Ahh, nice catch.

On your part, and his part. ;-)

Did anyone catch that the fixed wing aircraft had a camera on board that was recording as well? Just like a DJI Phantom does?

Right? Just some good old fashioned locker room talk. Everyone with cell phone captures videos of girls in bikinis without permission and shares it online, and if they haven't, they will in the future. :eek:

#noteverybody[/QUOTE]
You'll notice I didn't condone that behavior, simply said that behavior was separate from the RC activities and that it does and will continue to happen, right, wrong or otherwise. Just can't stop the spin can you?

Astro

What's your point?

I covered a lot in those posts. Being this is a discussion forum, I would have hoped for some engaging conversation or even some fact-based counterpoints. All you got is LOL?

Astro

They already have a SIG, why not their own CBO? I wonder how many waiver holders are currently AMA members? Are they really representative of "traditional modelers" flying $20,000 to $50,000 aircraft. I've even heard that they are pretty easy to fly with all the stabilization and gyros on them. I don't have the hard numbers, but I'm going to guess there are less waiver holders than folks flying MR. Wonder what would happen if someone ran on a platform of excluding turbines from the "umbrella" of the AMA? Who knows. with the increase in membership of MR folks, they might end up assuming EC roles, and then eventually the presidency...and then.....

Ah...the future!

Could have sworn that Trappy and his fixed wing FPV equipped flights over NYC, and more importantly that University that brought the FAA and public scrutiny down upon us...not a MR?

Yep, that was THE one!! Lol
Oh, WAIT....you're confusing traditional fixed-wing planes with DRONES (trappy was flying BLOS FPV) again. Spin

Astro

:cool: Hi Astro ,

Yea the media didn't bother with the Trappy story , no matter what he was flying , because there was no "drone fear" to be churned by his story . No hovering outside someone's window ? = no story to whip up public fear for those all important ratings with . Some , like the one your responding to , simply don't get it that it's public perception we're talking about here , and whether he likes it or not the public don't like or trust multirotors (AKA drones) . I know he likes to try to play this into the "us VS them" angle but what he fails to grasp here is that us fixed wing pilots had exactly nothing to do with planting that fear into the public's minds , the drone flyers and the media having taken that completely upon themselves by both the drone pilots hovering outside of folk's windows and the media's fear mongering of such incidents for maximum ratings .

Funny that the public is far more scared of Sharks than Jellyfish , even though an encounter with the wrong one of each can mean certain death . The public hasn't been taught to fear fixed wing RC , they have been taught to fear drones . If anyone has a problem with that maybe they should look to the source of that public fear , and no matter how hard some may try to put the blame on fixed wing pilots , sorry , but the droners did it to themselves with no help from us whatsoever . like I said , show me one story of a PT-17 hovering outside someone's window taking pictures and I'll say they got a point that we helped sully their reputation , but we all know when the hovering outside of windows thing began in earnest , now don't we :rolleyes:

BLOS FPV....with a fixed wing aircraft. No spin, no drama, just facts that aren't convenient for some narratives.

Can you say...
[h=1]Caipirinha?[/h]
In addition to being a tasty cocktail...it's an airplane sold by TBS. Not a drone, not a quad, but an airplane.

More talk of "blame", and segregating "us" from "them". No doubt the warm type of greeting MR folks are getting at some clubs.

I think the virulently anti MR folks are the only ones looking to blame, and wagging their fingers at something that's different. The indisputable fact is that Trappy and his aircraft were the ones who got the ball rolling. Years and years before than, fixed wing aircraft were already flying well beyond LOS, nobody can dispute that. The popularity and ubiquitous presence of the MR coincided with the FAAs interest in safety and the NAS. It's not a question of blame either, just facts and reality. The FAA would have been involved with our hobby regardless of what a MR or fixed wing pilot did, or could do. Technology is the culprit, if we are forced to asses "blame", or at least a partial explanation.

Do you really think the FAA would have left us alone except for a few drone pilots?

Yes. You FINALLY get it, although you continue to use different terminology for models, drones, MR where it fits your agenda for that day. Once again, I will clarify what I call a drone vs. what I call a model. It's very simple, really:

DRONE=any craft (fixed-wing, rotary wing, MR) that has BLOS and/or autonomous flight capabilities.
"TRADITIONAL" model=RC or free-flight aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing, turbine powered, MR, etc) that does NOT have the inherent capability to sustain BLOS and/or autonomous flight capabilitrs.

Yes, Before you start splitting hairs and bring up control line and RC "flyaways", I am fully aware that I may not have covered every scenario, but I am not submitting to Websters Dictionary.

With that being said, I believe it was the drones and their BLOS, autonomous flight capabilities that caused the FAA to take notice and start to regulate our activities.

Astro

As to the public fear of drones , I'm certain their fear of Drones has nothing to do with fixed wing because every time anyone not model aviation related sees one of my models of actual airplanes , their reaction is overwhelmingly positive . "Does it run on gas ?" "How high/fast can it fly ?" "Do they cost a lot ?" are some of the typical friendly questions I get . Invariably if the conversation lasts long enough some of folks will come out in a quiet voice with "You got any Drones ?" and when I say no their reaction is usually relief and the next thing they say is something about being afraid of one spying on them through their windows ! Yes sir when the flying camera first became mass market they were being fitted to fixed wing because MRs didn't exist , but even at that the fixed wing FPVers were not hovering outside folk's windows to be salacious fodder for the 5:00 news . Now while I can believe the flying camera caught the FAA's interest back when they were still being fitted to fixed wing , the public fear of the flying camera didn't come along till cameras were being caught hovering outside folk's windows once the MR came along and allowed that type of accurate hovering where such window peeping became possible .

In a way , the MRs did fixed wing a world of good by being perfected , in my opinion . It gave the flying camera people a platform to fly their cameras from that's different enough from my P-51 Mustang that even the average guy on the street with no aviation knowledge whatsoever has no trouble discerning between the two . Show em my DR 1, they start talking about "Snoopy & the Red Baron" . Show em an MR and they express the universal , media driven fear that it's gonna spy on them . And ya know what , there is no way that fear can be blamed on my Piper Cub !

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by init4fun http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
.........Some , like the one your responding to , simply don't get it that it's public perception we're talking about here , and whether he likes it or not the public don't like or trust multirotors (AKA drones) .........

It's not about what I like, or don't.

I'm not certain anyone here has the ability to speak on behalf of the public, or for that matter everyone here. Like anything else that's new, and different, there will be divergent reactions. Certainly some segments of the public don't like MR, and there are no doubt others that enjoy then, fascinated by them, and no doubt, embrace them.

Ironically the same folks here that on one hand talk about how much the public doesn't like or trust MRs, are the same ones who complain about the proliferation and sales of these units, now in the millions. Are these millions being sold to the non-public? Yet another incongruous position, imo.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you or I call our flying machines, big brother calls them one thing now. I'm not splitting hairs when I say that Trappy was flying a fixed wing aircraft, and that kicked off the FAA's heightened scrutiny of this hobby. Was there another case before that you are aware of? The technology involved in the flight wasn't the issue, it was the way he was flying. Did the charges from the FAA say anything about the technology involved in the flights, or did they focus on the flights themselves? The answer of course debunks the theory it was MR. I get that folks want to blame them for every perceived ill that has allegedly befallen the hobby, but it's just not the case, imo. Pilots were the cause, then technology.

It's funny how different people react so differently to the same things. I was at an airshow that had 13,000 come through, and was in our clubs tent area that included multiple types of aircraft. As was the case the last time we were there, some folks looked at the planes, some looked at at the helis, but more than half went right to the DJI and smaller units. Far from being afraid, they are generally intrigued by these MRs. Not a single one has ever asked or mentioned using it to peep in windows, or being afraid of that. They are generally interested in knowing how they fly, how long they can fly, and the number one question, how much do they cost.

Does your club allow MRs? Does your club have events where they are allowed to fly?

As far as keeping the discussions here on track it most certainly does.
Splitting hairs? Out of context? Not telling the WHOLE story? Trappy was flying BLOS FPV. THAT is why he got the attention. NOT because he was flying fixed-wing. PERIOD.
The technology ALLOWED him to fly in the way which caused the scrutiny. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Just more of your spin.
Did the judge who charged the drunk driver with DUI cite the liquor? NO, of course not! BUT, remove the alcohol, no DUI. Pretty easy concept for most to understand. 80 years of model aviation, no scrutiny, enter drone technology, scrutiny. Of course the FAA isn't going to go after the drones themselves.
WHAT MYTH? It's never been disputed that he was flying a DRONE!. (not to my knowledge anyway)

Keep on SPINNIN'!!

Astro

That's basically the problem right there, you don't know. Not to your knowledge....exactly. You're so focused on responding to everyone of my posts and continuing on the anti spin campaign drama, you're not taking the time to actually educate yourself. In this case, you're just wrong. I don't expect you to admit it, and I don't expect anything less than a rant/response, but really, spend some more time reading up on it. Trappy wasn't flying a "drone" as you call it. He was flying a fixed wing electric powered aircraft. A flying wing. That's what he was known for, and still is, but MR are certainly part of his company now. I even gave you the name of the model, but I apologize for noting the wrong model. It was actually a Ritewing Zepher, my bad! In that particular video (the one he was busted for), and in most others, you can actually see the shadow of the aircraft when he flies by (1:14 minute mark). It was not autonomous, and not equipped with GPS, it was flown by hand the whole time. Do you even know what University he was flying at? Did you ever read the FAA complaint? I mean, it's all in there. Where did you come up with this "it's never been disputed he was flying a drone" thing? I'm pretty sure the FAA would dispute it.....lol.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what he was flying, the fact is he was doing so recklessly, I only point out the fact he was flying an aircraft to counter yet more erroneous information spread, all in the attempts to vilify the horrible "drones". That some folks who detest the drones won't see it that way is not surprising. These are the same folks who complain about how many are out there, and how easy they are to fly, yet in the next breath say they aren't popular. Go figure.

The reality is though that there are plenty of reckless and irresponsible pilots flying MRs, as well as fixed wing aircraft. Long before MR came along guys were posting videos of their fixed wing airplanes doing silly things, like flying at 10,000 feet through clouds, or buzzing the Brooklyn Bridge, or Statute of Liberty. Those weren't drones, they were airplanes.

I get the desire to pin it all on drones, I really do. Folks like a simple reason, all nice and easy, wrapped up in a bow! Drones are the perfect bad guy. Dig a little deeper though, and you'll see the issue is a bit more nuanced than that.

Let me know if you come up with another case like Trappy's that got the ball rolling on FAA involvement. I think I'm pretty much up to speed on the issue, as you said before "you'll just have to trust me, I have a lot of experience". I'm not aware of a single case that predates 2011 or 2012 that the FAA was involved with, specifically with Drones, ie MR.

LOL.

I guess you will never get the fact that a fixed wing can be a drone. You can yammer on all you want about me not knowing the facts, but the reality is that you continue to play on words, dig your heels in the sand and refuse to acknowledge that it is the technology that allows drones to fly FPV, BLOS and autonomously that has allowed irresponsible use of drones to be called out by the public, the media and the FAA and in turn, our hobby to be regulated.

Yes, Trappy was flying a fixed-wing. I get Trappy was not flying his drone autonomously (I never claimed he was). He WAS flying FPV BLOS which is what separates his activity from traditional modeling and, in turn is why he was brought under scrutiny. Had he been flying within FAA/AMA guidelines, there would not have been an issue. Had his drone not been equipped with the technology that allowed him to fly irresponsibly, he simply would not have been able to do so. Cart before the horse? Chicken or the egg?

Now, before you go on and say that I "fear" change and technology, I will re-iterate my stance yet again for you. I am NOT against drones or technology. I think it is pretty cool and amazing. Since we can't remove either the human element, or the technology element, we must find a way to regulate how this technology and humans interface. It is my belief that the advent of this technology, its use, the operators who enjoy using it and its potential affect on the NAS, are so far removed from our traditional hobby it needs to be regulated separately and differently than our traditional operations and that the AMA is simply not structured or capable of managing, controlling and regulating such activities, not to mention the fact that most droners do not want to join the AMA (they are interested in droning, not flying, building, etc).

Droners want to drone? I have no issue with that whatsoever, I just don't believe that their actions should bring regulations on those of us that choose to operate in the same manner we have for 80 years, without any issues of disruption the NAS. They should advocate for themselves and use their own resources to do so, not ask to use the resources that those of us have accumulated over 80 years.

The facts support my opinions, and the vast majority agree with the essence of my stance. You can choose to believe what you want, but no matter how passionately you believe what you do, it does not change reality. Agree or disagree, I don't care. I will not continue to engage in a back and forth with you as long as you continue to spin the situation. I WILL, however, continue to point out your spin and flawed logic

Regards,

Astro

LOL...right, now we'll use the term "drone" in that context, never saw that one coming. :rolleyes: I guess we're all droners now. I'll get going on my new J3Cub drone build post haste.

The good news is that we have established that Trappy, at the time of his infraction, was not flying a drone. Actually the FAA called it a UAS at the time (2011 event, 2012 citation). It was a fixed wing electric powered airplane. No gyro assist, no autonomous flight, all done by hand. Facts and details are important.

http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/the-...gainst-trappy/

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OZnJeuAja-4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yes they are, and you keep ignoring the BLOS FPV fact (guess it doesn't fit your agenda).

Regards,

Astro

MQ34 Firebee. Jet powered, fixed wing, target DRONE. No little rotors here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target...hatzerim-1.jpg

Nope, I've already mentioned that piece of it. It's irrelevant in the context of this discussion, the original point of the thread (MR focused), and wasn't in any way an issue for the FAA. You've tried to make that a distinguishing feature or issue after being challenged about him flying a drone, when in fact he was flying an airplane.

Feel free to read the FAA document I've linked to, not a single word in there about BLOS, LOS, or FPV. For more accuracy....peruse FAA reg 91.13(a)

The agenda here is to be factual, and precise, and accurate.

Nor here...hard to believe they were still flying those!

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/0...antom-mission/