Why do you assume there is no way to communicate with the helo? The helo can fly as low as is safe......Tree top level is NOT safe. If they are flying at tree top level they have more then a drone to worry about!
News Helicopter vs Drone
- Thread starter Youngbill
- Start date
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I agree. But you can't just bulldoze your way into a situation with your new technology if it puts lives at risk.
Here is a thought, Youngbill, The current rules are that you, the UAV pilot, are required to land should a manned aircraft approach. You have a few choices:
1. Land like you are required to do.
2. Keep flying and get in trouble. (Felony to interfere with an aircraft in most cases)
3. Think that you have the right to the airspace and cause an incident making EVERYONE in the hobby be required to get a certification in order to fly their drones because you don't agree with the rules.
4. Lobby to change the current rules so you can fly the way you want. (good luck with this one)
You do realize that as a hobby flyer you are not able to communicate with the towers or the other pilots and therefore have no way to communicate with them right? Once you fly with exemptions this rule changes but even them I am required to land and yield right of way to ANY manned aircraft. So the "entitled" defense don't quite cut it any way you look at it.
1. Land like you are required to do.
2. Keep flying and get in trouble. (Felony to interfere with an aircraft in most cases)
3. Think that you have the right to the airspace and cause an incident making EVERYONE in the hobby be required to get a certification in order to fly their drones because you don't agree with the rules.
4. Lobby to change the current rules so you can fly the way you want. (good luck with this one)
You do realize that as a hobby flyer you are not able to communicate with the towers or the other pilots and therefore have no way to communicate with them right? Once you fly with exemptions this rule changes but even them I am required to land and yield right of way to ANY manned aircraft. So the "entitled" defense don't quite cut it any way you look at it.
Talk about without thought...."Amazon Delivery Drones, Skeet Shooting With Prizes".
Why can't the drone be right above the story? You sound like the firefighters that get mad at the phantom that is flying over the house fire.....Really!?! What harm is that phantom doing?
OK when someone suffering from self-serving bias wants to do nothing but argue, I am done. I understand that you made the comment this is "Only Hypothetical" but you are way to determined to try and change everyone's views (not going so well by the way)and that makes no longer hypothetical and is your personal belief. As I stated above you have way too many issues with your thought process on this. Good luck on your endeavors and here's to hoping you don't ruin things for other hobbyists or hurt anyone. Oh and anyone that reads my "Amazon Delivery Drones, Skeet Shooting With Prizes" quote and takes it serious has some serious issues and should seek help. (It's a joke Youngbill, get over it).
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I'm sure the guy flying at wildfires thought the same thing. Drones have no business at emergency situations until there is a clearly defined protocol for how they can be there without interference.
With my exemptions I am allowed to gather news footage but it is stipulated that if a manned aircraft approaches I have to land regardless of any other circumstances. I don't understand whay people refuse to understand the safety of this. It's like they feel their $1259 toy is more valuable than a helo crew's lives.
Seems like this isn't much more different than knowing the rules of waterways. Big boats get priority over small boats, period. Yes, there are some situations when a larger speedboat still needs to yield to a smaller sailboat, but generally speaking, the big guys rule the water.
In our case, manned helicopters get priority.
In our case, manned helicopters get priority.
Wake up...I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I simply wanted to have a debate. The nannies made it personal and I just can't help myself and give it back to them. Its all been hashed out...I find it funny people keep commenting
Having a debate is using fact to prove your point and win the debate by being smarter than the other opponents. NOT using your personal beliefs to justify why something "should" be the way you think it should be. The fact is that the rules are already in place, so to answer your "Hypothetical" question of why? Because the rules and the experts say it is dangerous and puts peoples lives at risk therefore the rule of the FAA is that you land your UNMANNED toy. Now if you go on and try and say it should be otherwise you prove my point that it is your personal belief and you are doing nothing but trying to argue your point of view to change my belief. SO Wake up Youngbill, as you so eloquently put it, this is not a debate, it is however you wishing the rules were different and more geared towards you than the "nannies" or the "copter jockeys" as you call them.Wake up...I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I simply wanted to have a debate. The nannies made it personal and I just can't help myself and give it back to them. Its all been hashed out...I find it funny people keep commenting
I'm currently operating under an FAA COA, Section 333 Exemption. The COA only allows me to operate at 200 AGL and below. Also, I am required to file a NOTAM before every flight which shows my flights location. That NOTAM will be seen by any other aircraft with plans on operating in that area. They will know that UAS will be in the area operating under 200 AGL. Aircraft, including helicopters, are not allowed to fly under 1000 AGL in congested areas. With this, there should never be an issue where right-of-way will be a concern. There is plenty of airspace separation for both aircraft and UAS to operate.
Without knowing your exact exemptions it is hard to say what you are exempt from. My exemptions allow me to fly and conduct business as normal without NOTAM's unless I am within a certain mileage from an airport depending on the airport classification. None the less it is stipulated in your Section 333 as follows,
NOTAM's are only required by us if we are within 5 miles of any major airport, 3 miles of smaller airports and 2 miles of lesser airports or glider pads.
Utah Drone, can you give me a link to your statement "NOTAM's are only required by us if we are within 5 miles of any major airport, 3 miles of smaller airports and 2 miles of lesser airports or glider pads." I am trying to prove that to someone. Thanks
I wondered the same thing and the way I had to prove it was to have the local FSDO go over it with us. We needed to prove it too but that's the way we had to do it. The FSDO sat down with us and went over the whole COA and 333 with us for almost an hour. A lot of this is still unknown by them too. Until they seen my exemptions they hadn't heard of anyone being exempt from airworthiness either. The way he put it was the COA is where it states that and the COA is the same for everyone with a 333.
UtahDrone, you are probably flying under what FAA calls a "blanket waiver". 99% of the exemptions they issued are under this waiver, including mine. Section D of the COA requires all flights to file a NOTAM with a FSDO. NOTAM requirements when within 5 nm of an airport are the same, the only difference is that the local controllers (tower) will be notified via an L NOTAM. I would be surprised if your waiver would omit the requirement for a NOTAM seeing how that's pretty important information the FAA would want all aircraft to know.
Yes, UASs must remain clear and give way...500 AGL vertical separation meets this requirement.
We questioned that same exact section and he insisted that NOTAM's were only needed within those parameters I spoke of. He cited that the 200' COA rule and even our 400' 333 rule would not be in any areas of an aircraft unless in those areas. However, we still make it a practice of filing NOTAM's regardless. I am just stating what we have been informed by the SLC FSDO. Only issue he sees is helicopters and then our "See and Avoid" rule kicks in.
Careful, u r using logic and common sense. Veeeery dangerous.
Shouldn't this just be common sense to ALL operators, not just ones with exemptions and COA's?? I don't think I'd want to be the one that gets my name plastered all over the news that I caused someone serious harm or death because I was flying my quad and got in the way of emergency personnel or such... just my 1.5 cents....
