Sad that my flying days are over Monday

Range extenders aren't just for distance flights. They improve performance close to you too - especially if there are obstacles or interference in the area you are flying in!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Range extenders, at least those that amplify power, are illegal, and will be targeted by the FCC, just like the EPA nailed VW and Harley Davidson. Just a matter of time.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
Im in canada so this doesnt apply to me but lets be real here... are people really going to follow this crap? Flp is right..good luck enforcing any of this...lol

Sent from my SM-N930F using PhantomPilots mobile app
As long as drone pilots didn't do something too stupid that went viral and gets the attention of FAA. It should be fine. But note that some drug dealers already abuse drones for illegal activity. We might see some police gets drone prevention training equiped with some jammers.
 
I don't see the problem. If I'm working, I am never required to do those things with a drone. If I am asked to do something reckless, I would refuse. Even though I am insured, I don't take dumb risks.
If I'm just flying for fun and not explicitly under a contract, I use common sense. I stay away from people, the police don't bother me... I kinda doubt those things are going to change.
 
As long as drone pilots didn't do something too stupid that went viral and gets the attention of FAA. It should be fine. But note that some drug dealers already abuse drones for illegal activity. We might see some police gets drone prevention training equiped with some jammers.
I'm going political on this,out there we have a bunch of good people practicing the hobby and now,because some irresponsible fellows doing wrong things everyone have to pay for it, same story with guns; too much government !!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROD PAINTER
Many here in this very thread are the very reasons for the tough rules in part 107. Well your not alone there are many more just like you who are members here who believe rule were made to be broken and only think of themselves.
 
Many here in this very thread are the very reasons for the tough rules in part 107. Well your not alone there are many more just like you who are members here who believe rule were made to be broken and only think of themselves.

Most of us will continue to fly as a hobby, and therefore, not be subject to the rules of Part 107.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROD PAINTER
Most of us will continue to fly as a hobby, and therefore, not be subject to the rules of Part 107.
You will either be subject to Part 101 or Part 107, and many in this forum will be routinely breaking whichever rules they fly under if they continue doing what they state they are doing.
 
Last edited:
yeah 400 feet up someone is going to read number on bird yeah right plus try and figure out where there at

They already have spies in our skies
image.jpeg

I spy with my little eye...
image.jpeg


It's Easy...
image.jpeg


RedHotPoker
 
Rereading 101/107 rules and finding my fit: I think I'll be OK after all.
For example, I don't consider this "over people" as there is no one below me, and my height is about 550 feet, which is fine because it's counted from above the structure I'm near, so looks like I'll be able to continue to work for the 6 clients in this photo.
DJI_0092.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: scootrkitz
Fly and make your wifi adjustments while in Airpane Mode, always...
Cutting out the "Middle Men". ;-)

RedHotPoker
 
Rereading 101/107 rules and finding my fit: I think I'll be OK after all.
For example, I don't consider this "over people" as there is no one below me, and my height is about 550 feet, which is fine because it's counted from above the structure I'm near, so looks like I'll be able to continue to work for the 6 clients in this photo.View attachment 63518

I love that picture.:)
 
BTW, the FAA today said that the drone rules will be evolving, and that two of the issues they are examining are overflying people and operating beyond VLOS. They said that they hope to address these by year's end. CNN received a waiver today to overfly people.
 
You do realize that Sec 336 is now part of Part 101 and is law, correct?

Besides merely posting a link, there's no defense of your assertion that these are mere guidelines.

I'm not the one who made that assertion. Why don't you post the text or link to Part 101 that you are referring to? You want to tell someone else to prove something they said but you provide no link or specifics for what you said. And how does section 336 now being part of Part 101 make it any different than what I posted? I was actually trying to add actual codified regulation to the discussion, something you couldn't do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GadgetGuy

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic