A Bozo Phantom pilot strikes again

[johnp44]

Steve from your logic “I never said it would never happen”, one could argue that the same may have be said about the likelihood of the present white house incumbent , or of Women ever getting the vote.
Or unlikely as it seemed a child would never turn up at school with a gun and shoot his fellows or teachers…!.
I think like N017RW, that you don’t have a reasoned argument for or against, you just have an argument, period
Waylander

At least Steve has an argument. Your statement was basically your opinion, to which you are entitled to. But let's face it, to fly over a freeway has less risk than driving on it. Steve is trying to point out to you that hysterical comments like you made are more of a problem than a solution.

 

[GoodnNuff]

The FAA person making the statement was referring to that location being in Class B airspace from the surface to 1100 ft. But, we don't know if the drone was flown by a commercial operator with permission from ATC, which would have been perfectly legal.

It would be great if a drone sighted flying in questionable airspace could be identified and the determination made whether it was a legal flight or not.
Some sort of registration perhaps?

 

[skyeboysteve]

Have it tow a banner with 9" tall registration numbers so one can read it?

As we all know, more regulations and more taxpayer money will eventually turn our society into the Utopian paradise it's destined for...

 

[skyeboysteve]

Does anyone know how to ask permission to fly a drone in Class B? Does one need a 333 exemption, and use a land line to contact ATC, or does the 333 waiver grant you the right to transmit on UHF/VHF?

 

[snerd]

...................... Is it really so easy for the media to control people's opinion and behavior?
.

That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?!

 

[JKDSensei]

That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?!

I try hard to have faith...but some of the posts here really try me

 

[redmoe]

It would be great if a drone sighted flying in questionable airspace could be identified and the determination made whether it was a legal flight or not.
Some sort of registration perhaps?

How does registration help here? Unless there is a transponder and a receive site within range or a crashed aircraft to identify there is no way to trace. Being able to read markings on a craft that small would be pretty much impossible.

 

[gringorio]

Thank you for contributing to the general hysteria over personal drones.
If the operator did advise the Love tower, then the flight was probably perfectly legal and within FAA guidelines.

Airport aside, where is your evidence that flying over a freeway is "the wrong place"?

This is what we in the rational world call "Fear Mongering".
Keep the risk of personal drones and model aircraft in perspective.

Today (if this is an average day):
1560 people will die from Cancer
268 people in US hospitals will die because of medical mistakes.
162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.
117 Americans will die in an automobile accident.
98 people in the US will die from the flu.
53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.
46 children will suffer eye injuries.
37 will die from AIDS.
30 people will die in gun-related murders.
3 General Aviation airplanes will crash in the US.
0 people will be seriously injured or killed by a small drone accident.

There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones.

Screaming "HE FLEW OVER A PERSON, A CAR, A DOLPHIN --- WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" doesn't help the perception that this is one of the safest hobbies in the world. People have died from baseballs and golf balls, but not one from a personal drone.

I am not in the least opposed to making owners of these small aircraft operate them safely, but don't imagine an operation is unsafe when there is no evidence to support your opinion.

There is a difference between 'hysteria' and legitimate concerns. The statistics you posted have nothing to do with the issue of hobby UAV's flying in restricted airspace or in unsafe ways. The relatively recent emergence of easy-to-fly 'drones' (Including the Phantom line) has not yet had time to yield the type of non-related statistics you improperly cite. Your opinion that "There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones" is just that. Sure, no one wants to swim in "shark infested waters", as the news would say, but the fact remains, there are sharks in the water, none-the-less.

 

[dirkclod]

there are sharks in the water

 

[SteveMann]

With so many people allegedly flying drones near airports, don't you think they'd have arrested at least one or two by now?

There have been arrests, but since there's no blood or threat to kill hundreds of airline passengers - it never makes the news. A drone on the ground is kind of boring.

 

[SteveMann]

and/or decide to let everyone know how far they can fly (i.e. break the law)

Currently not the law in the US. You can legally fly as far as you can control your drone. Not the smartest thing to do, but not illegal.

 

[SteveMann]

The relatively recent emergence of easy-to-fly 'drones' (Including the Phantom line) has not yet had time to yield the type of non-related statistics you improperly cite.

Aircraft accidents and incidents are measured in total hours of flight time. In 100,000 hours of flight time in General Aviation aircraft, there is statistically going to be a fatality. There have been an estimated cumulative total of more than a million hours of flight with small personal drones and yet, not one reported crash with serious injuries to someone not connected to the flight as defined by the NTSB. And not one verified contact with a civil aircraft.

Because I am using the same metric as the FAA - hours of flight time - the comparison is valid.

How are the non-aviation items not relevant? I quote them to keep the really low risk from small personal drones in perspective with real risks. Those are per year statistics, and in three years of various models of personal drones sold, the total is still zero serious accidents*. This is one of the safest hobbies in the world. The relevance is very legitimate. I can't help it if the statistics keep coming up zero and spoiling the Chicken Little's who see a pending tragedy every time someone exercises less than their perfect judgement with a drone.

*serious injuries to someone not connected to the flight as defined by the NTSB.

 

[SteveMann]

Does anyone know how to ask permission to fly a drone in Class B? Does one need a 333 exemption, and use a land line to contact ATC, or does the 333 waiver grant you the right to transmit on UHF/VHF?

Actually, the 333 exemption changes "notify" to "obtain permission".

The current rules only require you notify the ATC facility on the airport of your flight. But other rules require permission to enter Class B airspace. Call the tower and tell them who you are, your contact information (cellphone), that you are advising them pursuant to Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that you will be flying a model aircraft x miles, y-degrees from the airport and a maximum altitude of Z and speed not to exceed 30 knots. You should also provide them with a block of time that you will be there. Do not say "drone" as that triggers a sphincteral reaction. The odds are they will say "NO!". Try to argue that Section 336 of the FMRA only requires notification, not permission. They will respond with "14 CFR §91-131, “No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area (unless) the operator… receive(s) an ATC clearance. No person may… operate a civil aircraft within a Class B airspace area unless – the pilot in command holds a… pilot certificate.”. To which you would reply that this does not apply to hobby aircraft. You will lose the argument, but this is the procedure.

However, you bring up another issue that needs to be clarified. You may NOT transmit on aviation frequencies without an FCC station license unless that transmitter is on board a registered aircraft. (CFR 47 §87.18 'Station License Required').

 

[Waylander]

At least Steve has an argument. Your statement was basically your opinion, to which you are entitled to. But let's face it, to fly over a freeway has less risk than driving on it. Steve is trying to point out to you that hysterical comments like you made are more of a problem than a solution.

Did you read the whole blog..! if you think my response (and the others who agreed) was hysterical, then I suggest you go back to your quiet corner with a nice glass of milk..
Waylander

 

[nickyb]

Currently not the law in the US. You can legally fly as far as you can control your drone. Not the smartest thing to do, but not illegal.

I did not know that. Then apologises to all the US pilots who do go the extra distance.

In the UK we are limited to around 500m, line of sight.

 

[johnp44]

Did you read the whole blog..! if you think my response (and the others who agreed) was hysterical, then I suggest you go back to your quiet corner with a nice glass of milk..
Waylander

I suggest that you limit your comments to substance and not HYSTERICAL drivel. Yes, I can read and I read all the comments.
Below is some reading material for you. Maybe you will learn something.

Full Definition of HYSTERIA

1. a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions.

Sounds to me like you qualify. Now you should go to your quiet corner and please, lay off the kool aid.

This is boring, so you can have the last word. I have better things to be doing.

 

[kenjancef]

My view is this: We as operators know what we should/shouldn't do. But the public, the ones that don't know a darn thing about quads and such, do pretty-much know the basic rules we SHOULD follow: less than 400 feet, over crowds, airports, yadda yadda. So when a report comes out on the news about a "drone gone crazy", so to speak (not following the "rules") hurts us because it's another black eye for those of us that fly. The first thing the UNEDUCATED public thinks is "Oh great, here we go again...", without even seeing what the actual story is about. And the media is to blame too, because they are usually just as uneducated as the general public.

So for me, yea, I think it's pretty idiotic to fly over a highway. But that's my opinion. Is it illegal? No. Did these people call the towers and such? Who knows, because the reporters never bothered to check, so of course people are going to freak.

That's my last 2 cents on this... I'll brace myself for the replies...

 

[JKDSensei]

Drones make excellent news fodder.....right now....it'll get old and the media will eventually move on.
Whatever the boobtube public is buying at the time, they're selling.

Probably not a good idea to fly over a "highway" tho, just because.

But, anyone who's tried to put a rock or brick through an automotive windshield knows that a 3 to 4 lb plastic DJI Phantom is not going through a windshield, even at high speed. Forget about it. Not enough mass, too much surface area. Good chance it may not even crack it. depends how it hits. If the arms hit first it could just get bounced off.

The point is, overall a small DJI Phantom in most instances is not the danger to society that the media is hyping it up to be. Flying in the path of aircraft is probably the number one danger.
Those idiots absolutely must be stopped. But this could mostly be achieved by limiting the ability of the Phantom to fly no higher than 400 feet AGL (which could and probably should be coming).

I'm pretty sure ALL airports will soon have those devices to shoot down drones on sight, electronically.

The media won't report it of course, but I would venture a guess that far more accidents are caused by hub caps popping off cars and junk falling off vehicles than would ever be from drones.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Drones make excellent news fodder.....right now....it'll get old and the media will eventually move on.
Whatever the boobtube public is buying at the time, they're selling.

Probably not a good idea to fly over a "highway" tho, just because.

But, anyone who's tried to put a rock or brick through an automotive windshield knows that a 3 to 4 lb plastic DJI Phantom is not going through a windshield, even at high speed. Forget about it. Not enough mass, too much surface area. Good chance it may not even crack it. depends how it hits. If the arms hit first it could just get bounced off.

The point is, overall a small DJI Phantom in most instances is not the danger to society that the media is hyping it up to be. Flying in the path of aircraft is probably the number one danger.
Those idiots absolutely must be stopped. But this could mostly be achieved by limiting the ability of the Phantom to fly no higher than 400 feet AGL (which could and probably should be coming).

I'm pretty sure ALL airports will soon have those devices to shoot down drones on sight, electronically.

The media won't report it of course, but I would venture a guess that far more accidents are caused by hub caps popping off cars and junk falling off vehicles than would ever be from drones.

Last June I was in a rush to make an appointment in Tacoma, WA. As I was traveling west on Highway 18 (6 lane divided highway). I noticed a couple of cars ahead of me sort of swerve, or drift, and almost at the same time I saw a P3 flying about 15 feet above the cars, flying directly up the freeway against traffic. Everyone was staring at the drone, not the road - people were actually drifting out of their lanes. Looked further ahead and saw a kid (late teens to early twenties) standing on an overpass with a Phantom controller and a big grin on his face.
I wasn't concerned that the drone would come through my windshield, but that I would be involved in anything from a fender bender to a multi-car pileup from the mass of distracted drivers.

 

[kenjancef]

Last June I was in a rush to make an appointment in Tacoma, WA. As I was traveling west on Highway 18 (6 lane divided highway). I noticed a couple of cars ahead of me sort of swerve, or drift, and almost at the same time I saw a P3 flying about 15 feet above the cars, flying directly up the freeway against traffic. Everyone was staring at the drone, not the road - people were actually drifting out of their lanes. Looked further ahead and saw a kid (late teens to early twenties) standing on an overpass with a Phantom controller and a big grin on his face.
I wasn't concerned that the drone would come through my windshield, but that I would be involved in anything from a fender bender to a multi-car pileup from the mass of distracted drivers.

That's one of my biggest fears, being a distraction. I work for a school department, and everyone always asks me to fly it at a football game. Besides the fact that I wouldn't even THINK of getting within even 5 feet of the field, I don't want to create such a distraction that it affects the spectators or the game itself. I know it's not as life-threatening as a car wreck, but you get the idea...