There it is, real or imagined, birds, balloons or flying saucers; this is what we are facing...
http://psflight.org/487/news-and-updates-faa-releases-pilot-uas-reports/
http://psflight.org/487/news-and-updates-faa-releases-pilot-uas-reports/
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Shoot first, ask questions later!
We are now the scapegoat for anything in the air.
This is what we are up against!
No matter that months later it is determined to be a real bird that was struck, and not the imaginary drone the pilot claimed he had hit!
We are now the scapegoat for anything in the air.
This is what we are up against!
No matter that months later it is determined to be a real bird that was struck, and not the imaginary drone the pilot claimed he had hit!
"Summary: DRONE ACTIVITY REPORTED BY MS. MELISSA SPEDDEN, PRESIDENT OF LAKESHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION IN ASHBURN VA. (Melissa Spedden DRONE WAS SIGHTED ON TWO OCASSIONS; ONE ON SUNDAY NOVEMBER 9, 2014 OVER ADDRESS 20576 SNOWSHOE SQUARE AND THE OTHER ON THURSDAY NOVEMBER 13, 2014 OVER 20595 CORNSTALK. THIS REPORT BEING FILED AT THE REQUEST OF NCRCC, NO OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE."Shoot first, ask questions later!
We are now the scapegoat for anything in the air.
This is what we are up against!
No matter that months later it is determined to be a real bird that was struck, and not the imaginary drone the pilot claimed he had hit!
I read this and my reaction was so effing what?
As I've said quite a few times, UFOs have been replaced by drones and these are not 'pilot reports' but ANY reports many of which show nothing dangerous or nefarious. If I notify a small airport that I am going to fly within 5 miles, will it generate a drone sighting report, because some of these aren't even sightings, but advisories?
I thought this was a serious report of pilot sightings but it's not. Shame on you FAA.
The ASRS database is basically the same kind of reports (in fact, I'm sure it is one of the sources for the data) full of strange altitudes/locations and descriptions. Cylindrical UAS? Really?
I was just reading a tweet from Brendan Schulman @dronelaws talking about it. All of those "close calls" arte now listed as "possible encounters".
https://twitter.com/dronelaws
I'm not going to say I told you so, though.
Also..........................
Think Tank Prescribes Chill Pill for Drone Regulators
“Keep Calm and Carry on Reasonable Drone Rules” That’s the advice of one of America’s leading policy think tanks when it comes to UAV regulation.
In a recently published column for the Brookings Institute, David Swindell, Kevin C. Desouza and Sabrina P.K. Glimcher call for common sense rules that recognize the reality that drone technology is here to stay. Citing recent cases in Iowa City, Iowa and Charlottesville, Virginia, where drones were banned outright, lead author Desouza points out overzealous regulators could legislate away the many benefits UAVs afford.
“As is commonly the case with new technology, governments typically engaged with a heavy hand that sometimes misses the opportunities afforded by the new technologies to improve city services and quality of life,” Desouza writes.
The report notes that while high-profile drone misuse makes for exciting television (specifically the recent California wildfire drone debacle), governments need to avoid “regulation by default,” Brookings advises lawmakers to focus on sound policy rather than alarmist reactions to drones themselves.
“State and local governments need to engage on this policy issue more proactively. To do so, however, requires a delicate balancing act of the multiple competing interests of legitimate commercial uses, policing, public safety, privacy, and private property concerns,” Desouza said, adding that such a debate is made more difficult in an arena where “federal law remains unsettled.”
http://dronelife.com/2015/08/18/think-tank-prescribes-chill-pill-for-drone-regulators/
**** shame we have to fight this entire regime.................... every cabinet position and ABC agency is STUFFED with the raging far-left whackos that you-know-who appointed himself or by proxy. You can disagree with that political statement all you want, the facts are staring you right in the face. When some semblance of order is restored, maybe we can get on with encouraging this new technology instead of straight-up LYING about it as these agencies are doing! And with the far-left media completely in their pocket, you wonder how this FAKE calamity was perpetrated?! Puuuuuuuleeeese!!!!!
https://twitter.com/dronelaws
I'm not going to say I told you so, though.
Also..........................
Think Tank Prescribes Chill Pill for Drone Regulators
“Keep Calm and Carry on Reasonable Drone Rules” That’s the advice of one of America’s leading policy think tanks when it comes to UAV regulation.
In a recently published column for the Brookings Institute, David Swindell, Kevin C. Desouza and Sabrina P.K. Glimcher call for common sense rules that recognize the reality that drone technology is here to stay. Citing recent cases in Iowa City, Iowa and Charlottesville, Virginia, where drones were banned outright, lead author Desouza points out overzealous regulators could legislate away the many benefits UAVs afford.
“As is commonly the case with new technology, governments typically engaged with a heavy hand that sometimes misses the opportunities afforded by the new technologies to improve city services and quality of life,” Desouza writes.
The report notes that while high-profile drone misuse makes for exciting television (specifically the recent California wildfire drone debacle), governments need to avoid “regulation by default,” Brookings advises lawmakers to focus on sound policy rather than alarmist reactions to drones themselves.
“State and local governments need to engage on this policy issue more proactively. To do so, however, requires a delicate balancing act of the multiple competing interests of legitimate commercial uses, policing, public safety, privacy, and private property concerns,” Desouza said, adding that such a debate is made more difficult in an arena where “federal law remains unsettled.”
http://dronelife.com/2015/08/18/think-tank-prescribes-chill-pill-for-drone-regulators/
**** shame we have to fight this entire regime.................... every cabinet position and ABC agency is STUFFED with the raging far-left whackos that you-know-who appointed himself or by proxy. You can disagree with that political statement all you want, the facts are staring you right in the face. When some semblance of order is restored, maybe we can get on with encouraging this new technology instead of straight-up LYING about it as these agencies are doing! And with the far-left media completely in their pocket, you wonder how this FAKE calamity was perpetrated?! Puuuuuuuleeeese!!!!!
In spite of my enjoyment of occasional humor, I've read the entire NPRM on operation and certification of small unmanned aircraft systems, Subtitle B on UAS including 331 - 337 and most of the FAA modernization reform act of 2012.
On one hand, the FAA does seem to want to "exert" it's position of authority on drones. I think it's likely due to the fact that Congress limits the FAA's authority over Small Unmanned Aircraft (drones) and the proliferation of drones has put the National Airspace under close scrutiny.
In many instances, the FAA reasserts that in spite of Congress's assertion, it does have enforcement and penalty powers over ANY and ALL aircraft (includes drones, hobby and commercial) that "endanger the safety of the National Airspace".
The FAA is vigorously working to "enlighten" and remind everyone that it is the defacto authority on the Control of the National Airspace.
On the other hand, there really are a lot of people who have never flown so much as a helium balloon buying these very capable aircraft and penetrating deep and high into controlled airspace causing real concerns.
Even though many on the left will refute that government has expanded much over the last 6 years, there is compelling evidence that the Federal government has become much more invasive and controlling. Of course, those in favor of big government will see things according to their perspective.
It's hard to say where this will all land when the dust finally clears. I suppose the government will ultimately win (as usual) and there will be some loss in hobbyists freedom to enjoy their hobbies.
We have to hope sensibility will reign and bureaucrats will be pressured into common sense and restraint.
On one hand, the FAA does seem to want to "exert" it's position of authority on drones. I think it's likely due to the fact that Congress limits the FAA's authority over Small Unmanned Aircraft (drones) and the proliferation of drones has put the National Airspace under close scrutiny.
In many instances, the FAA reasserts that in spite of Congress's assertion, it does have enforcement and penalty powers over ANY and ALL aircraft (includes drones, hobby and commercial) that "endanger the safety of the National Airspace".
The FAA is vigorously working to "enlighten" and remind everyone that it is the defacto authority on the Control of the National Airspace.
On the other hand, there really are a lot of people who have never flown so much as a helium balloon buying these very capable aircraft and penetrating deep and high into controlled airspace causing real concerns.
Even though many on the left will refute that government has expanded much over the last 6 years, there is compelling evidence that the Federal government has become much more invasive and controlling. Of course, those in favor of big government will see things according to their perspective.
It's hard to say where this will all land when the dust finally clears. I suppose the government will ultimately win (as usual) and there will be some loss in hobbyists freedom to enjoy their hobbies.
We have to hope sensibility will reign and bureaucrats will be pressured into common sense and restraint.
JKD - ???
I have absolutely no idea what your rant is supposed to mean. But you are completely wrong about everything I understood in your rambling. Are you confusing the Part 107 NPRM with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012? The NPRM, titled 'Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems' are the proposed rules that the FAA was directed by Congress to promulgate in Section 333 of the FMRA and deals only with the commercial use of UAS's.
The FAA did try to interpret Section 336 of the FMRA as a rule, but that was stopped by a court order because the FMRA specifically said that he FAA could not make rules for hobby flight.
The NTSB in the Pirker decision has said that anything that is designed to fly is an aircraft only for the purposes of enforcing 14 CFR 91.13 - 'Careless or reckless operation'. Only 91.13 - no other FAA rules apply to hobby aircraft.
The FAA has been remarkably generous to commercial and hobby drone operators compared to what they could require under existing statutes. If the FAA demanded Part 25 certification of the aircraft and that everything installed on the aircraft be certified and only installed by a certified technician, then your Phantom would weigh ten pounds and cost over $10,000.
And there is no Section 337 of the FMRA.
I have absolutely no idea what your rant is supposed to mean. But you are completely wrong about everything I understood in your rambling. Are you confusing the Part 107 NPRM with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012? The NPRM, titled 'Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems' are the proposed rules that the FAA was directed by Congress to promulgate in Section 333 of the FMRA and deals only with the commercial use of UAS's.
The FAA did try to interpret Section 336 of the FMRA as a rule, but that was stopped by a court order because the FMRA specifically said that he FAA could not make rules for hobby flight.
The NTSB in the Pirker decision has said that anything that is designed to fly is an aircraft only for the purposes of enforcing 14 CFR 91.13 - 'Careless or reckless operation'. Only 91.13 - no other FAA rules apply to hobby aircraft.
The FAA has been remarkably generous to commercial and hobby drone operators compared to what they could require under existing statutes. If the FAA demanded Part 25 certification of the aircraft and that everything installed on the aircraft be certified and only installed by a certified technician, then your Phantom would weigh ten pounds and cost over $10,000.
And there is no Section 337 of the FMRA.
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
I'm just glad the FAA is in charge of control of my National Airspace, rather than any local authority! They trump everybody, and so far, they say no local government has any legal authority to restrict my ability to fly, until the FAA decides what rules and regs they want to impose, and, other than Guidelines, none exist yet!
They trump everybody, and so far, they say no local government has any legal authority to restrict my ability to fly, until the FAA decides what rules and regs they want to impose, and, other than Guidelines, none exist yet! "no local government has any legal authority to restrict my ability to fly". Correct, but they can restrict your ability to launch via ordinances, so try not to piss everybody off...I'm just glad the FAA is in charge of control of my National Airspace, rather than any local authority!
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
Deal! With my current 2.7 mile range on the stock setup, I might be able to work around any ground launching restrictions, or I'll learn to hand launch from the air!"no local government has any legal authority to restrict my ability to fly". Correct, but they can restrict your ability to launch via ordinances, so try not to piss everybody off...
They don't have jurisdiction over the air, right? Might need to find a tall building!
And despite all this...we will still see vids on YouTube or mentions in the many forums of quads going up 2k and or above clouds at anything over legal height! Anybody want a bet on how soon laws force DJI et al to limit height....much as trucks in some countries have speed limiters.
My thoughts on all this...
For many years " modellers " have been building and flying RC controlled fixed wing aircraft and helicopters...without hassle!
Suddenly quads come out and right away.....the law gets involved.
Ignoring all other arguments ... My view is that the difference at least in part is the fact that quad flying has become instant and individual.
We do t have to build our aircraft.....China does it for us and it's really not a lot of outlay...at least until DJI become a major player.
We..mostly...don't join clubs and meet up once a week locally and go flying , taking turns to go around a local ploughed field.
I hate to say this...but what we need is our own Individual countries "National Association of Quad Flying...NAQF!
Wildcatting Mavericks ..no matter what they get involved with have a limited "active life" before legislation kills the freedom side of things.
I saw this happen in the UK with SCUBA, very soon none BSAC clubs and "cowboy" divers were looked down upon, dive shops refused to fill air cylinders. From cowboy diver. I went onto second class diver and club diving officer!...and stopped enjoying going out to a wreck!
We need a high profile person with TV draw to shout up for we "hobby flyers".
Without a figurehead.."they" can make or change laws without first dealing with civil rights, freedom of choice....and then they will impose an aviation tax on quads and an annual registration fee and safety inspections...
Seen it all before....
I'm just glad the FAA is in charge of control of my National Airspace, rather than any local authority!
well said. my local govt is probably for issuing drone hunting licenses...
Well I read through all 650 of the reports. My pontificating is the first 14 minutes, the remainder is readings and reactions to actual reports from the FAA listing. Here is my video take on it:
Last edited:
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,300
- Reaction score
- 9,242
From the country that was convinced that witches in the community was a serious problem and the response was to
execute at least 25 people.
The country that was paralysed with fear it had been infiltrated at all levels by communists in the 1950s.
In the 50s and 60s it was UFOs and little green men with their **** probes. Project Blue Book investigated 12,618
UFO reports.
14 years ago a significant proportion of the population believed that Iraq and Afghanistan had attacked the World
Trade Centre in New York.
More recently a large number of people were convinced that their President was not a citizen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And now the latest hysterical paranoia has a full scale invasion of drones threatening security, privacy and air travel.
Forget facts or evidence. They only get in the way when you want to whip the ignorant public and legislators into a frenzy.
I skimmed the first 40 records of the FAA's latest list 646 of pilot, air traffic and citizen reports of possible encounters with unmanned aircraft (UAS).
There are some irresponsible flyers out there but when the report contains incidents like these, the entire report must be regarded as junk and treated as a joke.
... OBSERVED A CYLINDRICAL RED AND SILVER UAS HEADING EASTBOUND AT 8,000 FEET
....REPORTED A UAS OFF RIGHT SIDE OF ACFT AT 2,100 FEET FLYING AT 85 KNOTS 20 S ORF. UAS HAD A TRANSPONDER AND SQUAWKING
... A CITIZEN REPORTED A UAS WITH MULTIPLE LIGHTS WAS FLYING ABOUT 100 FEET ABOVE HIS HOME
NMAC WITH UAS, 4 S CAIRNS AAF AIRPORT, AT 2,000 FEET. UAS WAS 6-10 FEET IN LENGTH
... REPORTED A UAS AT 9,000 FEET 50 MILES SOUTH OF DCA ARPT. NO DESCRIPTION WAS GIVEN. NO LEO NOTIFIED.
... REPORTED THE UAS WAS DESCRIBED AS SILVER AND BLACK, 3 FEET LONG WITH THINGS STICKING OUT OF IT
... CESSNA C172 REPORTED A UAS BLUE IN COLOR HEADING NORTHEAST BOUND AT 4,500 FEET
... CESSNA C175 REPORTED A BLACK UAS WITH A SINGLE RED LIGHT, BETWEEN 3 - 10 FEET WIDE IN THE VCNTY OF BEVERLY MUNI ARPT AT 8,500 FEET
... OFF RIGHT WING AT 6,000 FEET 9 NNE SAVANNAH. DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT UNKNOWN. UAS APPEARED ROUND BODIED ANDAPPROXIMATELY 15 FEET ACROSS.
... CANADAIR CL60 AT 5,000 FEET REPORTED A UAS AT SAME ALTITUDE
... CESSNA C172 REPORTED A RED AND WHITE UAS 2 FEET IN DIAMETER AT 6,000 FEET 4 SE WICHITA. PILOT STATED THAT UAS ALMOST HIT ACFT
... REPORTED A UAS APPROX 100 FEET OFF THEIR WING AT 12,000 FEET 15 N MELBOURNE, FL.
execute at least 25 people.
The country that was paralysed with fear it had been infiltrated at all levels by communists in the 1950s.
In the 50s and 60s it was UFOs and little green men with their **** probes. Project Blue Book investigated 12,618
UFO reports.
14 years ago a significant proportion of the population believed that Iraq and Afghanistan had attacked the World
Trade Centre in New York.
More recently a large number of people were convinced that their President was not a citizen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And now the latest hysterical paranoia has a full scale invasion of drones threatening security, privacy and air travel.
Forget facts or evidence. They only get in the way when you want to whip the ignorant public and legislators into a frenzy.
I skimmed the first 40 records of the FAA's latest list 646 of pilot, air traffic and citizen reports of possible encounters with unmanned aircraft (UAS).
There are some irresponsible flyers out there but when the report contains incidents like these, the entire report must be regarded as junk and treated as a joke.
... OBSERVED A CYLINDRICAL RED AND SILVER UAS HEADING EASTBOUND AT 8,000 FEET
....REPORTED A UAS OFF RIGHT SIDE OF ACFT AT 2,100 FEET FLYING AT 85 KNOTS 20 S ORF. UAS HAD A TRANSPONDER AND SQUAWKING
... A CITIZEN REPORTED A UAS WITH MULTIPLE LIGHTS WAS FLYING ABOUT 100 FEET ABOVE HIS HOME
NMAC WITH UAS, 4 S CAIRNS AAF AIRPORT, AT 2,000 FEET. UAS WAS 6-10 FEET IN LENGTH
... REPORTED A UAS AT 9,000 FEET 50 MILES SOUTH OF DCA ARPT. NO DESCRIPTION WAS GIVEN. NO LEO NOTIFIED.
... REPORTED THE UAS WAS DESCRIBED AS SILVER AND BLACK, 3 FEET LONG WITH THINGS STICKING OUT OF IT
... CESSNA C172 REPORTED A UAS BLUE IN COLOR HEADING NORTHEAST BOUND AT 4,500 FEET
... CESSNA C175 REPORTED A BLACK UAS WITH A SINGLE RED LIGHT, BETWEEN 3 - 10 FEET WIDE IN THE VCNTY OF BEVERLY MUNI ARPT AT 8,500 FEET
... OFF RIGHT WING AT 6,000 FEET 9 NNE SAVANNAH. DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT UNKNOWN. UAS APPEARED ROUND BODIED ANDAPPROXIMATELY 15 FEET ACROSS.
... CANADAIR CL60 AT 5,000 FEET REPORTED A UAS AT SAME ALTITUDE
... CESSNA C172 REPORTED A RED AND WHITE UAS 2 FEET IN DIAMETER AT 6,000 FEET 4 SE WICHITA. PILOT STATED THAT UAS ALMOST HIT ACFT
... REPORTED A UAS APPROX 100 FEET OFF THEIR WING AT 12,000 FEET 15 N MELBOURNE, FL.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
That's quite a long preamble of irrelevant and pointless opinion. Inappropriate and unnecessary.
Similar threads
- Sticky
