Go Back  RCU Forums > Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more > The Clubhouse
AMA says, "Wait to register" >

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Notices
The Clubhouse If it doesn't fit in any other category and is about general RC stuff then post it here at the Clubhouse.

AMA says, "Wait to register"

Old 01-28-2016, 02:35 PM
  #676  
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,868
Received 77 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
And whether there are more reports of one or the other is immaterial to anyone but us. I contend that to the public, media, and lawmakers, the number of both should be ZERO. There's not even an estimate of the number of laser pointers out there, but I suspect it far exceeds the number of "drones." So percentage wise, it's likely a much smaller number, yet FAA is pursuing that too.
And GPS jammers, too. Anything that is a safety hazard to the flying public.
Old 01-28-2016, 02:44 PM
  #677  
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,868
Received 77 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by skybill
Hi Guys, and any Ladies present!!!,
Yup, Now we got the FAA playing their B^!! &#!+ games with us stirring up a hornets nest!! "Drones" basically described as an airplane without somebody "in" it!! As we know the "Third Most Often Told LIE In The World" "IS," "I'm from the FAA and I am here to help you!!!" We all know the other two!!! Well,............The fed will be inundated!! There is currently an "18 Month Waiting Period" just for setting up an appointment to get a "Concealed Carry permit" in I believe Riverside County, CA since that shooting incident of recent!.. Five bucks on a credit card on the internet.......yeah right?? How many people got those things for Christmas??? Within a week at least 80% will be "Criminals" because of this new ".Gov edict!!" On a more "lethal" scale, after the "Sandy Hook" Fiasco, a couple of those "Northern States" went bonkers declaring a certain class of fire arm to be "Persona non grata!!" (just one way to put it!!) Anyone not "Registering" them after a specific date ...well you know the drift....... Only now instead of "Fire Arms" it's "Kids Toys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" You think I'm kidding??....How many times have you been looked at with disdain by the local citizenery as "That Grown Man Going out their and Playing with 'Toy Airplanes!'" "NOW YOU ARE A FELLON!!!!!!!" Just don't kiss the fed *****!!! They want five bucks per......As the late Frank Gallop would say in his throaty baritone voice,"R-I-G-H-T-!!!!!!!!" Don't be a Fool, five bucks, hell, they want to really get to know you, who you are where you live, who your wife is, where your kids go to school , how any traffic tickets do you have, do you ever Talk back to cops???" have you ever raised your voice at the PTA Meeting!!!!, It is all part of their Plan!!!! 4AM in the morning and you wonder why a SWAT team is breaking down your front door, shooting "Fifi", putting you in hand cuffs and meanwhile your wife and kids are scared out of their wits!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think I am kidding, they've done it for less and not to mention done it to the wrong address!!! Well, welcome to the Real world!! Besides Model Airplanes, I fly "Full Scale"9(Solo 7AC Aeronca Chmp, oct '62) You know the ones you have to get in and push the pedals with your feet and pull the stick back and forth!!! Dealt with the feds there too "AND" I am also a "SKYDIVER!!!" We Skydivers as I have stated before are the "******* Stepchildren of General Aviation!!!!!" (First jump 08MAY1964) 'Remember back in '65 there was a "NPRM" by .gov to curtail the areas where skydiving could take place!! That was back in the dayz of "TYPEWRITERS!!!!!" and we pounded key on paper and staved off the .gov for a while, happened again in '72. more pounding keys on paper!! Somehow we SURVIVED!!" thanks to being organized in the AMA brother organization the "United States Parachute Association" of which I have been a member since May of 1964!!!!!!!!!!!! Well boyz and Gurlz, I like Flying, Big Airplanes, Little Airplanes and "ME!!" Now we have our .gov trying to throw another monkey wrench in the werkz!! At Lexington Concord Bridge, Capt. Parker said to his men,"Don't fire unless fired upon, ..If they want to start a war, let it start here!!!" A little more "History for you!
Blue skies,
skybill-standing by
PS, I have more questions...........just not enough whiskey!!
Is it lonely up there? Has the air thinned so much and is so cold it has frozen your neural transmitters?
Old 01-28-2016, 02:45 PM
  #678  
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,868
Received 77 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

I apologize to everyone else here on RCU. I usually hate to respond to comments such as the above two, especially with full quotes, but they were so outlandish I just had to do it. The devil made me do it.
Old 01-28-2016, 03:15 PM
  #679  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Doing nothing

Gets you nothing

It has been almost 2 years since the lawsuit began, and it is still in abeyance. That is a highly excessive extension of time for a case.
I think the AMA is trying to back away from the suit, and therefore they aren't pressing the court, and the FAA won't, so there it is.
Abandoning the suit, I believe would be a mistake.
The discussions they are currently having with the FAA, will not produce significant results. But of course the AMA will try to spin it like a great accomplishment. Like they did with their streamlining of registration.
Any variance by the FAA from the Special Rule, that goes unchecked by us is a problem waiting to happen.
Perhaps some specific concessions will be gained, but those are smaller and more specialized issues. Not to say they are not important,
like the 400ft ceiling, FPV. rulings,
But no way, will their discussions accomplish a retraction of registration for AMA members, nor will the FAA rescind its DC SFRAs.
Those issues would require the lawsuit.
Old 01-28-2016, 04:35 PM
  #680  
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
And yet FAA keeps collecting more and more data points, another one yesterday

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/busi...e56954443.html
“An area canvass was conducted with negative results,”
The search turned up empty. LOL so much for Registration.When's th Media going have a "BLITZ" to emphasize it is against to fly anything R/C with in 5 miles of a towered airport and other places.

And I'll Bet The Plot had his Federal Registration Right there in Plane View. Maybe even an AMA member.
Old 01-28-2016, 05:07 PM
  #681  
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I argue the pilots of airliners won't be asked to prove anything, as we're the only ones asking. Their reports are presumed to be true. As for perception of those outside the FAA who might be able to challenge FAA's accounting, consider this: To the average public or media, who do they believe more? An airline pilot reporting a drone or a bunch of modelers saying "no it's not.?"
WHERE's THe BEEF With all the camera phones / Go Pros in use to day where's the Pictures/Video. I'll believe it when some one comes up with video proof. Hundereds of take off and landing every day and NO VIDEO ... Gimmie a Break.

At one of the flight schools the chief Pilot told all students and instructors to report anything they
Old 01-28-2016, 06:42 PM
  #682  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
I emailed 20 department heads at the AMA asking when will they petition the court to get the
lawsuit out of abeyance.

The next evening the AMA sent out its' email to all speaking on the case and some of the situations,

There was also supposed to be a "briefing" sent by the law firm listing additional effects the FAA actions will cause.

I have never seen it will call law firm now and ask. Has anyone seen the briefing?

Just called Eric Tirshwell left a message B Schulman I was told no longer works for the firm
SCA Case #14-1158 Document #1509571 Filed: 08/22/2014 Page 6 of 6
Date: August 22, 2014
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
Brendan M. Schulman
Eric A. Tirschwell
1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036
Tel: (212) 715-9100
Fax: (212) 715-8220
Email: [email protected]1n Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner


One More thing we can do

CALL THE LAWYERS HANDLING OUR CASE
20 Department heads? For what? Do you actually think 20 department heads are activity involved in this lawsuit?

Call the lawyers? For what? The AMA is their client, they aren't answering phone calls from members and providing updates. Nor should they be for what they bill per hour. Let the pros deal with it. We'll get updates when they have something to update us on. It doesn't appear you are aware of how litigation works, or the time it takes to have a matter litigated. There is little that you or anyone else can do at this time, what's done is done. Register and fly.

Calling everyone you can think of and trying to have them get you (individually) up to date on what they are doing is going to go nowhere.
Old 01-28-2016, 06:54 PM
  #683  
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jeffrey solomon
Doing nothing

Gets you nothing

It has been almost 2 years since the lawsuit began, and it is still in abeyance. That is a highly excessive extension of time for a case.
I think the AMA is trying to back away from the suit, and therefore they aren't pressing the court, and the FAA won't, so there it is.
Abandoning the suit, I believe would be a mistake.
The discussions they are currently having with the FAA, will not produce significant results. But of course the AMA will try to spin it like a great accomplishment. Like they did with their streamlining of registration.
Any variance by the FAA from the Special Rule, that goes unchecked by us is a problem waiting to happen.
Perhaps some specific concessions will be gained, but those are smaller and more specialized issues. Not to say they are not important,
like the 400ft ceiling, FPV. rulings,
But no way, will their discussions accomplish a retraction of registration for AMA members, nor will the FAA rescind its DC SFRAs.
Those issues would require the lawsuit.
Phone calls and email don't amount to much. If you're that concerned, why not hire your own lawyer?
Old 01-28-2016, 10:02 PM
  #684  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I do not know how effective my efforts are but I did get a response from Gary Fitch
I know he is probably just trying to pacify me. By the way here is a website to start petition, I am told by a family member who uses these technologies for a living it is not very hard or convoluted..

https://www.change.org/

Here is Gary's email to me.

Gary Fitch <[email protected]> To Jeff Solomon





Jan 28 at 10:14 PM

Hello Jeffrey,

Sorry for the delay in getting back with you. We were in DC the last three days, heading home tomorrow after 34 meetings with Congressional committee people. Two weeks ago, we were here meeting with the FAA.

Your thoughts are valid but there was no time to accomplish what you ask. Where we will need your efforts will be in a letter writing campaign to your elected officials, when we tell you. Currently, we are working to keep Section 336, in the new FAA Reauthorization bill coming out very soon. With some modifications to Section 336, we will have what we need. We aren't done with the registration issue either. I can't go into a lot of detail just yet but please keep an eye on the emails we send you and our government blogs.
Rest assured, our members can still fly just as they have always flown. We are fighting to protect that.

Jeffrey, thanks for writing and please stay in touch with any questions.

Best Regards,

Gary Fitch
Executive Vice President


Sent from my Windows Phone
Old 01-28-2016, 10:09 PM
  #685  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok, Perry Mason.

So you know how litigation works?

Enlighten us, if you please. Or would it take to large a chunk out of your posting time?

How does an abeyance work?

Who obtained the abeyance the FAA or the AMA ?
Old 01-28-2016, 10:12 PM
  #686  
Senior Member
 
Rob2160's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 4,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Mark that data point in the "Registration did not work" column. Pretty sure that column will have the largest numbers.
Any future near misses do not prove "Registration didn't work"

People continue to die in car accidents while wearing seatbelts, does that mean seatbelts don't save lives?

How can you measure the number of "near misses" that will be prevented by registration? You can't.

Having a few continued near misses does not mean Registration doesn't work. It proves there are always exceptions to every rule and there always will be.

No Government has ever introduced a new law that is 100% effective in all cases.

Do harsh drink driving laws stop drunk drivers? No, do they reduce the number of drunk drivers? Yes! See the point?

Last edited by Rob2160; 01-28-2016 at 11:17 PM. Reason: typos
Old 01-28-2016, 10:35 PM
  #687  
 
jeffrey solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TITUSVILLE FLORIDA NY
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have been told that an abeyance in the 2014 lawsuit has occurred.
I was also told that the reason was to allow the FAA to "obtain more public opinion" whatever that means.
The abeyance order includes UAS America LLC who is representing Raphael Pirkers the drone flyer who filmed a commercial for the University of Virginia, and their own interests.

I did a little research on Wikipedia and found this regarding an abeyance

Here is the document, it does not list the AMA but rather UAS America Fund LLC as petitioners it consolidated the AMA case 14-1158
Just found an Abeyance order here is the website: http://crschmidt.net/courtdocs/UAS-America-Abeyance.pdf
http://crschmidt.net/courtdocs/UAS-America-Abeyance.pdf





Settling litigation


Abeyance can be used in cases where parties are interested in temporarily settling litigation while still holding the right to seek relief later if necessary. This may be considered a desirable outcome in cases where the party to the lawsuit is an organization with a transient membership and political perspective. The use of abeyance in such instances can allow such an organization to 'settle' with the party without officially binding its actions in the future, should a new group of decision makers within the organization choose to pursue taking the dispute to court.


For example, abeyance was used as a settlement method in a Canadian lawsuit involving the University of Victoria Students' Society (UVSS), the BCCLA, and a campus pro-life club to whom the UVSS denied funding. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit by holding the case in abeyance in return for the UVSS temporarily giving resources back to the club. With this arrangement, the pro-life club held on to its right to immediately reopen the case again should the UVSS deny resources to the club in the future, and the UVSS was able to avoid an expensive legal battle it did not have the will to pursue at the time. Thus the use of abeyance provided the security of a settlement for the pro-life campus club, while preserving the student society's voting membership's ability to take the matter back to court should they choose in the future to deny resources to the club.[SUP][12][/SUP]

Other court cases may be held in abeyance when the issue may be resolved by another court or another event. This saves time and effort trying to resolve a dispute that may be made moot by the other events. During lawsuits related to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) after the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in King v. Burwell attorneys in Halbig v. Burwell requested abeyance of that case as the matter would be resolved in King and it would be a waste of time and effort to try and resolve it in the Halbig case.[SUP][13][/SUP]


the club ............. was able to avoid an expensive legal battle it did not have the will to pursue at the time.


Does this sound like anyone we know?
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
UAS-America-Abeyance.pdf (52.4 KB, 14 views)

Last edited by jeffrey solomon; 01-29-2016 at 01:12 PM.
Old 01-29-2016, 03:46 AM
  #688  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Lol....thank god for Google, Wiki, and dictionaries, great resources and so many fancy words and concepts too. Can't forget cut and paste too!

Change.org...you don't say? Great idea, I might have mentioned it a few times, about a month or two ago.

1 department head down, 20 to go. Hope you read what he said...specifically " when we tell you ".....


Old 01-29-2016, 04:38 AM
  #689  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill
I apologize to everyone else here on RCU. I usually hate to respond to comments such as the above two, especially with full quotes, but they were so outlandish I just had to do it. The devil made me do it.
I don't completely agree with the posts, but they are far from outlandish. It actually is another case of the government taking our rights away.
Old 01-29-2016, 04:42 AM
  #690  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

At one of the flight schools the chief Pilot told all students and instructors to report anything they
Any thing that moved. Anything they thought might be a nude beach. Blue whales? What?
Old 01-29-2016, 06:32 AM
  #691  
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

At one of the flight schools the chief Pilot told all students and instructors to report anything the



Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Any thing that moved. Anything they thought might be a nude beach. Blue whales? What?
OK Sorry sport But I thought we were talking about seeing (Drones) Model Airplanes from the cockpit of GA training aircraft. There Are more than 6 flight schools Plus the FBO flight schools. It was from one of the FBO's chief pilots that was over heard saying if U see anything (DRONES MODEL AIRPLANES) Report them as a near miss no mater what. But I'm sure if they saw a nude beach. Blue whales or Pink Elephants it would only better our cause and diminish their credibility.
Old 01-29-2016, 07:18 AM
  #692  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Jeff, I went to the DOJ website for looking up cases ( http://www.uscourts.gov/courtrecords/find-case-pacer ) and was able to download the entire case file thus far. It started as case number 14-1158, but as others filed, the AMA's was consolidated into 14-1156. You have to pay to download it, and It's 25mb.

The Council on Government Relations (case number 14-1157 also consolidated into 14-1156) requested the abeyance to allow FAA to consider public comments on the order. UAS America Fund LLC, Skypan Internatlonal Inc, Peter Sachs (individually and DBA as Drone Pilot's Association), FPV Manuals LLC (DBA GetFPV and Lumenier) [all petitioners in case 14-1156] and AMA [petitioner in case 14-1158] all filed in opposition of that request. UAS America Fund LLC later filed individually in support of the Abeyance (not sure if they changed their mind or what, I'm just reading the filings). On 18 Nov 2014, a panel of three federal circuit judges ruled in favor of the abeyance. AMA et all lost.
Old 01-29-2016, 07:19 AM
  #693  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
At one of the flight schools the chief Pilot told all students and instructors to report anything the




OK Sorry sport But I thought we were talking about seeing (Drones) Model Airplanes from the cockpit of GA training aircraft. There Are more than 6 flight schools Plus the FBO flight schools. It was from one of the FBO's chief pilots that was over heard saying if U see anything (DRONES MODEL AIRPLANES) Report them as a near miss no mater what. But I'm sure if they saw a nude beach. Blue whales or Pink Elephants it would only better our cause and diminish their credibility.
OK so why were they saying that and how would you prove they said such?
Old 01-29-2016, 08:43 AM
  #694  
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I argue the pilots of airliners won't be asked to prove anything, as we're the only ones asking. Their reports are presumed to be true. As for perception of those outside the FAA who might be able to challenge FAA's accounting, consider this: To the average public or media, who do they believe more? An airline pilot reporting a drone or a bunch of modelers saying "no it's not.?"
Originally Posted by franklin_m
And whether there are more reports of one or the other is immaterial to anyone but us. I contend that to the public, media, and lawmakers, the number of both should be ZERO. There's not even an estimate of the number of laser pointers out there, but I suspect it far exceeds the number of "drones." So percentage wise, it's likely a much smaller number, yet FAA is pursuing that too.
I do agree with much of what you said. I do find it hard to believe that commercial planes traveling at a high rate of speed can accuratly tell exactly what they saw all the time.

You said "the number of both should be zero" and while that would be nice if we lived in a perfect world, it will never happen in reality. If we are so high on safety, maybe we should focus on closing down every alcohol selling establishment, make mandatory that all vehicles have built in breathalyzers and only offer alcohol for home purchase. I don't agree with any of that, but it will save THOUSANDS, maybe 10's of thousands more lives than the zero that have been lost by "drones" hitting full scale.
Old 01-29-2016, 09:11 AM
  #695  
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,369
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
If we are so high on safety, maybe we should focus on closing down every alcohol selling establishment, make mandatory that all vehicles have built in breathalyzers and only offer alcohol for home purchase. I don't agree with any of that, but it will save THOUSANDS, maybe 10's of thousands more lives than the zero that have been lost by "drones" hitting full scale.
Drunken driving is illegal in every State of the US ..... So how is it legal for barrooms to have parking lots ?

Quite the slippery slope it is , when the public demands the govt. to protect them all from all dangers .
Old 01-29-2016, 09:14 AM
  #696  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I think that most MR craft can be identified by an aircraft, airliners are not flying near top speed when descending to the airport. But when they identify a plank model airplane, it may have been a bird. Or the one in Pensacola Florida was identified as a radio control model of an F4 Phantom. It could have been one of the full scale F4 drones at nearby Tyndal.
Old 01-29-2016, 09:17 AM
  #697  
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Drunken driving is illegal in every State of the US ..... So how is it legal for barrooms to have parking lots ?

Quite the slippery slope it is , when the public demands the govt. to protect them all from all dangers .
I agree.
Old 01-29-2016, 09:29 AM
  #698  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
I do agree with much of what you said. I do find it hard to believe that commercial planes traveling at a high rate of speed can accuratly tell exactly what they saw all the time.
Mike, seeing things is actually not that difficult. It's relative. Sure, if we're nose to nose closing at a combined velocity of 1200 knots, it's tougher, but even then we can and do regularly note trends (like if your squadron buddy is trying to cheat a couple degrees of turn before the merge in an ACM practice engagement). I've flown hundreds of hours on low levels, never less than 360KIAS, mostly at 420 to 480, and it's not hard to see birds and such. And yet despite that, we can't always avoid them, and therein lies the risk to manned aircraft. While eye witness accounts of events are often the weakest part of criminal cases, the more trained the observer, the stronger they become. Some random stranger observing a criminal act in a store vs. say an off duty FBI agent. I would surmise that drone sightings by airline and military pilots are viewed with great credibility given the training and experience necessary to achieve those positions.

As for the zero comment, the reality is the US major carrier safety record has been zero for a number of years - despite millions of flights. I'm not going to quote exact numbers, but I do have them somewhere, as I researched the information for a presentation I give on operating discipline and safety. That's what leads me to say that the public rightfully should expect the encounters to be zero. Having been on both sides of the fence - military aviation / aviation safety programs and a hobby flier myself, I believe the number can and should be zero. There's really no valid excuse for an airline pilot to ever see a non-commercial sUAS anywhere, let alone in the airport traffic area.
Old 01-29-2016, 09:32 AM
  #699  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Or the one in Pensacola Florida was identified as a radio control model of an F4 Phantom. It could have been one of the full scale F4 drones at nearby Tyndal.
Wrong. The QF-4's are only flown with transponders - thus would have been readily identifiable to the air traffic controller.
Old 01-29-2016, 09:59 AM
  #700  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Wrong. The QF-4's are only flown with transponders - thus would have been readily identifiable to the air traffic controller.
The pilot was reporting it as a near miss, So they would have been looking for radar blip near the aircraft. If above the horizon a QF-4 could be mistaken as a model near the airliner.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.