Regulations WILL come...

This reminds me of the Citizens' Band (CB) radios of the '70s. Shortly after I purchased one, the Federal regulations required everyone to buy an operator's license, and to keep the power below 5 watts. Of course many folks didn't get a license, and more than a few pumped up the power. Talking "skip" was popular, but illegal. The feds tried to enforce the law, but never made much of a dent in the scofflaws, as they were overwhelmed with the huge number of radios in operation. Eventually they rescinded the requirement to have a license, and mostly ignored the jacked-up power radios. Maybe if enough people buy and fly these drones, the feds will give up on enforcement on those regulations (whatever they may be) too.

Only difference, no one got hurt operating CBs. Hopefully no one (except the operator) will get hurt by a flying drone.
 
Flyer91 said:
If you think the Vision doesn't have the kinetic energy of a firearm when flying within its normal performance envelope, you need to do the math for 2.5 lbs traveling at 30MPH ... (or just have somebody toss one at your head out of the window of a car moving at 30MPH).
It absolutely does.

It absolutely doesn't. Not only did you equate discharging a firearm to flying a quadcopter, you made a really, really dumb claim about kinetic energy.

The Vision does not have anywhere near the kinetic energy of a firearm.

Kinetic energy:

44 Magnum 1458 Joules

Vision flying at 30mph 102 Joules
 
CRankin said:
Flyer91 said:
BTW: ... rangers have guns, and they ain't gonna like it Yogi! ;)

Keep in mind that it's legal to carry in most federal parks now...

Good Point! LOL

BTW, I'm not saying that it's OK for people to do stupid things in federal parks or anywhere... but when one considers the desires that many like I would have - flying out slowly and getting into position to get a few pictures that just couldn't be captured any other way - there's hardly the danger that you presuppose.

Man ... I am so totally right there with you.
I would even be happy if they would settle on a compromise, and allow flying cameras at the park's main attractions/most photographic areas at somethig like certain times/days/etc.
To just ban them really does suck.
However ..... I do think we all just can't decide on what laws/rules we will obey/follow.
We need to work together to change those that don't make sense, or find a sensible compromise.


Perhaps silly and capricious regulations such as this will be worth challenging, just to take some pencil-wielding power-hungry policy-pushers in the government to task. I'm sure that by now there are more than a few people with deep pockets who own a UAV and might be impacted by this.

Yeah, it's difficult to get a fruitful conversation going on the forums, because of the nature of the beast.
It's so darn easy to misinterpret a person's motives and/or meaning, and to get pissed if we think we, or our idea's ... are being diss'd.
For example, I don't think it's dangerous to you to fly at the parks at all, nor did I mean to infer that.
My point was can we all just decide on what reg's can we decide to follow based on our own perspectives.
For example I know for a fact that I would not propose any danger to you if 'I' was allowed to hunt wild pig in urban areas, but I also know and have known people that should never even be allowd to say "firearm". ;)
It truly is a perspective thing ..... that's hard to express with the written word ... especially in a forum like this.

So to get organized and oppose bannings and restrictive laws/rules we are left with going to the next best thing and/or (what some people consider to be) the least of all evils ... and support the loudest voice that's out there and moving in ..... at least our 'general' direction.
I.e. the AMA ...unless you feel they are the enemy, and have sold out, or are a government counter-fun group .... etc. ;)
 
panhygrous pantler said:
Flyer91 said:
If you think the Vision doesn't have the kinetic energy of a firearm when flying within its normal performance envelope, you need to do the math for 2.5 lbs traveling at 30MPH ... (or just have somebody toss one at your head out of the window of a car moving at 30MPH).
It absolutely does.

It absolutely doesn't. Not only did you equate discharging a firearm to flying a quadcopter, you made a really, really dumb claim about kinetic energy.

The Vision does not have anywhere near the kinetic energy of a firearm.

Kinetic energy:

44 Magnum 1458 Joules
Vision flying at 30mph 102 Joules

You are just plain wrong about the energy and damage it will do.
And based on your other insulting posts and responses to other people, I suspect that I'm not alone in asking you to put your money where your mouth is, and do us all a favor by giving a 2.5 Lb object traveling 30MPH to your head a try ..... then come back and tell us it didn't hurt.
You will be every bit as dead as if you have graciaously use the 44 mag. :eek:
 
Flyer91 said:
panhygrous pantler said:
Flyer91 said:
If you think the Vision doesn't have the kinetic energy of a firearm when flying within its normal performance envelope, you need to do the math for 2.5 lbs traveling at 30MPH ... (or just have somebody toss one at your head out of the window of a car moving at 30MPH).
It absolutely does.

It absolutely doesn't. Not only did you equate discharging a firearm to flying a quadcopter, you made a really, really dumb claim about kinetic energy.

The Vision does not have anywhere near the kinetic energy of a firearm.

Kinetic energy:

44 Magnum 1458 Joules
Vision flying at 30mph 102 Joules

Flyer91 said:
You are just plain wrong about the energy and damage it will do.

The science is very firmly established. It's a simple formula. So yeah, you're wrong again.

I was being kind to you by using the 44 Magnum (1458 Joules) vs. the Beowulf that you referenced (up to 3100 Joules).

If you think that I am just plain wrong, please tell me the amount kinetic energy a Vision has when flying at 30mph. Please provide the formula that you used to come up with your number also so everyone can see how you got to that number.

Good luck.

p.s. " do us all a favor by giving a 2.5 Lb object traveling 30MPH to your head a try ..... then come back and tell us it didn't hurt.
You will be every bit as dead as if you have graciaously[sic] use the 44 mag"

Try again? Where do people like you come up with these wacky claims?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DetkJRv_YQ[/youtube]
 
Any object of a weight-size-class as the phantom; when it falls out of the sky and hits you or your car is going to leave a mark. If not an open wound or worse. (the battery weight alone gives it mass.. add momentum and hurt is on its way.

Now add four blades to an air guided vehicle and the incident rate goes up exponentially. As the number of these things increase, the number of incidents will dramatically go up.

Odds are, we'll probably see the first manned aircraft collision with a small UAV this year. If it hits the air screen (windshield) just right it will bust it open.

-----------------------

I find more "utility" flying these things BELOW 400 feet; to see things remotely on the ground. But, some of us like to see how high these new-tech things can go which is well into small manned aircraft space.
 
panhygrous pantler said:
The science is very firmly established. It's a simple formula. So yeah, you're wrong again.

I was being kind to you by using the 44 Magnum (1458 Joules) vs. the Beowulf that you referenced (up to 3100 Joules).

If you think that I am just plain wrong, please tell me the amount kinetic energy a Vision has when flying at 30mph. Please provide the formula that you used to come up with your number also so everyone can see how you got to that number.

Good luck.

p.s. " do us all a favor by giving a 2.5 Lb object traveling 30MPH to your head a try ..... then come back and tell us it didn't hurt.
You will be every bit as dead as if you have graciaously[sic] use the 44 mag"

Try again? Where do people like you come up with these wacky claims?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DetkJRv_YQ[/youtube]

I din't say it had the equivalent energy to my Beowulf, you are the ignorant one that made that assertion, just like you did by insinuating the phantom in the viddy was travelling at 30MPH.

I said it will have the kentic energy of a fiream ... which is does.
This was actually proven many years ago with a 1/2A RC aricraft of ~equal weight (2 to 3 lbs) traveling at 40MPH, in an article in RCM called "Slide Rule Balistics" where the AC did the same amount of destructive damage as a 45 ACP to ballistic gelatin.

But once again, PLEASE prove to us it's safe to fly into people at 30MPH by doing a personal demonstration.
Hey use a watermellon instead of your head and a 2.5 lb ball fishing weight.
Bigger waste, but c'mon ...... just be wiling to put you money were you obnoxious and loud mouth is, before you tell people it's completely safe to fly into people at max speed with a Vision.
Cuz to me ... by using your 'jump to conclusions' about the viddy, and obviously can't read (or just can't comprehend on a grade school level) responses, that's exactly what you are so irresponsibly saying.
C'mon already ..... show you true grit and take one for the team ....... Just do it!! :)

You won't though will you?
Don't have enough guts or "conviction" in your own theory that's its not all that bad?

BTW: you've made my block list and please do me the same favor in return.
 
CRankin said:
I don't see the point in becoming a member of any organization that wants to crawl into bed with the FAA. In this hobby, the FAA should be viewed more as the enemy than as a friend.

Yes, I'm one of those people who says "regulations be damned". If I decide to head to one of our national parks I'll take it with me and at least try to use it. Worst case scenario is that a ranger comes over and asks me to land and put it away... at which point I'm willing to question his authority to do so.

My belief is simple: as long as one flies responsibly, and maintains the equipment carefully, and performs pre-flight checks, then one should be OK to fly pretty much wherever and whenever. Park authorities and other killjoys should have no business telling us what we can and can't do on land that our tax money pays to keep and maintain. It's public space, and should be open and free to the public to use.

The point of getting close to Congress and the FAA is to help make sure the laws that are written say what you want the laws to say.
 
Flyer91 said:
I din't say it had the equivalent energy to my Beowulf, you are the ignorant one that made that assertion, just like you did by insinuating the phantom in the viddy was travelling at 30MPH.

So many assumptions wrapped in a think layer of confusion.

Flyer91 said:
I said it will have the kentic[sic] energy of a fiream[sic] ... which is does.

Wrong again. That's the third time. Merely repeating the same incorrect claim over and over and over does not change the fact that a Vision traveling at 30mph doesn't have the same kinetic energy as a firearm. That's an indisputable fact.

You should find someone to do the math for you so you can understand. If you can't do it yourself and can't find someone else to do it for I can help you out with the math. Just let me know.

Flyer91 said:
before you tell people it's completely safe to fly into people at max speed with a Vision.

I've never posted that nor do I believe that. You're making things up. Again.

Flyer91 said:
BTW: you've made my block list and please do me the same favor in return.

Why would I do that? Your posts are very amusing and entertaining.
 
ResevorDG said:
But what is the airborne velocity of an unladen phantom flying directly at an unladen swallow?


I'm not sure RD, but I was told that the dove is the bird of peace, the owl is the bird of wisdom, and the swallow if the bird of contraception.....

I'd bet a case of cyber-beer that pantyhose panties (panhygrous pantler) is an expert on the swallow. ;)
 
the groom in that video now has a big gash on his right cheek, a few inch's up and it would have been a totally different story. (The groom that lost an eye to a phantom that was being used professionally witch is not allowed)

I can see the outrage now with all the fuel behind it to cause majorly harsh regulations to come down on UAV's fast and without a second thought to those making the laws.
 
semaj said:
ALL...

after reading through many posts, including my own, I realize that we spend a lot of time Bitching about stuff we really have no control over... I like this forum because it allows me to share and get advice from others regarding our collective hobby...

Now, I'm the opposite of "Must follow ALL rules", however, I do my best to make good decisions while flying, although I have made poor ones, I have never crashed my P2V or P2V+...

That being said... Will Regulations REALLY happen? Should they happen?

I'm 100% for the airport restrictions simply because I know how high I fly mine at times... It will suck for those who live near airports, but would you rather fly your UAS further away or risk ANY chance of causing an accident that could take lives?

This technology is really cool and will ONLY GET BETTER... Eventually, the cost will get down low enough where those OTHER than many of us enthusiast will be flying these things everywhere... I bet many of you know someone that if they had a UAS like the P2V+, they would be pretty reckless... Imagine when the cost to buy one of these hits $299 or $199 on ebay :!: :!: :!:

People will fly these things ANY and EVERY way they want without worrying about a significant $$$ lost... "It was just $200 bucks, I'll just get another"... That day will be bad for all of us...

Please enjoy NOW while we can, before the Regulations hit and "ground us all"...


This should go in the News section or something.
I haven't read anything in this thread yet except for the OP but I fear for this as well. It's inevitable.
:(
 
MikesTooLz said:
the groom in that video now has a big gash on his right cheek.

Where did you read that?

The wedding photog/video guy only described it as a cut to his cheek.

"the couple laughed it off, cleaned up, and continued with the shoot."
 
A key point is private and public property:

  • When it comes to private and certain public property, we are not wildcating it out there violating or trespassing on private or certain public property.

    (well, some of the four wheeler crowd think this way; think they can cross and go anywhere they choose.)

    So now comes a vehicle with no wheels but still the exact same private and public property issues to deal with.
 
Birdman said:
This reminds me of the Citizens' Band (CB) radios of the '70s. Shortly after I purchased one, the Federal regulations required everyone to buy an operator's license, and to keep the power below 5 watts. Of course many folks didn't get a license, and more than a few pumped up the power. Talking "skip" was popular, but illegal. The feds tried to enforce the law, but never made much of a dent in the scofflaws, as they were overwhelmed with the huge number of radios in operation. Eventually they rescinded the requirement to have a license, and mostly ignored the jacked-up power radios.

Deja-Vu.
 
Anyone purchasing a UAS from a major retailer in Australia will be handed guidelines for flying model aircraft... just like the FAA should have been doing since 2007. The move by the Australian national Civil Aviation Safety Authority quickly followed two separate investigations into recent crashes. ( http://www.uasvision.com/2014/05/06...amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+UasVision+(UAS+VISION)"> )

"If you fly an unmanned aircraft in Australia, you need to accept a number of responsibilities and regulatory requirements." ( http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101985 k >). Australia has met the challenge by issuing UAS Operator Certificates. It is illegal to fly a model aircraft for commercial hire and reward unless you have an unmanned operator's certificate covering that type of operation. ( http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100959 )

If the FAA really wants to find a model solution to the issue of UAS regulation, it's not that hard to find. ( http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100375
 
MikesTooLz said:
(The groom that lost an eye to a phantom that was being used professionally witch is not allowed)

I'm not sure how you're under that impression. The FAA was beaten pretty handily in the one instance where they tried to administer a fine. Simply because the FAA states that their "advisory" is in effect until their appeal does not mean that it's so. I'm not a lawyer, but the advice I've received from a couple people (one in law school, one a lawyer practicing for a couple decades) has been that right now using a drone for business purposes is legal. It might be a bit toward the "shady gray area", but honestly, that's where most actions when it comes to the law. (That's why we have a judicial branch that's charged with the responsibility of interpreting the law.)
 
Timtro said:
If the FAA really wants to find a model solution to the issue of UAS regulation, it's not that hard to find. ( http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100375

The LAST thing the FAA should do is consider regulating or licensing this AT ALL. When governments get involved in regulating any business or industry, both the enjoyment and profit margins go down. Considering that nobody has been killed by UAVs being operated responsibly, I'd say that there's no legitimate public interest served by adding and enforcing unnecessary regulations.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31