that's why I said AND! I didn't want to steal his moniker.When I opened this thread I expected it to be about Irixguys site 400orbelow.com
This thread is not waterproof and ruggedized.
that's why I said AND! I didn't want to steal his moniker.When I opened this thread I expected it to be about Irixguys site 400orbelow.com
This thread is not waterproof and ruggedized.
Oh hah yeah. In cruise flight in would be impossible. Haha sometimes we are cruising as fast as 600mph.I'm talking in mid flight which is what I thought you meant.
Also the article said that the aircraft climbed to avoid it which seems reasonable. You can climb 200 feet in seconds easily. Turning out of the way would take a lot more time.how fast are you travelling in meters per second on landing approach? How far away could you be from an object that's 450mm wide and half that as tall and still see it? how many seconds does it take you to maneuver around an object that may also be moving in any direction?
Trying to figure out how big of an object it would have to be for a pilot to see it and how much time they would have decide to avoid it and actually be able to.
I hear you, the biggest mistakes the NRA ever made were sitting at the table with the government and "self regulating" gun owners.I guess this is where I am different from everyone else on this site. I come mainly from firearms as a hobby. We fight new restrictions tooth and nail. On here it seems many take what if scenarios that are HIGHLY unlikely and gov proposed restrictions as law.
I don't do anything ignorant with my drone by any means. But just because one person did, and didn't cause an incident mind you, doesn't mean we have to have restrictions in place.
In other words, I enjoy freedom
Oh for christ stake, don't even start with gun control.....
When a large bird gets sucked into a jet engine it can and often will do damage. The main reason for the bird strike tests is to make sure two things happen:
So, let's keep things in perspective. You can't just shoot a medium sized object into a giant spinning machine where the blade tips are moving at supersonic speed and expect nothing to happen.
- The engine stays contained (Google uncontained engine failure to see why this is important)
- The engine can function for long enough to make an emergency landing
P.S. Gun crap? No comment. Keep it on topic.
The problem is that this has gone well beyond model hobby planes and drones are going to multiply very very quickly up to the point that they will be as common place as cars in a few decades, do you really think they won't need regulation, of course they will even though I'm against it but in the grand scale of things they are going to be. Like it or lump it but you'd better start getting used to the idea rather than throwing toys out of the pram screaming "don't you dare tell me what to do"
A turkey is not the same as an 8-10 pound Octocopter with a gimbal & DSLR, lots of which is metal, and even birds take out engines, talk to the Hudson River pilot. But even a strike that didn't take out the engine would require a precautionary landing and inspection at the nearest airport, causing delays, disruption of scheduling, and a hefty price tag, all of which could be laid at the door of the bonehead RC pilot.Modern jet engines can suck in even worse and still run. They are incredible peices of engineering.
The issue is at the moment I think only the DJI products have the embedded no-fly zones.I personally believe the no fly zones around airports to be enough to keep everything safe personally. That and common sense. Most that have 1k in disposable income has common sense. Sure theres going to be idiots out there. But should we let those few rule the majority?
The issue is at the moment I think only the DJI products have the embedded no-fly zones.
That's true, but an idiot with a DJI drone at least is prevented from flying in the no-fly zones around airports in most cases.I was under the impression the no fly zone around airports was a law.
You cant idiot proof everything in life. But illegal is already illegal
That's true, but an idiot with a DJI drone at least is prevented from flying in the no-fly zones around airports in most cases.
Sure I understand. But again you cannot fool proof everything in life. If someone breaks that law throw the book at them, but me cruising at 1k feet taking pics of the horizon and such, shouldn't be illegal and currently is not. I understand safety around airport. I get that. But being dozens of miles from an airport I should for the most part(again using common sense) be able to have free rein.
I just dont support further restrictions is what Im getting at. I think 400 feet is a little low for a proposed restriction honestly.
In Seattle, tourism sea planes will typically fly in at around that height before landing on the water. They buzz neighborhoods pretty close and seatac is surrounded by residential areas
But if the only way for you to follow common sense is for big brother to put words on paper for you then by all means contact the appropriate people and tell them you support having restrictions on what you can do with your personal property
Again, that's where the common sense thing comes in...
Again, you cannot idiot proof everything.
But to this day a drone has not brought down a transport aircraft.