Another Phantom in recent news

[flight-of-eye]

This was posted on Sunday.

Sacbee - Drones now doing business in the skies above you
Drones, once known as weapons of war, are becoming a hot new business tool in the skies above Sacramento and other cities around the country.

read full article here.

http://sacb.ee/1hRqH1b

 

[Visioneer]

Seems a fairly balanced article. It's been reported elsewhere on the forum that the FAA has indicated it's not going to make the mandated 9/2015 date for commercial use rules. As more and more articles like this pop up (as they surely will), perhaps the FAA will realize they need to get their act together sooner rather than later.

 

[havasuphoto]

Interesting article. Seems the writer just Goggled Drones, and copied and pasted some of the FAA "Myths" into the article. "Goggle Journalism" at it's finest. Of course-that part of the story wasn't researched, at all. The FAA has a field office, in Sacramento, just across the street from Executive Airport. I've been there, and actually know 1 of the Inspectors still working there.
Would it have been too much trouble for the reporter to stop by there, and talk to one of the FAA Inspectors? No!

I don't talk to the press-ever!! I've seen too many articles get twisted around, and used against us.

Also-the FAA hasn't met a deadline in.....well, I can't ever remember when. Even back when they were drafting FAR Part 103-Ultralight aircraft...it took them years, past their so called "deadline", to come up with those regulations.

It's funny, and a little sad-that so many people are "shaking in their boots", because the FAA says they can't do it(fly for hire). Well, if I can't do it, show me the regulation that says I can't-not an Advisory Circular.

Did I mention; never talk to the press.

NOTE: I have proper legal representation. Don't assume because you read it on the Internet, that it's true. Also, as for Commercial Operations; you're on your own. You do what you feel is the right thing to do, for you. Don't read too much into what I say. I'm no expert. I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express-once

 

[Visioneer]

... copied and pasted some of the FAA "Myths" into the article.

What FAA myths are in the article?

The guy was stunt flying a helicopter with carbon blades. Yeah, this looks like a typical "drone" flight to take pictures of a building to me

While this choice of example may seem irrelevant, the article was not just about typical drone flights to take pictures. The article's scope, as defined in the third paragraph, includes "The new breed of small domestic drones ... can sell for $1,000 to tens of thousands of dollars". While that would include the Phantoms, it would also include the OFM Brute H1200 Hexacopter which is sold as a DSLR camera plaform. It costs $7,561, weighs in loaded at 26.5 lbs, and uses six 15" carbon fiber blades. Such might just qualify as "dangerous" if it gets out of control. The stunt 'copter incident was just one of three examples given, the point being that "whirling blades under only remote control in the air" can be dangerous, perhaps even deadly. It's inclusion hardly negates the entire article.

 

[havasuphoto]

What FAA myths are in the article?

Maybe it would be easier for me to answer your questions if you told me which quotes, from the reporter, about current FAA regulations you believe to be true?
I read the article once....I'm not reading it again. Perhaps you read something I didn't? Or maybe I skipped a line......happens sometimes.

 

[Visioneer]

Conflating Phantom rotors, or even the 15" carbon rotors you reference above, to a 28" carbon blade spinning at 4,000rpm is hyperbolic.

I never claimed that it negated the entire article but it is just one example of hyperbolic reporting.

Point taken, especially true given that our knowledge of stunt helicopters tells us these are totally different situations. But I doubt the average Joe reading this article (If the average Joe would even bother with such an article) would research the details and discover the difference. All he'll take away is that these things can injure, and even kill you ... and he'll assume that "these things" means whatever "drone" he happens to encounter. And in that sense perhaps he is being misled. But the part that is not misleading (and the part which I took to be the author's point) is that "these things" (especially the bigger ones) can be dangerous and so safety is a valid concern.

I was about 12 when I encountered the first instance of reading a newspaper account where I had first hand knowledge of the incident being covered. And the account had more than a few facts wrong. Since that time I've found that to be the case in nearly every instance where I had first hand knowledge of something I've read or seen on the news. As a result I tend to automatically discount the "extremes" of what I read and look more to the general message. That was the case here ... it didn't really matter to me whether the anecdotal evidence was or wasn't exactly similar. I've seen the big hex & octo 'copters and didn't need to be convinced that they could be dangerous.

Forty years ago when I flew fixed wing RC, but before I had an electric starter, I sliced a finger or two trying to start glow plug, gas engines. Props/rotors and the like will cut flesh with ease. I've no doubt that getting hit by one (especially a bigger one) falling out of the sky, or worse in a powered dive, could do very serious damage.

 

[Visioneer]

What FAA myths are in the article?

Maybe it would be easier for me to answer your questions if you told me which quotes, from the reporter, about current FAA regulations you believe to be true?
I read the article once....I'm not reading it again. Perhaps you read something I didn't? Or maybe I skipped a line......happens sometimes.

You said there were FAA "Myths" in the article. You also said "that part of the story wasn't researched, at all". It's your phrasing. I can't possibly know what's in there that you believe are myths or wrong. If you believe the article is really that misinforming, it'd be nice to know what's amiss.

I didn't say anything about what I believed to be true. But I didn't see much that conflicts with what I've seen documented to date.

If you can't recall what parts you believe were myths, it's no biggie. But you certainly gave the impression there was erroneous information in the article.

Above you used the term "FAA regulations". I didn't see any reference to FAA regulations in the article. The word "regulation" appears 4 times in the article, none of which refer to FAA regulations. Here are the sentences in which the word regulations appears.

• As with other new technology, the evolution of drones has outpaced government regulations and sparked debate over what controls are appropriate.
• Some advocates argue against any government restrictions, contending regulations could stifle a revolutionary industry.
• Despite the enthusiasm, federal officials, pilots and others say safety is a major concern, and that regulations are needed before thousands of drones take to the skies in urban areas in the next few years.
• They say they’re waiting until firm regulations are set.

 

[havasuphoto]

There is a hitch, though: Federal policy prohibits the commercial use of drones. The Federal Aviation Administration requires that commercial flights use certified aircraft and licensed pilots. Low altitude use of drones by hobbyists is allowed, as are some research projects that use the technology.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/02/619930 ... rylink=cpy

EDIT: I changed my mind-I want you all to believe what the FAA is telling you is the truth, and I don't want any of you to fly for hire. Also, if you think charging for your editing skills will help you skirt the law, you're delusional.

I don't want anyone, flying for hire, until the FAA say's it's OK.

 

[Visioneer]

There is a hitch, though: Federal policy prohibits the commercial use of drones. The Federal Aviation Administration requires that commercial flights use certified aircraft and licensed pilots. Low altitude use of drones by hobbyists is allowed, as are some research projects that use the technology.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/02/619930 ... rylink=cpy

EDIT: I changed my mind-I want you all to believe what the FAA is telling you is the truth, and I don't want any of you to fly for hire. Also, if you think charging for your editing skills will help you skirt the law, you're delusional.

I don't want anyone, flying for hire, until the FAA say's it's OK.

I still don't see that there's an FAA myth in the article. The FAA does have a policy that prohibits commercial flight. Of course it's not a law and perhaps not enforceable, but the article didn't report anything other than the fact that there is a policy. It doesn't say it's a law - that would be a myth.

 

[BenDronePilot]

Seems a fairly balanced article.

It seems pretty typical of the hyperbolic reporting on the issues.

This is ridiculous reporting:

"A drone operator in New York was killed just a few months ago when he was hit in the head by his drone’s rotors."

The guy was stunt flying a helicopter with carbon blades. Yeah, this looks like a typical "drone" flight to take pictures of a building to me:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io7vgKTl2SE[/youtube]

That wasn't a drone, it was a large size helicopter with really big carbon fiber props. A typical "drone" or quad copter with out cf props would not hurt someone in that fashion.

 

[Scottrod]

EDIT: I changed my mind-I want you all to believe what the FAA is telling you is the truth, and I don't want any of you to fly for hire. Also, if you think charging for your editing skills will help you skirt the law, you're delusional.

I don't want anyone, flying for hire, until the FAA say's it's OK.

When was the last time your doctors adjusted your meds?

LOL. +1 to that.

There is not a federal statute, not a single federal regulation and no case law that in any way regulates, restricts, or prohibits the operation of remote controlled model aircraft. With the absence of a law or any case law, you can pretty much do what you want with your Phantom unless there is a local or state law restricting your Phantom. So, regardless of what the FAA might CLAIM, there is no law regulating remote controlled model aircraft and you may operate for hobbiest or professional/commercial reasons.

Edit: as of this writing. Supposedly in 2015 the FAA will be creating these new regulations but I would be surprised if they made that deadline. Even if they do, I would bet that any regulations placed will be simple and designed not to restrict this new technology.

 

[havasuphoto]

EDIT: I changed my mind-I want you all to believe what the FAA is telling you is the truth, and I don't want any of you to fly for hire. Also, if you think charging for your editing skills will help you skirt the law, you're delusional.

I don't want anyone, flying for hire, until the FAA say's it's OK.

When was the last time your doctors adjusted your meds?

LOL. +1 to that.

There is not a federal statute, not a single federal regulation and no case law that in any way regulates, restricts, or prohibits the operation of remote controlled model aircraft. With the absence of a law or any case law, you can pretty much do what you want with your Phantom unless there is a local or state law restricting your Phantom. So, regardless of what the FAA might CLAIM, there is no law regulating remote controlled model aircraft and you may operate for hobbiest or professional/commercial reasons.

Edit: as of this writing. Supposedly in 2015 the FAA will be creating these new regulations but I would be surprised if they made that deadline. Even if they do, I would bet that any regulations placed will be simple and designed not to restrict this new technology.

Thanks you!!

Apparently some peoples "sarcasm detector's" don't work.
My point was-I was getting tired of repeating myself, virtually every day, to the misunderstandings people had to the current FAA situation. I'm done with that....I'll let someone else clarify what is "myth", and what is "fact".

 

[Scottrod]

Unfortunately some people have received cease and desist letters from the FAA and those letters are 100% incorrect. However being right does not always mean you win. What I mean by this, is that most who have received these letters have decided to simply stop operating instead of incurring large legal expenses to prove and win their case in court.

 

[hotstink626]

the guy flying the helicopter in the vid isn't stunt flying he had just finshed making that clearing in the park !!