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
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.
Do we know that is, in fact the reason for the chopper to be there or is this an assumption?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.
Not one iota of evidence the chopper pilot did what's alleged by this drama queen.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.
Not one iota of evidence the chopper pilot did what's alleged by this drama queen.
You are kidding, seriously?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?
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.
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.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.
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)
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.
They are what the feds are proposing for all UAV operators, hobby or commercial.Are these proposals directed at ALL drone operators or only those wanting to fly for commercial purposes?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.