Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12228994)
What are you doing about all of the boat collisions? That is a real problem. But you focus on something that hasn't been a problem at all.
|
Originally Posted by porcia83
(Post 12229011)
It's all done out of "concern for what if" though.....it's a myopic point of view that governs seemingly everything. More rules, more guidelines, more "safety" related protocols just in case, because maybe it might happen, it could happen, sometime in the future. At the end of the day, I think it's just about control....and wanting more of it.
|
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
(Post 12229025)
The last sentence nailed it! IMHO it's all about a spiteful axe to grind with the AMA and the entire modeling community as a whole under the auspices of "safety".
- 400 foot AGL nationally - No flight inside lateral limits of class B or C w/o written standard operating procedure agreement w/ cognizant ATC facility - No flight inside lateral limits of class D w/o approval of cognizant ATC facility using method preferred by the airport / tower - Mandatory notification of all other airports when flying within 5 miles, with airport reserved the right to deny - No flight inside lateral limits of Military Training Routes during published hours of operation - TFRs that apply to "all aircraft" also apply to "model aircraft" whether or not "model aircraft" are specifically mentioned - Altitude limits may be exceeded if approved by the FAA and operating under a published NOTAM to ensure full scale aircraft are notified - Regardless of the circumstances, the sUAS operator is responsible for ensuring the sUAS avoids manned aircraft, people on the ground, or personal property. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229098)
I genuinely believe there is a risk to manned aircraft due to sUAS, and it's past time to segregate them in the airspace. I'm an advocate for operational rules:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_...-1990-2014.pdf |
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
(Post 12229116)
...you haven't presented any credible verifiable evidence to support the risk ...
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229145)
|
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
(Post 12229152)
Number of sUAS incidents relative to bird strikes?
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229145)
Again you need to find something more meaningful. Boat collisions for example. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229283)
Title of the thread is drones vs. aircraft, not wildlife vs. aircraft. You asked for credible evidence of risk drones pose to manned aircraft, I presented a link to Virginia Tech study of drone damage to modern turbofans. There is risk, it is real, it's being researched by an accredited university.
|
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12229289)
A computer simulation Is not credible evidence. A programmer can make it say whatever they want it to say. Besides the fact that anything can destroy an engine doesn't mean it ever will. Let alone destroy two engines, kinda hard for one drone to take out two engines.
Again you need to find something more meaningful. Boat collisions for example. |
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
(Post 12229312)
The complete title is "Drone VS Aircraft - Mid Air Collisions". That being said, how many mid air collisions have occurred to date?
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229338)
One so far (mid-air at the airshow), and many near misses (otherwise known in the safety trade as "leading indicators")
One of the fundamental key philosophies of the leadership profession is that there's a difference between doing things right, and doing the right things. Another key philosophies is to do the right things, for the right reasons, in the right way. |
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
(Post 12229343)
In the leadership profession we analyze all necessary data and focus efforts in those areas that would have the most beneficial impact (no pun intended).
One of the fundamental key philosophies of the leadership profession is that there's a difference between doing things right, and doing the right things. Another key philosophies is to do the right things, for the right reasons, in the right way. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229348)
There has not been a single confirmed inflight fire of a hoverboard, yet they're banned from checked baggage because of reported fires of lithium batteries (but not a hoverboard itself). Using your logic, you'd would not take action until an actual hoverboard catches on fire.
Incorrect. Please re-read my original post where I stated "all necessary data". Similarly, there's not been a single inflight fire of an electronic cigarette, yet they too are banned. Again, using your logic, we would not take action until such time that an actual electronic cigarette catches fire. Incorrect, same as above. |
Originally Posted by porcia83
(Post 12229010)
So does repeating the same illogical request to put something in writing to a Governor, over and over and over when someone doesn't agree with your position. As if that somehow proves you are right, or that the letter would have any effect on anything. Useless, meaningless, and ineffective action.
On the other hand, I'm providing letters of support for the FAA's actions thus far, and including specific policy recommendations for consideration. In this case, a 400 foot limit for all sUAS, citing FAA's own statements of risk to manned aircraft above 500 feet. It's also easy to include actual examples of dangerous behaviors and crashes - fireballs, crashes into pits, crashes into spectators, crashes of large airplanes that barely miss large crowds, overflights of cars and buildings (violation of AMA code), etc. Links to news stories of injuries and deaths. All are cited as examples of why self regulation may not be working as well as they're being told. |
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12228951)
Which could have been avoided had they made planes you could actually see out of. A flock of geese would have been easy to see. Each engine had dozens of birds.
They could see well enough to land in a river through a major city. |
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
(Post 12229351)
..
But, as you've said, you won't. Perhaps you can't make a compelling argument? The world wonders. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229368)
You asked for an example of evidence supporting a risk to manned aircraft from drones, I provided link to Virginia Tech Engineering study. You then asked for a single example of a mid-air, and I provided one. Again, if your case is so compelling that there is no risk, put your argument into a letter to the Governor and defend the hobby.
But, as you've said, you won't. Perhaps you can't make a compelling argument? The world wonders. So then, why can't you answer this question? What is the number of non-commercial sUAS strikes relative to wildlife strikes by year for years 2010-present? |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229337)
So now you're accusing Virginia Tech Engineering Department of falsifying results? Something that would jeopardize their accreditation and their professional reputations? Wow.
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229365)
They could see well enough to land in a river through a major city.
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229338)
One so far (mid-air at the airshow), and many near misses (otherwise known in the safety trade as "leading indicators")
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229368)
You asked for an example of evidence supporting a risk to manned aircraft from drones, I provided link to Virginia Tech Engineering study. You then asked for a single example of a mid-air, and I provided one. Again, if your case is so compelling that there is no risk, put your argument into a letter to the Governor and defend the hobby.
But, as you've said, you won't. Perhaps you can't make a compelling argument? The world wonders. |
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229348)
There has not been a single confirmed inflight fire of a hoverboard, yet they're banned from checked baggage because of reported fires of lithium batteries (but not a hoverboard itself). Using your logic, you'd would not take action until an actual hoverboard catches on fire. Similarly, there's not been a single inflight fire of an electronic cigarette, yet they too are banned. Again, using your logic, we would not take action until such time that an actual electronic cigarette catches fire.
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12229364)
Convenient. If your position was as compelling as you say, then I'd think you'd jump to defend the hobby to the Governor and point out his error in judgement.
On the other hand, I'm providing letters of support for the FAA's actions thus far, and including specific policy recommendations for consideration. In this case, a 400 foot limit for all sUAS, citing FAA's own statements of risk to manned aircraft above 500 feet. It's also easy to include actual examples of dangerous behaviors and crashes - fireballs, crashes into pits, crashes into spectators, crashes of large airplanes that barely miss large crowds, overflights of cars and buildings (violation of AMA code), etc. Links to news stories of injuries and deaths. All are cited as examples of why self regulation may not be working as well as they're being told. |
http://content.govdelivery.com/attac...o_original.png
KEEP YOUR DRONE AWAY FROM WILDFIRES There are lots of great places to fly your drones, but over or near a wildfire isn’t one of them. In fact, drone operators who interfere with wildfire suppression efforts are subject to civil penalties of up to $27,500 and possible criminal prosecution. Here’s why it’s important: Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as airtankers and helicopters, fly at very low altitudes, just a couple hundred feet above the ground and in the same airspace as hobby and recreational drones. This creates the potential for a mid-air collision that could seriously injure or kill wildland firefighters in the air or on the ground. As a result of unlawful drone operations near fires this year, fire managers have temporarily grounded all aerial firefighting aircraft on several occasions for safety reasons. Shutting down firefighting operations could cause wildfires to become larger and can threaten lives, property, and valuable natural and cultural resources. The bottom line is “If You Fly, We Can’t." Please fly responsibly – keep your drone away from wildfires. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:12 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.