969 Meters (appx 3200 feet) high, above the clouds!

Not done to stir the pot in a bad way -- it was posted elsewhere, and I thought it was of interest, even if it was more related to low flying. Thanks for the SA article - balanced comment on the original article was what I hoped for -- great!

EDIT:
Ok -- had time to read the SA article. Very interesting... What the FAA does next could have a big effect, over here too as the aviation authorities tend to follow suit on this sort of thing.

If you see a result of the motion to dismiss, please let us all know!
 
iDrone said:
What is this? Is our forum turning into Fox News? I can appreciate not wanting to ruin the fun & enjoyment of R/C but must agree this kind of disproportionate postulation & sensationalism does us a great disservice.

Educating those new to the hobby & helping them hookup with their local R/C group or learning safe R/C'ing practices from experienced hobbyists here on the forum (and there are plenty of 'em) might be more beneficial & effective as opposed to publishing an entire dark doomsday diatribe suggesting modern R/C'ers pose threat to aviation... truth be told: everything poses a threat to aviation from the runway, to the weather, to ocean & land mass thermals, to flying fowl in the skies. R/C hobby (model airplanes, heli's, quad's, multi-rotors, jets, & rockets) has uneventfully & successfully coexisted with private & commercial aviation for almost 75 years. Please, let's not get carried away.

What would you imagine is left of a Phantom after dead-dropping from 10m and hitting the ground? How about hovering it stationary while a car rams it into it's windshield @80Mph? Okay how about 200Mph? Exactly.

iDrone

I think that what you say about educating those new to the hobby is great except that for a lot of the new users, they will not get this mentoring that used to be more typical. Today, you can place your order, get a box, charge a battery, and send a model over 1000 feet into the air and return it (usually) with little or no experience or mentoring. This simply did not used to be the case.

I'm sorry, but your examples of a 2 lb model not being a threat to aircraft is nonsense. If you disagree, we can set up a test where you drive down the interstate at 200+ mph, and as you pass under a bridge, we can drop a model onto your windsheild and note what happens. You can find countless examples of actual bird strike damage online, so I won't bother to list any.

The vast majority of new users are probably cautious, and trying to use their new model within their ability, for financial reasons if nothing else.

My point is not that we need to jump up and down, and raise red flags. But simply to realize the position we, and the hobby are in, and take if very seriously.
 
As I said, "truth be told: everything poses a threat to aviation". An airborne aluminum Coke can with plexi windshields & propellers / turbine engines vacuuming oncoming air to achieve lift & maintain stability is hardly a vehicle impervious to damage by inhaling or otherwise coming into contact with non-gaseous objects.

Aircraft designers, pilots, and passengers agree there is some risk involved with flying. This is where statistical data factors into the question of risk & safety, perhaps I didn't illustrate the point clearly enough, if not I do so now. And BTW I'm familiar with the mass effect (ballistics) of objects striking other objects at velocity.

The probability of a PV unintentionally striking or being struck by an aircraft is astronomical. Oooo, I can feel the tension in the room already for making that generalization. Widen that to all R/C history, are we still feeling the tension? Alright, let's flip it the other way... Given an approaching aircraft & told to fly your PV into it, what of you think your chances are of successfully accomplishing that task are or flying to within 10m of it? Many variables, many possibilities, many outcomes, none of which historically reflect coexisting R/C and private / commercial aviation data.

So again, don't be stupid... Be respectful of your location, your airspace, have a great time with your family & friends enjoying R/C and let's not -create- new data for the FAA or anyone else to be concerned about.

Respectfully,
iDrone
 
No tension, just discussion.

There is 0 chance that an aircraft will hit a coke can at 1000' AGL, but there is a possibility, however minute, that an aircraft can come into contact with a model. The possibility goes up when guys are sending them through cloud layers, simple. We should strongly encourage "them" not to do it.

iDrone said:
So again, don't be stupid... Be respectful of your location, your airspace, have a great time with your family & friends enjoying R/C and let's not -create- new data for the FAA or anyone else to be concerned about.

Respectfully,
iDrone

See we are emphasizing the same point. If everyone followed this line of thinking, this thread, and others like it would not exist.

In all due respect as well,
 
Dave, agreed... Hank, great post; not sure if the Admin needs to do it or if we can, but if might be worth posting a Sticky thread just for info about local policies, proposed bills, legislation, etc where all of us can stay on top of anti-R/C measures and learn how we can help by expressing our voice & communicating reason to those who would try to pass such unnecessary bans & restrictions.

The language in Oregon's Senate Bill 71 is truly broad & preposterous, and reminds me of those who believe the solution to all life's problems is: "there ought ta be a law!". I don't want my neighbors to be upset with me or feel like I'm intruding, so in my own backyard I take the PV up high enough so it can barely be heard (approx 150-200ft) and have never encountered a nose out of joint to date.

I love 1/4 scale R/C's and those who build & fly 'em (no slouches or reckless pilots here) but never been too crazy about permitting mixed flights on a shared runway with R/C's & full-sized aircraft. Sounds like this was pilot error for missing or not understanding the ATC's instructions, I just don't like the idea of so many civilians (non-pilots) being so close to an active runway in the event something like this does occur. In fact I'm surprised folks were allowed to get that close to the runway at all if full aircraft were permitted.

It really does come down to common sense, awareness, and collective experience. As newcomers to R/C seek forums like this for help & assistance, it's a golden opportunity & venue from which to educate and increase their awareness. Speaking for myself, a part of me will always remain a noob, I welcome the assistance & experience of others.

iDrone
 
I'm a full scale helicopter pilot and I can tell you it is normal for helicopters to consistently operate at only 500 feet AGL and often lower- much lower than airplanes- and there are a ton of full scale helicopters in the airspace around here in Southern California-I'm also into the rc hobby and and fpv and all for fun- but make no mistake- if a bird can and has proven to take out a tail rotor on a full scale helicopter ( as well as in other cases decapitated pilots etc- just read NTSB reports on real bird strike incidents)- a phantom or drone or any other rc aircraft will do the same or much worse- this is serious folks- educate yourself on your local airspace- get a radio receiver for the local aviation frequencies and a local aviation chart for where you plan on flying so you can listen in on any local aircraft making position, altitude (which is usually above sea level, not above ground) and heading reports and know the airspace you are operating in- bottom line- never fly above 400 feet AGL- that's what the AMA rules are in the US and must be upheld to guarantee the longevity of this hobby and more importantly you don't inadvertently take out a real aircraft with real people in it- killing them and potential others on the ground- I don't think anyone would want that on their conscious..flying through clouds / instrument meteorological conditions (low visibility) is really asking for trouble, particularly above 400 feet AGL...this isn't meant to be a rant- just sharing the truth- please treat this seriously- have fun without risking others
 
Hi there.

I didn't hit the 969 meters but "just" 536...or 1700 feet.

The FV is totally stock. ;)
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    136.6 KB · Views: 688

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

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