People like this will have us all grounded

333 Exception holders are probably part of the issue as well. All of us other flyers are taking away from their monopoly on footage!
Surely 333 exception holders are not reporting rogue drones to the authorities, and if they are the cause of the sightings they their position should be known, if it's the same arrangement as CAA approval here in UK. Any flight outside of hobby parameters needs a submitted flight plan.

By the way, elsewhere it has been said that FAA stipulations on the where and how high of drone flying is advisory only. Here, the CAA have recently handed all non compliance issues over to the police for investigation and prosecution!
 
Surely 333 exception holders are not reporting rogue drones to the authorities, and if they are the cause of the sightings they their position should be known, if it's the same arrangement as CAA approval here in UK. Any flight outside of hobby parameters needs a submitted flight plan.

By the way, elsewhere it has been said that FAA stipulations on the where and how high of drone flying is advisory only. Here, the CAA have recently handed all non compliance issues over to the police for investigation and prosecution!
I'm not saying that 333 holders are the only problem. Its just likely that they have something to do with it. None of the reports that I know of have been substantiated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fourprops
I'm not saying that 333 holders are the only problem. Its just likely that they have something to do with it. None of the reports that I know of have been substantiated.
I understand that. I'm still puzzled as to how 333 holders can be a problem at all.
 
Anyone can make a report. 333 holders could see non-holders as encroaching on their income potential. Kinda unrelated, but not.. an exemption holder will be the one to report someone for doing "free" work for, lets say, a golf coarse video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fourprops
Ok. I understand now. But I thought they were mentioned in the context of flakey reports of near misses from pilots. Maybe I've got my threads crossed [emoji12]
 
Ah. I was thinking of quad drivers with exemptions. I'll get my coat [emoji37]
 
Do you all recall when that jet was safely put down in the Hudson River? I recall seeing a heck of a lot of footage of radar recordings which showed the guilty geese moving down the Hudson and across land just before the strike. At the time the geese were not thought to be a problem.
My point is that they (and other birds!) all showed up on Control radar! If they can show up why can't drones show up? And if they do why can't these recordings be checked to determine whether they were birds, drones or someone's fertile imagination?

[You can watch the YouTube video if you Google a few key words. It's fascinating in a forensic sort of way to see those geese, the jet, and the two crossing paths.]
 
A flock of geese have a lot more of a radar footprint than a single quad has. I really doubt any DJI product would show up on radar
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyhighdiver
Here's the thing guys. Most reports according to the FAA are coming from pilots of small aircraft. Including some from ultralights. Usually there is no confirmation from other reporters and not a shred of physical evidence (footage from the ubiquitous GoPro camera that now seems to be attached to every small aircraft windscreen and ultralight flyers helmets). One commercial airliner reported seeing a drone in their airspace at over 23,000 feet ASL. Simply if there was a drone at 23,000 it was a fixed wing military aircraft.
Remember in the 60s (ha ha most of you guys weren't born yet. In fact some of your parents weren't born yet) there were UFO reports from every plane and kite until the FAA started pulling licenses for crackpot reporting.
Truth is that there are literally millions of "biological" birds flying all over airspace and you almost never hear about one of them causing a wreck.
While I condemn flying in a outrageously dangerous manner, we can't self regulate and condemn each other to the point that we will be flying in only designated model aircraft parks.
I fly a lot over my backyard, which is over 50 acres in a national forest. I have seen too many small aircraft and ultralights and balloons cross my airspace at less than 400 feet (which I use as operational ceiling). I have also seen military helos cross my fields at less than 200 feet. In such cases I yield to them ASAP. That, to me, is the behavior we should aspire to, not staying out of the skies because there is the remotest possibility that the toy we are flying might hurt somebody or something.
Remember at the beginning of the automobile age there were laws requiring that when operating a motorized vehicle in town, the driver had to drive his vehicle behind a person ringing a bell and carrying a lantern to warn the citizens of the vehicle's approach.
+1000
 
Do you all recall when that jet was safely put down in the Hudson River? I recall seeing a heck of a lot of footage of radar recordings which showed the guilty geese moving down the Hudson and across land just before the strike. At the time the geese were not thought to be a problem.
My point is that they (and other birds!) all showed up on Control radar! If they can show up why can't drones show up? And if they do why can't these recordings be checked to determine whether they were birds, drones or someone's fertile imagination?

[You can watch the YouTube video if you Google a few key words. It's fascinating in a forensic sort of way to see those geese, the jet, and the two crossing paths.]
YES they should have wing cuffed them and thrown them all in jail and taken their rights away so they don't fly again.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,093
Messages
1,467,581
Members
104,976
Latest member
cgarner1