2 near misses

[rlphoto69]

Just an FYI fellow drone pilots, this is what is hurting our hobby. I did post something several months ago and many didn't seem to happy that I did and felt I should only worry about myself. Watch this news cast and listen that the one incident was only 50 ft away, well above 400 ft AGL and inside ATC airspace. I'm just asking to help Spread the word, because I don't want to loose my privilege of flying either and these are the reasons so many places are banning us from flying.

After two close calls with drones and AirMed helicopters, Sanford...

 

[efh777]

Just like the Drones that were preventing fire-fighting aircraft, it is A-holes that are affecting our ability to fly. We need to self-regulate, and let the public know that we are responsible for our flying. I fly at a local park, but make sure I am clear of people, or animals. I don't fly over groups, and respect the other park goers.

 

[yorlik]

Just an FYI fellow drone pilots, this is what is hurting our hobby. I did post something several months ago and many didn't seem to happy that I did and felt I should only worry about myself. Watch this news cast and listen that the one incident was only 50 ft away, well above 400 ft AGL and inside ATC airspace. I'm just asking to help Spread the word, because I don't want to loose my privilege of flying either and these are the reasons so many places are banning us from flying.

After two close calls with drones and AirMed helicopters, Sanford...

I think you do our sport a good thing with your posts; please do not let others stop you.

 

[tcope]

Just an FYI fellow drone pilots, this is what is hurting our hobby. I did post something several months ago and many didn't seem to happy that I did and felt I should only worry about myself. Watch this news cast and listen that the one incident was only 50 ft away, well above 400 ft AGL and inside ATC airspace. I'm just asking to help Spread the word, because I don't want to loose my privilege of flying either and these are the reasons so many places are banning us from flying.

After two close calls with drones and AirMed helicopters, Sanford...

Also a problem... news media that can't see to report the correct information. According them, you cannot fly above 400' (incorrect) and cannot fly within 5 miles of an airport (incorrect). Out of three things, they got two incorrect.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

Agreed, if we don't regulate ourselves, I assure you some one else will.
I have flown, RC, Hang Gliders, Ultralights Aircraft and owned and flew my Piper Cherokee 180c over the last 60 years.
Mostly I loved the unregulated flight the most. Real planes require a lot of time, money, tests and required health and mechanical inspections, all making this kind of flying so expensive and full of regulation that the fun is gone.
Don't let this happen to drones! Keep hacking and intruding and I guarantee the FAA and Congress will deal with us harshly.
BQ

 

[rlphoto69]

Also a problem... news media that can't see to report the correct information. According them, you cannot fly above 400' (incorrect) and cannot fly within 5 miles of an airport (incorrect). Out of three things, they got two incorrect.

You are correct, the news media sure can report incorrect information. Point I was making tho was in these 2 cases, neither of these drone pilots made any kind of legal notification to ATC that they were in the airspace. I love flying my drone just as much as you I'm sure and I just hope things don't crack on us here in the US like in Canada because of cases like this.

 

[tcope]

You are correct, the news media sure can report incorrect information. Point I was making tho was in these 2 cases, neither of these drone pilots made any kind of legal notification to ATC that they were in the airspace. I love flying my drone just as much as you I'm sure and I just hope things don't crack on us here in the US like in Canada because of cases like this.

There is no air traffic control at a hospital. So FAA regulations would dictate that you'd need to call the "airport" owner. That would most likely be the hospital. Did the person call the hospital? The news story does not mention this. Probably because the person reporting clearly did not know the topic she was reporting about. Do I think the flyer called? Highly doubt it. Personally, I don't call hospitals either. I fly within a 20 miles area of where I'm at right now, I'd be calling 8 hospitals each and every time I flew. I don't see this as practical and pretty much pointless. While it meets the regulation, I don't think this is what the regulation had in mind. Keep in mind, Section 336 applies to all model aircraft. So there would probably be 20 or 30 people calling 8 hospitals every weekend. Then, lets think about it... when it comes to a random helicopter taking off and landing every once in awhile, how would this really make any difference. Keep in mind, we still have the rule of flying within VLOS. So while you are flying you should be able to see a helicopter. You then have the duty to yield right fo way to the helicopter. I see the issue as being these last two things.... not calling the hospital. If I'm near anything like buildings, I do tend to stay within VLOS or very close (I don't follow this so closely when I'm in the middle of no where).

Personally, I think the bigger issue is new media simply not reporting the right information. It makes people think this is an issue.

Want to read a well written article:

Drone discovered on top of LDS temple in Draper; raises questions of airspace rules | KSL.com

That reported knows his stuff. It's well balanced report that is really aimed well at educating people.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

Easy fix for a lot of this, don't post videos of close calls and other damning events.
BQ

 

[rlphoto69]

There is no air traffic control at a hospital. So FAA regulations would dictate that you'd need to call the "airport" owner. That would most likely be the hospital. Did the person call the hospital? The news story does not mention this. Probably because the person reporting clearly did not know the topic she was reporting about. Do I think the flyer called? Highly doubt it. Personally, I don't call hospitals either. I fly within a 20 miles area of where I'm at right now, I'd be calling 8 hospitals each and every time I flew. I don't see this as practical and pretty much pointless. While it meets the regulation, I don't think this is what the regulation had in mind. Keep in mind, Section 336 applies to all model aircraft. So there would probably be 20 or 30 people calling 8 hospitals every weekend. Then, lets think about it... when it comes to a random helicopter taking off and landing every once in awhile, how would this really make any difference. Keep in mind, we still have the rule of flying within VLOS. So while you are flying you should be able to see a helicopter. You then have the duty to yield right fo way to the helicopter. I see the issue as being these last two things.... not calling the hospital. If I'm near anything like buildings, I do tend to stay within VLOS or very close (I don't follow this so closely when I'm in the middle of no where).

Personally, I think the bigger issue is new media simply not reporting the right information. It makes people think this is an issue.

Want to read a well written article:

Drone discovered on top of LDS temple in Draper; raises questions of airspace rules | KSL.com

That reported knows his stuff. It's well balanced report that is really aimed well at educating people.

I totally agree with what you are saying. Both of these cases were within the city limits which at both locations were within 5 miles of the airport and I think they weren't near the hospital actually. I know thes

There is no air traffic control at a hospital. So FAA regulations would dictate that you'd need to call the "airport" owner. That would most likely be the hospital. Did the person call the hospital? The news story does not mention this. Probably because the person reporting clearly did not know the topic she was reporting about. Do I think the flyer called? Highly doubt it. Personally, I don't call hospitals either. I fly within a 20 miles area of where I'm at right now, I'd be calling 8 hospitals each and every time I flew. I don't see this as practical and pretty much pointless. While it meets the regulation, I don't think this is what the regulation had in mind. Keep in mind, Section 336 applies to all model aircraft. So there would probably be 20 or 30 people calling 8 hospitals every weekend. Then, lets think about it... when it comes to a random helicopter taking off and landing every once in awhile, how would this really make any difference. Keep in mind, we still have the rule of flying within VLOS. So while you are flying you should be able to see a helicopter. You then have the duty to yield right fo way to the helicopter. I see the issue as being these last two things.... not calling the hospital. If I'm near anything like buildings, I do tend to stay within VLOS or very close (I don't follow this so closely when I'm in the middle of no where).

Personally, I think the bigger issue is new media simply not reporting the right information. It makes people think this is an issue.

Want to read a well written article:

Drone discovered on top of LDS temple in Draper; raises questions of airspace rules | KSL.com

That reported knows his stuff. It's well balanced report that is really aimed well at educating people.

This had nothing to do with the hospital or notifying them. The helicopter was flying through the city and the drone operator was well within 5 miles of the airport. The tower was contacted by authorities and they had no notification by any drone operator requesting permission to be in the airspace and the drone was around 700 ft when the first incident occurred and the drone was spotted out the window only 50 ft away. I'm not trying to make an argument of this, but just simply trying to say, we as a group need to police ourselves from doing things like this before the FAA really cracks down on us and our privileges to enjoy our hobby will be more severely restricted.