Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12132283)

BTW, the team said there was no data for mid air and sUAV. That kinda tells you something doesn't it? But why can they not use bird strike data. I know it would not be perfect, but better than striking people. They could even calculate the effect of hardness on different materials so the mathematician's In the group could have had even more fun.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12132280)

To my knowledge there have been at least two. One decades ago bounced off a blimp with little or no damage. In another a biplane made an illegal high speed pass and the R/C plane was in the wrong place so the small biplane hit a giant scale aerobatic plane hovering over the runway. Only minor damage to the panes leading edge, the pilot flew it home so he was not concerned about it. Not sure what happened to the R/C pilot but the biplane pilots licensed was suspended for a time.

Originally Posted by mike1974 (Post 12132304)

So basically a bounce off and the full scale pilots fault. So zero. lol.

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12132308)

No the RC pilot was at fault for hovering the RC craft over the runway. The NTSB said so in their accident report, but the FAA also found fault with the pilot for his high speed pass.

Originally Posted by mike1974 (Post 12132277)

But don't we already have laws in place that would punish someone "dropping" their "drone" on someone or hitting a full scale aircraft? After reading most of what I can find on the subject of registration, I fail to see how this does ANYTHING to help the current PERCEIVED problem/threat.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I plan to fly an aircraft by an airport, in the flight path of a plane, or in a city, over a heavily populated area, in a state park or any number of dumb places to fly, I sure as hell am not going to register or put any info on my aircraft.

How many planes to date have ACTUALLY been damaged/hit/downed by ANY type of rc aircraft? To my knowledge the answer is zero. How many bystanders have been injured by someone flying an rc aircraft in an unsafe manner or in a place they should not have been flying? When I say injured I don't mean a bump/bruise/scrape; I mean INJURED. I would imagine that number is extremely low.

So again I ask, what exactly is the point of this task force or registration and how is it not a total waste of time and money?

On that note, lol, I hope everyone here has a wonderful, safe and happy Thanksgiving!!!!

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot (Post 12132280)

To my knowledge there have been at least two. One decades ago bounced off a blimp with little or no damage. In another a biplane made an illegal high speed pass and the R/C plane was in the wrong place so the small biplane hit a giant scale aerobatic plane hovering over the runway. Only minor damage to the panes leading edge, the pilot flew it home so he was not concerned about it. Not sure what happened to the R/C pilot but the biplane pilots licensed was suspended for a time.

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R (Post 12132357)

The incident with a blimp was the Goodyear blimp in Carson, CA. The RC model hit it intentionally and the guy went to jail. The blimp suffered damage and made an emergency landing:

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...goodyear-blimp

The biplane & RC plane incident caused more than trivial damage to the biplane and completely destroyed the RC plane. Bottom line on that one was that neither one was completely in the right on what they were doing.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._204696-1.html

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R (Post 12132357)

The incident with a blimp was the Goodyear blimp in Carson, CA. The RC model hit it intentionally and the guy went to jail. The blimp suffered damage and made an emergency landing:

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...goodyear-blimp

The biplane & RC plane incident caused more than trivial damage to the biplane and completely destroyed the RC plane. Bottom line on that one was that neither one was completely in the right on what they were doing.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._204696-1.html

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12132133)

No sooner did I finish the last post, this pops up to read:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2015...t-park-witness

Thankfully no injuries. The last line summed it up pretty well in describing the pilots:



“I don’t think they’re malicious people, but they kind of don’t get it either,” he said.

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R (Post 12132440)

"Home" in this case was the runway where the incident happened. Watch the videos and you can see what a cluster #$&! it was. Terrible communications, confusion, and a lack of good procedures.

Originally Posted by rcmiket (Post 12132500)

And they are not the kind of people I want associated with the hobby but it's too late for that.

Mike.

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12132506)

The jury is out on the presumption that every time something like this happens, the general public automatically associates them with us, the MA, or the hobby. Some will, some won't. No more than someone caught firing a gun improperly is automatically associated with the NRA.

Originally Posted by rcmiket (Post 12132516)

Really? At this point what does the "jury is still out" matter? The damage is done and continues to be done to our image as a hobby. As far as "automatically associated" there's not a thing we can do about it. We've ( the AMA ) spent a sizable amount that accomplished nothing as far as that goes.

Mike

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12132524)

Yes, really. Your comments above and below are nothing more than your opinion, spoken as if you have some type of demonstrable evidence to back it up. It's your perception, and it might be shared by some others, but certainly hasn't been shown to be fact in any way. I guess you can cite a few threads here, but it's hardly indicative of validation. Saying the AMA has accomplished nothing so far only further to undercut the veracity of the rest of the comments. It dovetails nicely with the ongoing narrative of AMA bad, AMA does nothing, AMA incompetent etc etc etc.

And yes, my initial comment above is my opinion as well,but it's one thing to make a comment as sweeping and as generalized as yours, and it's another to question it. I just figured Id respond now since I know that's in the barrel as far as a response.

Meanwhile, still no huge harmful or expensive or game changing edicts that will change how our hobby operates going forward. I know I know not yet.

Originally Posted by rcmiket (Post 12132534)

Anyway you spin it bad press is bad press. While I appreciate your take on it the problem is that's what got us where we are now,

Mike

Originally Posted by kmeyers (Post 12132538)

Don't forget the loss of flying sites!

Originally Posted by 2walla (Post 12132595)

There are two more, the commuter jet that lost a winglet a few weeks ago after hitting the quadcopterr. and back in about 1980 my dad and I hit a falcon 56 while we were flying in our citabria. It caved the leading edge in right to the spar just outboard of the strut attachments. We were at about 1100agl and the guys flying the model on a buddy box didnt think they were anywhere near that high.

Originally Posted by mike1974 (Post 12132302)

I thought the entire point of this "task force" was because of the "dangers" to full scale aircraft. Now, all of a sudden, it's so "drones" don't fall on peoples heads??!! What?!?! And now Franklin is providing data about objects falling in construction sites??!! I'm so confused at this point! I thought this was ALL about full scale safety!??!?!?

Originally Posted by porcia83 (Post 12132547)

No, it's not. A couple people flying some DJIs in a stupid manner did not get the ball rolling, any more than the AMAs involvement did. The proliferation of quads/MR and the rapid rise in commercial interest is what got the ball rolling. A few dopes crashing only highlighted some of the issues. There was no way that every Tom Dick and Harry photographer, as well as Amazon and Walmart was going to just start launching commercial applications without some oversight. And while some have naturally taken the leap that more doom and gloom and bad things are going to happen to the hobby, they are right insofar as there being more rules and regs on the way, but they will be for the commercial applications.

Originally Posted by combatpigg (Post 12132575)

Sad that you still haven't realized that this was the AMA's most manageable and numero uno task.
A Stitch In Time Saves Nine.
Men like Eisenhower or JFK would have handled this rinky-dink errand by coffee break and then moved on quickly to real challenges.

Originally Posted by rcmiket (Post 12132692)

I'm taking the day off..
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
That goes for the rest of you guys


Mike

Originally Posted by 2walla (Post 12132627)

We never saw it coming. It made a pretty good thump and flattened about 4feet of the leading edge of the wing. It hit almost perfectly parallel with the wing head on. I have an old pic somewhere of the damage. 1100 feet isnt that high for most flights. You would be suprised if you put a gps/altitude logger on you plane.

Originally Posted by 2walla (Post 12132627)

We never saw it coming. It made a pretty good thump and flattened about 4feet of the leading edge of the wing. It hit almost perfectly parallel with the wing head on. I have an old pic somewhere of the damage. 1100 feet isnt that high for most flights. You would be suprised if you put a gps/altitude logger on you plane.

Originally Posted by franklin_m (Post 12133297)

Paragraph 4.1 "The Task Force accepted as a baseline that the registration requirement will only apply to sUAS (i.e., aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) [emphasis added] that are operated outdoors in the NAS." But nowhere else is there any discussion of aircraft 55lbs or greater.

Perhaps that's the next shoe to drop?

Originally Posted by cj_rumley (Post 12133382)

CIAO says the maximum mass of a model aircraft is 20 kg. FAA represents the USA as a member nation of CIAO. FAA has held imposition of this restriction in abeyance, exercising disgressionary restraint. Perhaps that restraint is being tested - but then you said that......