I am in 100% agreement with the entirety of this post , Thank You cj .

I do believe the original #550 with it's LOS pilot in command as "instructor" and the goggle wearing pilot as "student" may have been ok FAA wise since the person holding the primary set of sticks would always have had direct LOS contact with the aircraft . But now , with the watered down version of #550 with it's LOS spotter , I can freely see where this wouldn't pass the FAA's sniff test because the primary pilot no longer has direct LOS contact with the aircraft !

More safety issues...in fact two in one day. Where is the concern?

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Eooamr0vdcc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and we're worried about a one in a billion chance of a drone causing damage?
 

Your statement is not relevant to R/C. These are full scale aircraft. These issues involve complex mechanical full scale aircraft problems. Where in there does it say R/C Drones or other aircraft? It does not.Not that I could see on this presentation.

Right on cue, a few words from the AMA/MultiGP glee club...............that have nothing whatever to do with drones or model aircraft and serve only the purpose to divert the discussion from the thread topic yet again.

Aren't you the prescient one, lol. Your soliution is so elegant in it's simplicity, it's a complete mystery why it hasn't been done.

Speaking of right on cue, we're back to the pot/kettle name calling routine. In case you haven't noticed or perhaps you have...the whole thread has nothing to do with the AMA or SIGs, but that hasn't stopped you from joining in with personal attacks. Do as you say, not as you do?

Come on now, lets elevate the discussion.

CJ: now finally someone else see' my position on this subject, yet our Porcia83 want's to divert the attention to full scale aircraft. The main reason I started this post was to inform people, now aware of the danger of MR's.flown irresponsibly by new r/c'rs without knowing the rules of flight safety. What to do and NOT what to DO. Somehow every thing gets twisted around, and it starts out with a new beginning. Lets try to concentrate on the R/C community, people that fly R/C. We have the rules posted by the FAA, so just Obey them. Then you are covered. Not to say, the idiot that disobeys the rules won't to great damage to this hobby. That's is about as simple as I can make it.
Porcia83, now you can boast a rebuttle.

Thanks for the permission to respond. Not rebutting, just adding to the conversation thanks. I'm not trying to divert anything, I've never once said that a MR wouldn't cause damage to a plane, or that the possibility of an impact wasn't a legitimate one. The problem seems to be with any information to the contrary, or a tangential issue being posted. Then the wolf pack comes out to attack as they want to discussion to be focused on the worst case scenario, the horrors of horror. I guess mechanical failures, or people being able to hack into flight controls of a real plane aren't a concern. Odd that I didn't see any angst from you or others when Franklin started talking about the dsmx issue, or when Matt was talking about the AMA insuring FPV racing in the thread. Oh, and then they want to make it personal, with grade school bully tactics like you see above. Some folks just can't pass up the chance, and then wag their finger ala shame shame. All crying for thread purity while simultaneously polluting it. There's a term for that.

Kudos to you starting the post to perhaps make some not aware of the safety concerns regarding drones and MR with civilian aircraft. I honestly don't think the folks here, whom I assume are mostly if not all AMA members didn't know these things. The FAA has posted rules, as does the AMA. I think the overwhelming majority of folks follow them, regardless of what they fly (fixed wing/heli pilots are just as able to break rules, and have in fact). One only has to look at Franklin's recent posts of a turbine pilot as prima facie evidence of this.

Another point I thought I brought up was the statistical probability of something like what we're talking about here actually happening. Nobody wants to go near that as a point of discussion, but I thought it was appropriate to discuss in the context of MR/Drone and civil aviation. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Maybe I was too hasty in inferring his posts were pointless and diversionary. Could be, as it seems, his point was manned aircraft will crash anyway so why worry about them crashing due to encounters with drones.

It seems you're being hasty again. Both types of crashes are possible, the point is.....the chances of this happening with a MR are infinitesimally small. That's a fact you and some others don't want to come to grips with. That doesn't mean it's not something to be concerned about, or that it will happen anyway so why bother worrying about it, quite the contrary. If we all follow the rules, this shouldn't happen. I merely pointed out that twice in one day we've seen mechanical issues that actually caused crashes, and this is something to also be concerned about.

Can't even comment on that. Just quoted to preserve it before you edit in an attempt to make it seem like rational thought.

The Canadians apparently do have thoughts on it.

"Through an Access to Information request, CBC obtained the proposed regulatory framework for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that were sent to Transport Minister Marc Garneau in April 2016. The department is proposing that anyone operating a drone weighing more than 250 grams, including recreational users, should fall under more rigorous regulations expected to be introduced in 2017."

Looks like they're planning on clamping down. Anything more than 250 grams to be regulated (even recreational). Under 1Kg, min age of pilot 14. Over 1Kg, min age 16. Ending distinction between recreational and commercial, focusing on weight and where it's flown. Also an insurance required for both recreational and commercial.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...ions-1.3810123

Okay, being someone that works in the aviation industry, I'll chime in on Porcia's full scale comments:
American 767 in Chicago-THE ENGINE HAD A CATASTOPHIC FAILURE, it does happen. If you look at what causes that kind of failure, it's 99.995% of the time either a part that failed after not being caught as worn in a maintenance cycle, an unknown faulty part being installed during a maintenance cycle or INGESTING FOD!!!!!!! FOD, in this case, could be nothing more than a pebble or small stick blown onto the runway or dropped by a bird or, for that matter, a bird itself sucked into the engine, causing the front fan to turn into shrapnel, cutting through the wing and fuselage structures. Gee, isn't that the same kind of damage I said would happen by a quad going through an engine months ago? Just for the record, this was the same kind of damage as was found on the Australia Airlines Airbus 380 after it's left inboard Rolls Royce engine disintegrated in flight due to a faulty oil fitting and/or locating recess in the engine.
FEDEX MD10-10F in Fort Lauderdale-THE LEFT MAIN GEAR COLLAPSED DURING POST LANDING SLOW DOWN ROLLOUT. This means structural failure of either the landing gear strut or the pivot hinge structure in the wing. When you consider that the last MD-10 was completed and delivered in 1988, that means the plane has to be at least 29 years old. IF you figure at least 300 flight cycles per year, that's at least 8700 times that the main landing gear have had to absorb the impact(and yes, it is an impact) of 250,000+ pounds hitting the runway and then being torqued rearward as the brakes are applied. This was an "old age" failure, plain and simple.

Is Karma better than Mavic Pro ?

Has anyone gotten their hands on a Karma yet? I'm sure there are plenty of folks 'round these parts that can given you their opinion on both...lol!

LOL...that's the best you can do? You can't comment on it for obvious reasons, you have nothing to challenge it with.

I don't revise, you should know that at this point. I will edit for obvious/glaring spelling errors, but did you forget I have my own personal fact checker/ anti spin guy that would call me out on that anyway?

Really? Were are there numbers? Where are their charts. You know I love numbers...where's the beef? Yes, they are concerned about safety and their NAS...who isn't at this point? Sweden just took some drastic steps there.

So where are the studies about likelihood of collision?

Well, you just stated in another thread, "one in billions". Where did that come from?

Astro

Looks like they found the cause of the fire in Chicago. The first high pressure fan,directly behind the front fan, exploded, taking out just about everything with it. That means, most likely, part failure. If that fan can fail, being more or less protected by the front fan, how can a front fan be expected to hold up to a drone strike?

MA mag...im not telling you what page. Look for it post burrito. :)

Well.... youre comparing the whole contents of the engine disintegrating with a drone , not tge same thing. I'll defer to the mechanics here but I think a drone might do less damage or the damage would be contained better. I don't think anyone has ever said that a drone would cause no damage being ingested into an engine

I don't think they feel compelled to justify their actions to you. It's clear that both Sweden and Canada believe there to be an issue, and they're taking action. The point is, they're taking action to restrict.

Based on the dangerous failure of AMA self regulation seen there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYecj5jYCIA, and in other videos, perhaps the FAA should consider similar actions here.

No doubt you've already begun that process. You've indicated you would be doing something similar in the past given your connections to politicians. I guess in your utopian safety world the AMA has a rep at every field ensuring compliance. Perhaps we can take the fees that Mike thinks kids should be charged to be part of AMA, and use those funds to pay for that program.

Has to keep this topic distracted, you know.

Attempted hijack. Off topic. Start your own thread.