More idiots ruining it for everyone (new CA bill proposed)

The park dept has too much money if they are putting up a helicopter just to down a cheap quadcopter. The Director of the department should be fired for wasting public funds.

agree
 
I remember seeing a YouTube video where a guy was flying his Phantom in a park in Virginia over a river and waterfall. A police helicopter tried a couple of times to down the drone by hovering overhead. I don't know how close the helo was to the Phantom, but the pilot retreated. That helo pilot didn't seem very concerned for the safety of his craft by trying to down a drone with it.

I found the video.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Do we know that is, in fact the reason for the chopper to be there or is this an assumption?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackHawk388
I remember seeing a YouTube video where a guy was flying his Phantom in a park in Virginia over a river and waterfall. A police helicopter tried a couple of times to down the drone by hovering overhead. I don't know how close the helo was to the Phantom, but the pilot retreated. That helo pilot didn't seem very concerned for the safety of his craft by trying to down a drone with it.

I found the video.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Not one iota of evidence the chopper pilot did what's alleged by this drama queen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackHawk388
Not one iota of evidence the chopper pilot did what's alleged by this drama queen.

No, there isn't. Seems fishy to me the helicopter isn't seen until its shadow approaches from a completely different direction than where the drone flew away from.

However, calling names does NOTHING to further this train of thought. Please, refrain from name calling and instead, state what you observe.
 
No, there isn't. Seems fishy to me the helicopter isn't seen until its shadow approaches from a completely different direction than where the drone flew away from.

However, calling names does NOTHING to further this train of thought. Please, refrain from name calling and instead, state what you observe.
You are kidding, seriously?
 
You are kidding, seriously?

To what end would you think I'm kidding? Tossing out the name calling ********?

Luis, you've made a good impression upon me in the few posts we've bantered. In case you're not reading the post, just reading the sentence you want to be offended by, I said I agree with you.

I just don't agree with the "drama queen" ********. Take a higher road and allow the person to hang themselves. Once they do, THEN yank their rope. That rope, however, hasn't been drawn taunt at this point.
 
Do your thing BlackHawk, and I'll do mine.

The author of the video is unknown here, and not the poster, so far as I know.
 
Do your thing BlackHawk, and I'll do mine.

The author of the video is unknown here, and not the poster, so far as I know.

For me, and this is simply my opinion and MY thoughts, I will not call someone a name unless they're here to defend themselves and have earned such distinction through their own, personal actions.

If I personally confront someone, it's WITH that person. I stand ready and willing to put my name and address out there to anyone who takes offense with my statements. As such, I will not usually make arbitrary comments about a video. Instead, I will take my comments directly to that persons Youtube channel or whatever method of social delivery they've chosen as their vehicle.

Not trying to argue with you brother. Just stating my personal belief systems.
 
But surely you get my point? You "were" a pilot, some "are" pilots, and they're the ones screamimg the loudest. Face it, I'm not going to have to go through flight school and learn to fly an airplane, just to fly my quad copter. Ain't gonna happen, no way no how. No matter how much ya'll scream and yell.
I haven't seen any post asking for that either yet, (but I have been here for only over a year... :) ), but without pushing that far, I think it would be good for everyone to know a bit more about how the whole thing works. Since we're about to be regulated (where it's not already done) by the same body as manned aircrafts, a little bit of education would make the things easier and would probably avoid stupid behaviours, stupider questions and statements on the forum (like it or not), and ignorant rebelious posts against those who try to spread safety and common sense when using our machines. I am not a pilot myself, (never had the guts or brain capacity ;) ), but I had a ground course to fly a commercial drone, and I received a lot of information I had no clue about, from basic avionics, to GPS coordinates, map reading, meteorological conditions, Airspace class, what do what on a plane or an heli that we have as well in the phantom, How works physically a multi rotor, all about safety, site survey, risk assessment, emergency procedures such as see and avoid or pilot incapacity, how to share the sky with others safely, not only planes and helis, but parachutists, hot air balloons, gliders....and finally legal requirements in my country, to mention a few. It just makes the whole thing more interesting and helps flying more responsibly. If more of the guys here had a look at that with a positive attitude we would have less worries about the future of this hobby, and less sterile arguments when there should be any.

or something like that... :)
 
Last edited:
The posts here are absolutely asinine. The FAA is trying to get their kitten by asking for a pony. If anyone thinks the FFA is going to prevail with requiring a pilots license they are out of their mind. You don't need one to fly hang gliders or ultra lights and they sure as hekk aren't going to get their "pony" by demanding that UAV operators have sport pilot's licenses. (...and we're not pilots, no matter how much you drool over calling yourselves that)
 
The posts here are absolutely asinine. The FAA is trying to get their kitten by asking for a pony. If anyone thinks the FFA is going to prevail with requiring a pilots license they are out of their mind. You don't need one to fly hang gliders or ultra lights and they sure as hekk aren't going to get their "pony" by demanding that UAV operators have sport pilot's licenses. (...and we're not pilots, no matter how much you drool over calling yourselves that)

Because the government "never" does the unthinkable?

Or could it be because ultra lights always have someone's butt in the seat to hold accountable?
Not to mention their "arse" is literally on the line if they fly into another aircraft?
Hang gliders are not powered so that doesn't compare.
Here's the FAA Part 103 Pertaining to UltraLight operations...
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html

Drones, on the other hand, are significant objects, sometimes flown miles from the "operator" and too often into airspace used by regulated aircraft. Big difference.

I "wish" I had as much faith in our ever expanding government as you do at this point. I don't put the revocation of ANY of our freedoms past them at this point. YMMV

Too bad we ALL can't just fly responsibly and not put ourselves on the "radar" in the first place <sigh>
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Clipper707
Y'all are a fun bunch of cry-baby hand-wringers to watch. [lol]

You need to go over to some of the gun forums and watch what the government tries to do (...and fails) every day. It would toughen this bunch up a bit...and you sorely need some toughening.

My flame suit is on. Flame away!
 
The posts here are absolutely asinine. The FAA is trying to get their kitten by asking for a pony. If anyone thinks the FFA is going to prevail with requiring a pilots license they are out of their mind. You don't need one to fly hang gliders or ultra lights and they sure as hekk aren't going to get their "pony" by demanding that UAV operators have sport pilot's licenses. (...and we're not pilots, no matter how much you drool over calling yourselves that)


This is what is in the FAA's NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) we would be called operators


Pilots of a small UAS would be considered “operators”.


Operators would be required to:

* Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center.
* Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
* Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires).
* Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test every 24 months.
* Be at least 17 years old.
* Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule.
* Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.
* Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation.
 
This is what is in the FAA's NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) we would be called operators

Pilots of a small UAS would be considered “operators”.

Operators would be required to:

* Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center.
* Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.
* Obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating (like existing pilot airman certificates, never expires).
* Pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test every 24 months.
* Be at least 17 years old.
* Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule.
* Report an accident to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage.
* Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation.

Are these proposals directed at ALL drone operators or only those wanting to fly for commercial purposes?
 
Are these proposals directed at ALL drone operators or only those wanting to fly for commercial purposes?
They are what the feds are proposing for all UAV operators, hobby or commercial.
There seems to be a lot of confusion, about the pilot license bit. The FAA is requiring a pilot license (sport as minimum) ONLY to those asking for a 333 exemption (commercial UAV use) today. About 850 of those have been granted. You can read them all here and notice every exemption requires a license to act as pilot in command (PIC). So, IMHO, if you apply to use your Phantom for commercial use today (333) , you must have a pilot's license. BUT in a year or two (I hope) the feds will finally issue their rules which, as proposed, will NOT require a pilot's license for either hobby or commercial use. Did I explain that right? If not please correct me.:oops:

As far as semantics, yes, I will call myself a UAV PILOT! I also hold a commercial pilot license. Even the Air Force sensor operators (most USAF UAV pilots were pilot rated before transferring to UAVs, although the program is now taking brand spanking new non-pilot rated second lieutenants and training them as UAV pilots) and the Army enlisted personnel "flying" UAVs are awarded wings on their uniforms. The FAA will probably use the term operator for one reason, IMHO, the agency is run by pilots and look at us as a lower form of life, they resent the whole UAV explosion and Congress dragging them kicking and screaming into the UAV business. Just
2cents.gif
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,355
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.