid any interaction with Hobby Drones. All a person needs is one that is transferable between aircraft (Drones). Like I stated before if a club had one on say a 20 foot pole they could broad cast their position and full scale would avoid the area. Problem solved. Besides if U check some of my posts about FAR 91.119(b), Then it's the full scale plane is required to circumnavigate any place there is an open air assembly of people by a minimum of 2000' horizontally or a thousand + feet. It worked when I referenced 91.119(b) to the local flight school head instructor low over flight have seized by almost 99%. Planes have been above 1640' 500 meters.
Until the network is complete transmission will be spotty, so the full scale may or may not pick up the transmission. Probably pretty good reception an or near most airports by now.

franklin_m 03-26-2016 07:50 AM
1 Attachment(s)
Let's hope this trend does not continue - 250% increase over same period last year

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154276

HoundDog 03-26-2016 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12194535)
Until the network is complete transmission will be spotty, so the full scale may or may not pick up the transmission. Probably pretty good reception an or near most airports by now.
Did i NOT say mandatory by January 1 2020?

HoundDog 03-26-2016 08:31 AM
Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12194537)
Let's hope this trend does not continue - 250% increase over same period last year

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154276
January is just 7 days after christmas U think maybe that might just have something to do with it. Be sides I haven't seen any big campaign from the feds News media Hobby Shops HK or anyone who sells Drones to educate the populace that flying in the vicinity of airports at altitudes that will interfere with man carrying aircraft on landing or take off.
It's little different than Drinking and Driving, Every one knows it Illegal but still we have thousands of arrests, Deaths & maimed people and property every year. Then U have drug use in this country ... Go after these problems and stop making a problem where non exists. But then again I'm preaching to the Choir.

porcia83 03-26-2016 08:39 AM
Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12194537)
Let's hope this trend does not continue - 250% increase over same period last year

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154276
HD already hit the nail on the head, it's right after the holidays when that # was arrived at. I can't recall exactly where I read it, but it was this week, and the article noted "sightings" were actually down overall. If I can find the link I'll add it. As with any online article, it's value/data is fair game.

franklin_m 03-26-2016 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194548)
January is just 7 days after christmas U think maybe that might just have something to do with it. Be sides I haven't seen any big campaign from the feds News media Hobby Shops HK or anyone who sells Drones to educate the populace that flying in the vicinity of airports at altitudes that will interfere with man carrying aircraft on landing or take off.
Could well be true, in which case that increase could also represent the increase in sales we've heard about...more of them out there so more of them being seen by manned aircraft. We haven't a full year's data yet, so that's the only month over month comparison. I suspect Procia's comment below is correct, that the sightings in this report may be lower overall. The first report covered the period 13 Nov 2014 - 20 Aug 2015 (280 days), while the most recent one covered 21 Aug 2015 - 31 Jan 2016 (163 days). The shorter period and bias toward fall and colder months could also explain the numbers

franklin_m 03-26-2016 05:57 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12194554)
HD already hit the nail on the head, it's right after the holidays when that # was arrived at. I can't recall exactly where I read it, but it was this week, and the article noted "sightings" were actually down overall. If I can find the link I'll add it. As with any online article, it's value/data is fair game.
I just added a way to sort by report. Over the period of the first report (280 days), there were 764 reports sightings. Over the period of the second report (163 days), there were 582 reports. So, the average has gone from 2.7 per day to 3.6 per day, an increase of 30%.

Here's data for all three CY by month - 2015 higher than 2014 in same month, 2016 higher than 2015 in same month.

Nov '15 vs Nov '14 - sightings up by 338%
Dec '15 vs. Dec '14 - sightings up by 250%

Jan '16 vs. Jan '15 - sightings up 257%


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154402

franklin_m 03-27-2016 05:59 AM
1 Attachment(s)
Here's how they distribute by time of day:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154410

HoundDog 03-27-2016 06:29 AM
Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12194854)
Here's how they distribute by time of day:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154410
I'd to know what time frame most UFO's are reported by airline Pilots.
Midnight is just so far off the scale to be believable. Besides if the Drone did have it's lights on it would be unrecognizable in the lights of a city. I'd also like to know what airports and what approaches these sightings were. If they were long over water approches well then maybe. Not being argumentative. Just Curious.

franklin_m 03-27-2016 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by HoundDog (Post 12194861)
I'd to know what time frame most UFO's are reported by airline Pilots.
Midnight is just so far off the scale to be believable. Besides if the Drone did have it's lights on it would be unrecognizable in the lights of a city. I'd also like to know what airports and what approaches these sightings were. If they were long over water approches well then maybe. Not being argumentative. Just Curious.
It could also be a default value if no time is entered.

Sport_Pilot 03-27-2016 04:09 PM
I have a hard time with as many drone sightings at 11 PM as 10 AM. Like HD I believe they are confusing UFO's with drones. Or they are afraid to report a UFO so they call it a drone instead.

In other words the whole thing is a crock! It is political not factual.

porcia83 03-27-2016 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12194714)
I just added a way to sort by report. Over the period of the first report (280 days), there were 764 reports sightings. Over the period of the second report (163 days), there were 582 reports. So, the average has gone from 2.7 per day to 3.6 per day, an increase of 30%.

Here's data for all three CY by month - 2015 higher than 2014 in same month, 2016 higher than 2015 in same month.

Nov '15 vs Nov '14 - sightings up by 338%
Dec '15 vs. Dec '14 - sightings up by 250%

Jan '16 vs. Jan '15 - sightings up 257%


http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2154402
Any data on reports of "sightings" from 2010 to about 2014? I don't doubt that the numbers might have increased a bit given the introduction of MR into the airspace, but would be interested to see how the classified the "sightings" back then, other than UFO (not in the traditional space ship UFO kind of thing).
Any data

franklin_m 03-28-2016 06:18 AM
Bard Center for Analysis of the Drone has already done a preliminary analysis of the latest batch of FAA sighting reports. It can't help make the case that this latest batch includes 24 reports of drones coming within 50 feet of a manned aircraft, and 11 reports of pilots taking evasive actions to avoid a collision.

http://dronecenter.bard.edu/analysis...faa-incidents/

HoundDog 03-28-2016 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12195304)
Bard Center for Analysis of the Drone has already done a preliminary analysis of the latest batch of FAA sighting reports. It can't help make the case that this latest batch includes 24 reports of drones coming within 50 feet of a manned aircraft, and 11 reports of pilots taking evasive actions to avoid a collision.

http://dronecenter.bard.edu/analysis...faa-incidents/
Hey Frankie any idea where one might read the actual reports of the DRONE Close Encounters?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:40 AM.
Page 119 of 177
« First
19
69
109
117
118
119
120
121
129
169
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.