It seems like a 400' ceiling and line of site goes right out the window because someone is using FPV. So just curious, does your FPV UAV have a 360 degree or even a 180 degree view around it? Does your UAV have a transponder on it to alert other aircraft to its tiny bird like appearance? I could keep going but its worthless and waste of my time. But if you think you can avoid a collision with a manned aircraft with your phantom using FPV, 1200'+ in the air nearly a mile away from you, youre nuts, and it is going to happen, and someone will eventually cause a major accident because the love to push the boundaries unfortunately. Those boundaries are for a reason... But I guess your purchase in a toy that cost a few hundred makes you able to do as you please... My bad...
FAA just called me
- Thread starter chad556
- Start date
Shootinnewz said:
You can't fix stupid, Its not us my friend, I was flying at a park on the beach in Hawaii, and a sightseeing heli was coming down the beach, I saw him coming made sure no folks were on the beach and dropped to 10 feet, he was at 25 to 30 feet off the beach over people. Stupid *******. Had I not seen him I would have been a bug on his windshield, or worse. He was too low, too fast and he was getting paid.
WeaponsHot said:
Exactly my point, I fly in helos often for work, and anyone that has flown knows when your going over 100mph, a frikin object the size of a bird isnt the easiest thing to spot. And we fly low all the time, well below 1200' but usually always 400 AGL, and although Im not a pilot, Id assume its because RC planes and such are supposed to stay below 400'. But like I said, because people must push the limits, someone will cause an accident eventually, its inevitable unfortunately...
SilentAV8R said:
The Ritewing zepher has an %100 safety record, so the FAA failed to prove how a foam plane has the ability to actually kill anyone or do any significant property damage. Just too many fear mongers out there, besides most aren't worried about unsafe flying as much as privacy issues.
He was being fined for commercial use, otherwise they could not have charged him for any violation since model aircraft aren't regulated. The FAA claims since he got compensation, his craft was no longer considered hobby use, so is now regulated, but they are going to lose on all appeals. The FAA are simply doing a stalling tactic. Now they are on a misdirection campaign to confuse the public into making them think there are actual laws in place.
I'd do the exact same thing if I were in their shoes, in the end hoping to get emergency regulation passed, but the FAA failed to do their job and that's after congress mandated them to do so in 2012. So now they filed their appeal on the very last day possible and when they lose, will file another appeal at the last possible minute, after that failure, then will go onto claim there's a great risk to the general public and call to congress for help.
What it boils down to is there are no enforceable laws currently in place against drone operation, so yes the FAA is all bark and no bite.
Shootinnewz said:
Realistically speaking, what are the odds of a RC aircraft actually colliding with a fullsize aircraft? Next if said collision actually occurred, what are the odds of a fullsize aircraft actually crashing. Heck a Phantom going thru the turbine of a commercial jetliner would most likely cause a minor hiccup in the engine performance, similar to a bird strike.
I've been flying RC Model aircraft for over 35 years and used to do air combat where we try to hit each others plane or cut off a streamer attached. I have never been able to physically hit another plane, but have taken a few streamers. Heck that story of near miss between a helo and a quad was a joke, because the downwash of the copter would have blown that quad out of the sky. I doubt the main rotor blades would have taken damage from a hit, if so it wouldn't have been enough to cause a crash.
BruceTS said:
I never said commercial jetliner, number one, just to clarify... I mentioned a helicopter, and prop wash assuming on your part the UAV is below it, do you honestly think that someone that could be flying their UAV could potentially lower it in a panic from above a helicopter? I do... And dont forget, we arent talking about birds, we are talking about an object that has metal and large plastic parts that I personally think actually could harm a jetliner engine since you've brought it up. With that line of thinking you might as well fly model RC's in a flight path of an airport, I mean its just a FAA guideline and heck, whats the harm, right? Thats kinda what you said if you really think about it... Know wonder so many fly their UAVs like they do, no regards to safety and or rules at all...
BruceTS said:
OK
Then there is this:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threa ... plaint.pdf
The reason for mentioning that he was operating a commercial flight was to bolster their case for reckless operation. The NTSB decided he was operating a model aircraft and as such the FAA had no jurisdiction, thus their claim of reckless operation was void.
The judge did NOT say that commercial operations were OK, what he DID say is since the FAA has no regulations yet they cannot fine a person for operating a model aircraft. The commercial operations part is incidental to the main claim of reckless operation.
Guess you need to read what you wrote, not once did you mention Helicopter. Do you really think those blades are so fragile that a Phantom striking one would cause the copter to crash?
Did I ever mention to fly in an unsafe manner?
Did I ever mention to fly in an unsafe manner?
SilentAV8R said:
However he was charged for flying a UAV recklessly and to be classified as a UAV (under FAA thinking) it would have to be for commercial usage. The FAA has no jurisdiction on hobby usage and if Trappy did it for no pay at all, the FAA would not have came after him.
BruceTS said:
Helo, helicopter, same thing... And no, you didnt say unsafe manner, but im sure some kid will read these post and not know how to use proper judgement when it comes to being safe, there comments on these post reflect their maturity to prove that to be case.
BruceTS said:
I stand corrected, it was in an early post regarding this post you quoted me on, my bad...
jdenkevitz said:
The EPA and the coal, steel, chemical or any other heavy industry operation.
The FDA and pharmaceutical companies.
The FDA and the food industry.
The FDA/EPA and the farming industry.
The IRS and Political "Non-Profits"
These aren't exactly individuals, but nevertheless good examples of business or sectors that quite literally make up their own laws going against Congressionally mandated entities.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 98
I'm a single engine pilot in the US. I fly 500' minimums all the time. At the beach, as long as I'm clear of vessels and people, I can fly lower. Banner towing planes routinely fly at 200 ft. It's all our airspace, and pilots, both R/C and full size, need to know and respect each other and have set rules.
Technology gave us quad copters, and tech will solve the issue of collisions. Until then, communication and flying where others cannot or where we are expected is the best practice.
As phantom pilots, we are R/c pilots, and must follow the rules as they are and fly no higher than 400ft agl & line of sight. Anything else is too dangerous and you risk death of others (a pigeon can kill in a windshield bird strike- ultralights don't even have windshields) and a hobby restricted to set locations. Crash into Statue of Liberty, overfly an airbase, recon the D.C., have one slam into a crowd of people, hit a roller coaster, bounce off buildings in Manhattan and plummet to the street... Those are worries enough without taking out a full size piloted aircraft. Be safe, be sane, follow the rules.
Technology gave us quad copters, and tech will solve the issue of collisions. Until then, communication and flying where others cannot or where we are expected is the best practice.
As phantom pilots, we are R/c pilots, and must follow the rules as they are and fly no higher than 400ft agl & line of sight. Anything else is too dangerous and you risk death of others (a pigeon can kill in a windshield bird strike- ultralights don't even have windshields) and a hobby restricted to set locations. Crash into Statue of Liberty, overfly an airbase, recon the D.C., have one slam into a crowd of people, hit a roller coaster, bounce off buildings in Manhattan and plummet to the street... Those are worries enough without taking out a full size piloted aircraft. Be safe, be sane, follow the rules.
Hello all, I am the original poster of this topic and apologize for not keeping up to date on it. A death in the family and other life priorities have kept me away from these forums. I see many of you have contributed very valuable and constructive content to the discussion. Much appreciated. Unfortunately, as with all popular forums, we are blessed with the trolls as well. In reading through the past 16 pages, i came across a few posts from people who think I made this up for some odd reason. Not sure what the point of that would be, but allow me to set the record straight.
Here's the contact information of the FAA individual that contacted me. He initially sent me the below email. I hadn't yet got around to calling him, and a couple hours after he sent the email...he called me. Again, here's his info for those of you who are skeptical.
"Dear Mr. Black,
It is imperative that you contact me immediately concerning your use of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to perform photography.
Regards,
Ernest R. Copeland
Aviation Safety Inspector (Airworthiness)
Scottsdale Flight Standards District Office
17777 N Perimeter Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Office: 480-419-0330 x335
Fax: 480-419-0800"
Also, for the record, I NEVER did receive the infamous CCD letter he claimed was being sent to me. After contacting an attorney, I was advised to demand that Mr. Copeland send me not only the CCD letter, but also to DEMAND he acknowledge in writing that he contacted me by phone and that he also include the dialog of our conversation. Neither of which were ever received from the FAA or Mr. Copeland.
nosarafern said:
cssfly said:
cbpagent72 said:
dontaskme said:
69420rnr said:
havasuphoto said:
Here's the contact information of the FAA individual that contacted me. He initially sent me the below email. I hadn't yet got around to calling him, and a couple hours after he sent the email...he called me. Again, here's his info for those of you who are skeptical.
"Dear Mr. Black,
It is imperative that you contact me immediately concerning your use of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to perform photography.
Regards,
Ernest R. Copeland
Aviation Safety Inspector (Airworthiness)
Scottsdale Flight Standards District Office
17777 N Perimeter Dr.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Office: 480-419-0330 x335
Fax: 480-419-0800"
Also, for the record, I NEVER did receive the infamous CCD letter he claimed was being sent to me. After contacting an attorney, I was advised to demand that Mr. Copeland send me not only the CCD letter, but also to DEMAND he acknowledge in writing that he contacted me by phone and that he also include the dialog of our conversation. Neither of which were ever received from the FAA or Mr. Copeland.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2015
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 8
- Age
- 68
same with boats can't take your buddy fishing if he pays for the beer or fuel you need a com. Lisense
You hit the nail on the head! - Its like charging a business "more" for internet access or banking fees . Common practice here in South Africa without ANY Logic behind it. The only motif is kill the goose laying the golden eggs!
Similar threads
