|
Originally Posted by binns aero
(Post 11920161)
Just crawled out from under the bed thought it was safe. Hope they don't turn this guy in! I still think the feds are on my trail after crasin my foamy into a seven-eyed purple striped salimander on state park property.:(
|
O-no , your one of them! The tree hugers. didn't you mean foamy beer?:)
|
There is a easy way to stop all these drone accidents! They make these things too easy to fly. You did not hear hardly any of this until these drones ( quads ) hit the market. Not saying anything bad about them but back in the day and still today, when somebody wanted to learn how to fly, most likely he or she had someone to show them how and also the do' s and don'ts about the hobby. I seen these quads for sell in book stores and I'm pretty sure they don't explain how to get started in the hobby the right way! Just my 2 cents!
|
NO not 2 cents more like a cool mill.!:cool:
|
Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf
(Post 11920139)
I decided to watch the videos myself...seemed consistent with typical park/school yard flying to me. I didn't see anything that made me think he was trying to be reckless...
Just wondering, is it park flying that you are against??? or what...as this wasn't an FPV video... Another poster remarked about gassers creating more damage that foam gliders, he may be correct in some instances, but the big gassers are not flying beyond VLOS, never. Gliders and weather you call them UPV, USPV, what ever you want to call it, and flying airspace above altitudes above 400 ft is Unsafe, not necessary. I don't care what you call it., If you feel it is absouetly necessary in this hobby, please explain in detail how important it is. |
Gliders and weather you call them UPV, USPV, what ever you want to call it, and flying airspace above altitudes above 400 ft is Unsafe, not necessary. |
Putting a 400' ceiling on thermal soaring would pretty much end that part of the hobby. I am guessing FlapHappy has never been into soaring.
A 400' ceiling would only be when flying within 5 miles of an airport anyway. Saying it is dagerous to ever fly above 400' is kind of silly. |
init4fun, you know what?...my son said the same thing and you're absolutely correct! We're just a bunch of grown men, arguing over toys and I guess I will cut out the immature posting and maintain a civil discussion. :)
|
Here are probably, my final two posts on this site..lol..enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkuEfsXVBLw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCvEXJdXWRE |
Before Max goes I would like to point out that I don't feel the type of flying that he is doing is really a problem like the flying initially posted at the beginning of this thread. Max is basically flying over an open field with perhaps "some" deviations from the perimeter, but nothing outrageous or worthy of ridicule.
I certainly do not condone any flying over persons, buildings, or roadways, but I saw nothing in his videos that made me say "WTH?". The people we need to worry about, and be separtaed from, are the ones who blatently enadanger the public and property for the one "cool shot". Max is not that person, in my opinion. He may have made a comment here and there which should have been given more forthought before posting but this is what happens in social media when all you have to do is press "enter". We've all probably done that at least once. As far as off topic discussions are concerned, I feel that when its about model aviation, current events, context within posts, all can dictate deviations from topic due to the complex nature of the issues we now face in our hobby. Drone, not a drone, 400' ceilings, flying where you shouldn't. Model aviation of today. I will also add, please keep the politics for your Facebook page. I ask because I don't press the "report" button. |
|
Originally Posted by Maximilionalpha
(Post 11920232)
Not when it's me, that he's trying to use as a scapegoat, it's not. He keeps stating that I'm the reason this thread was started, but the funny part is, it was already started about someone else, entirely. Now, I'm the villain and the harasser, that he's trying to get banned from the site by constantly running to his buddy KenRC. I may just get banned from this site, but not before I speak my peace and it won't be behind closed doors(so-to-speak), through PM's! I'm going to post this last PM, that I received, from FlapHappy's bosom buddy, life partner, or whatever:
You know, personally, I'm beginning to believe,that you and FlapHappy are special buddies, or closely related. And also, you mentioned that I was constantly harassing the guy, buy using someone else's AMA number, in my location description?! So then, you're telling me, that FlapHappy, is using multiple identities in these forums? And you know "My" type, huh? Which type would that be, now...the type that stands up for themselves and don't get bullied around by 70 year old forum regulars, or, where you meaning something more nefarious? Please explain, because I do believe that there is someone here on this site, that has an even higher status than you, sir! Let me clue you in on a false assumption you are making. FlapHappy may or may not have complained to RCKen about your harassment in this thread but it was I (phlpsfrnk) that reported your use of offensive graphics and off topic posts that were removed. If you think those posts was a mature and proper thing to post than maybe you should be banned. You sir have also made several threats and off topic comments in this thread that also should have been reported but where not. You have been caught in several falsehoods, and you have posted a dozen or more videos without comment or explanations and think nothing of that kind of obnoxious behavior. Continuing in the manner in which you currently are shows to me the total lack of maturity that I would expect from someone that has no respect for what others think or do. What do you think attacking the forum manager is going to get you? Regards Frank |
:cool: Honestly , Bryant , I know you may not believe this , but Ken IS a fair moderator and was giving you the chance to knock off the foolishness of the avatar location game and the other BS and just talk flying . But you had to elevate it by posting his PM to you ? Sure , there are some out here who believe your flying in an unsafe manner . There are some who think your flying is OK . How does that discussion give you ANY right to personally attack those who don't believe as you do ? Anyway , You would do yourself a favor by removing Ken's PM that you posted , unless , that is , your just asking to get banned and end up with no voice in this discussion at all ?
Just so you know , even some of us "70 year old forum regulars" have made our OWN mistakes here and Ken has always had the patience to see through the anger and solve the root problem . Ken is not your or anyone's enemy , he's just tryin to keep things civil between a bunch of adults arguing over toys ! |
Originally Posted by init4fun
(Post 11920309)
:cool: Honestly , Bryant , I know you may not believe this , but Ken IS a fair moderator and was giving you the chance to knock off the foolishness of the avatar location game and the other BS and just talk flying . But you had to elevate it by posting his PM to you ? Sure , there are some out here who believe your flying in an unsafe manner . There are some who think your flying is OK . How does that discussion give you ANY right to personally attack those who don't believe as you do ? Anyway , You would do yourself a favor by removing Ken's PM that you posted , unless , that is , your just asking to get banned and end up with no voice in this discussion at all ?
Just so you know , even some of us "70 year old forum regulars" have made our OWN mistakes here and Ken has always had the patience to see through the anger and solve the root problem . Ken is not your or anyone's enemy , he's just tryin to keep things civil between a bunch of adults arguing over toys ! excellent advice and yes I have also had my share of moderator PM's. Frank |
1 Attachment(s)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...-to-its-rules/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-rul...gulate-drones/ http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...ations-n250876 Let the fun begin. [ATTACH]2048367[/IMG] For those that wish to read the legal document. Frank |
I'm trying a different approach, that so far is at least producing a response from the TSA. The strategy is to bury them (FAA / TSA) in paperwork. Here's uwhat I did this morning:
I went through the FAA website (HTTPS://WAIVERS.FAA.GOV) to formally request a waiver to FDC 4/3621.I deliberately picked a ridicuously small RC model, in my case a Blade Nano CPX. I asked to fly it in my front yard, which is precisely 2.8NM from Beaver Stadium, during the time of the PSU game this weekend. I also specifically told them in comments that: it is an RC helicopter, the flight will be confined to my front yard, and will be confined to an altitude of 50 feet AGL and below. I also pointed out that their form requires me to lie in several places, for example one cannot submit unless you create an N-number, which is N/A for an RC model, similarly you have to submit a list of passengers, which is N/A for an RC model, and you have to submit a letter of verification, which is N/A for an RC model, as well as submit the pilot's license info, which is also N/A for an RC model (this is to protect you from using the justification that "you lied" to reject - you point out that their process won't accept accurate info). Then lastly, I added that "The absence of a response shall be interpreted to be approval of this request." I submitted that this morning around 9AM eastern. By 130pm I had a phone call from TSA. The agent was unaware the FAA notam applied to models. She was also unaware of the issues with the form etc. She kept saying this is an FAA thing, but it's clear that the paperwork ends up at TSA. That tells me there's an opportunity to pit one agency against another in a way that is very effective - TSA doesn't want the deluge of work from poorly written FAA policy. Soooooooo I'd encourage everyone who lives inside 3NM from one of the events listed in the NOTAM to file two requests: One to fly something ridicuously small in your yard at very low altitudes, and a second to fly the same aircraft INSIDE your home. My thought is that if TSA receives a few hundred of these every weekend, they'll lean on FAA to rewrite the NOTAM. Just my 2 cents. |
Looking forward to hear the spin that Sport_Pilot puts on this .........................:p
|
Originally Posted by bradpaul
(Post 11920537)
Looking forward to hear the spin that Sport_Pilot puts on this .........................:p
Frank |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 11920533)
I'm trying a different approach, that so far is at least producing a response from the TSA. The strategy is to bury them (FAA / TSA) in paperwork. Here's uwhat I did this morning:
I went through the FAA website (HTTPS://WAIVERS.FAA.GOV) to formally request a waiver to FDC 4/3621.I deliberately picked a ridicuously small RC model, in my case a Blade Nano CPX. I asked to fly it in my front yard, which is precisely 2.8NM from Beaver Stadium, during the time of the PSU game this weekend. I also specifically told them in comments that: it is an RC helicopter, the flight will be confined to my front yard, and will be confined to an altitude of 50 feet AGL and below. I also pointed out that their form requires me to lie in several places, for example one cannot submit unless you create an N-number, which is N/A for an RC model, similarly you have to submit a list of passengers, which is N/A for an RC model, and you have to submit a letter of verification, which is N/A for an RC model, as well as submit the pilot's license info, which is also N/A for an RC model (this is to protect you from using the justification that "you lied" to reject - you point out that their process won't accept accurate info). Then lastly, I added that "The absence of a response shall be interpreted to be approval of this request." I submitted that this morning around 9AM eastern. By 130pm I had a phone call from TSA. The agent was unaware the FAA notam applied to models. She was also unaware of the issues with the form etc. She kept saying this is an FAA thing, but it's clear that the paperwork ends up at TSA. That tells me there's an opportunity to pit one agency against another in a way that is very effective - TSA doesn't want the deluge of work from poorly written FAA policy. Soooooooo I'd encourage everyone who lives inside 3NM from one of the events listed in the NOTAM to file two requests: One to fly something ridicuously small in your yard at very low altitudes, and a second to fly the same aircraft INSIDE your home. My thought is that if TSA receives a few hundred of these every weekend, they'll lean on FAA to rewrite the NOTAM. Just my 2 cents. While I agree what you have done may be an interesting exercise and the response you've gotten thus far is telling do we really want to encourage others to do the same. Do we really want these organizations to look at us (hobbyist) and wonder what kind of games are we up to now? The final impact that this may have on our hobby just may be to great. Regards Frank |
write to everyplace that makes drones to stop its hurting the rc guys that fly planes do the same to hobby shops
|
Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
(Post 11920551)
Commander,
While I agree what you have done may be an interesting exercise and the response you've gotten thus far is telling do we really want to encourage others to do the same. Do we really want these organizations to look at us (hobbyist) and wonder what kind of games are we up to now? The final impact that this may have on our hobby just may be to great. Regards Frank |
Originally Posted by phlpsfrnk
(Post 11920482)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...-to-its-rules/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ntsb-rul...gulate-drones/ http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-new...ations-n250876 Let the fun begin. [ATTACH]2048367[/IMG] For those that wish to read the legal document. Frank |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 11920533)
I'm trying a different approach, that so far is at least producing a response from the TSA. The strategy is to bury them (FAA / TSA) in paperwork. Here's uwhat I did this morning:
I went through the FAA website (HTTPS://WAIVERS.FAA.GOV) to formally request a waiver to FDC 4/3621.I deliberately picked a ridicuously small RC model, in my case a Blade Nano CPX. I asked to fly it in my front yard, which is precisely 2.8NM from Beaver Stadium, during the time of the PSU game this weekend. I also specifically told them in comments that: it is an RC helicopter, the flight will be confined to my front yard, and will be confined to an altitude of 50 feet AGL and below. I also pointed out that their form requires me to lie in several places, for example one cannot submit unless you create an N-number, which is N/A for an RC model, similarly you have to submit a list of passengers, which is N/A for an RC model, and you have to submit a letter of verification, which is N/A for an RC model, as well as submit the pilot's license info, which is also N/A for an RC model (this is to protect you from using the justification that "you lied" to reject - you point out that their process won't accept accurate info). Then lastly, I added that "The absence of a response shall be interpreted to be approval of this request." I submitted that this morning around 9AM eastern. By 130pm I had a phone call from TSA. The agent was unaware the FAA notam applied to models. She was also unaware of the issues with the form etc. She kept saying this is an FAA thing, but it's clear that the paperwork ends up at TSA. That tells me there's an opportunity to pit one agency against another in a way that is very effective - TSA doesn't want the deluge of work from poorly written FAA policy. Soooooooo I'd encourage everyone who lives inside 3NM from one of the events listed in the NOTAM to file two requests: One to fly something ridicuously small in your yard at very low altitudes, and a second to fly the same aircraft INSIDE your home. My thought is that if TSA receives a few hundred of these every weekend, they'll lean on FAA to rewrite the NOTAM. Just my 2 cents. |
Originally Posted by rgburrill
(Post 11920586)
As I said above, I knew it wouldn't. There will always be some --------- who can't behave with civility and doesn't care who he hurts in the long run as long as he gets to prove what an-----. I'd better stop before I get banned.
|
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa...ls-court-rules
How about this: And that's the devastating part of this decision for drone enthusiasts: The FAA's existing aircraft regulations cannot be reconciled with its guidelines for model aircraft flights. The statute that the FAA used to fine Pirker suggests that any flight by an "aircraft" below 500 feet can be considered reckless. The FAA's model aircraft guidelines, meanwhile, suggest that any flight over 400 feet by a drone is unsafe and potentially illegal. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:13 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.