It's a neat trick how you criticize the words you put in my mouth, JKDSensei.
A Bozo Phantom pilot strikes again
- Thread starter mjw
- Start date
- Status
It's a neat trick how you criticize the words you put in my mouth, JKDSensei.
- Flying over a highway and the drone falls into traffic, somebody slams on the brakes, others pile into that car....
- Flying over a road and a distracted driver glancing at the drone doesn't see a vehicle stopped ahead, a stop light or a pedestrian crossing the road...
No problems here, right? Totally responsible activity, right? What's the "proper precaution"? ... a fast get-away?
- Fly at night "safely"? Night vision goggles or radar, perhaps?
- Fly "within the 5 mile radius" of an airport? Now is that NM or SM? Do you know?
I saw the news report, if anyone is familiar with that area with I-35 and I-30 intersecting, anything falling out of the sky that might cause someone to swerve, even if it hits nothing, can cause a bad crash and potential fatality (my brother died in an accident in that same area).
I'm not sure if it is still true, but as of a few years ago, I-35 in that area (just north of I-30) was the highest traffic count in Dallas/Ft. Worth
If you saw the report and don't think flying in that area over those interstates could cause a bad accident, you obviously don't know the area,,but it is a great place to get video, over by Reunion Tower, which is why the fool was probable doing it
I'm not sure if it is still true, but as of a few years ago, I-35 in that area (just north of I-30) was the highest traffic count in Dallas/Ft. Worth
If you saw the report and don't think flying in that area over those interstates could cause a bad accident, you obviously don't know the area,,but it is a great place to get video, over by Reunion Tower, which is why the fool was probable doing it
What part of the nanny state are you against exactly that everyone needs your nanny state's permission?
Thank
Thank You! I have been looking for factual arguments on this subject and you have nailed it. Very well said.
RodPad
Premium Pilot
Whoa there partner! All points of your discussion are well taken, but aren't we going a little overboard on the kinetic energy thing? Your calculation is far from correct. It's all about the thing that is in motion and its mass.
It is admittedly weird and very non intuitive that if lightweight Object A is just poking along and it is hit by a heavy speedy Object B, the outcome is ENTIRELY different from a fast Object A hitting a slow Object B, even if the relative difference in velocity is exactly the same in both cases. The little drone would have only about 70 ft/lb of energy at absolutely blazing full tilt in a head-on direction (which is plenty, yes) while the car would have immense kinetic energy. Point is, the car would perhaps get a cracked windshield or a small scrape, but the P3 would be comparatively vaporized.
I'm afraid you have the nail hitting the hammer and have assigned the hammer's energy to the nail. I know, it's strange this kinetic energy thing - and I'm not trying to "school" anyone, because I generally agree with your overall points. Just don't want anybody here to run with your assessment or quote it to the media.
PS: I really am not trying to start something here - at all. My undergrad degree is in physics, so I thought I'd chime in, that's all.
Last edited:
It's pretty simple to me. The "RC Guidelines" have always made common sense. I first ran into them ~45 years ago when I built, flew and pretty soon crashed my first RC (analog, of course) model airplane. I was part of the RC community, and everybody knew the RC code. The "guidelines" were designed to minimize the chances of catastrophes, while enabling RC pilots to still have their fun and engage in their hobby passion. I don't know anybody that violated them. The RC code ("guidelines") was common sense. Obvious.
Common sense? Obvious? In my book, the "guidelines" are. Don't fly in airspace reserved for REAL aircraft carrying flesh-and-blood REAL people. Don't fly in airspace above ground congested with REAL flesh-and-blood people going about their lives. Stay away from airports where REAL airplanes carrying REAL flesh-and-blood people are landing and taking off and are below their normal minimum altitude restrictions. And don't fly at distances beyond that where you can really see your aircraft and ascertain what it's doing, and/or lose radio contact with it.
One thing I DO know is that these simple, common sense "guidelines" will soon be replaced with enforceable laws. Another case of common sense things (like actually stopping at a stop sign) having to be replaced by actual enforceable laws. This will happen because some drone pilots choose to ignore a set of simple common sense rules. Call them bozos, fools, dolts, stupid, idiots, selfish. Call them libertarians, pioneers, innovators, artists, daredevils. I don't really care.
I do know, however, they're going to make a simple thing like self-policed responsible RC flying much more expensive and complicated by getting the REAL police and courts involved. Too bad.
Now get out there. Ignore common sense. Take a chance and maybe kill somebody. Now that's real fun.
Common sense? Obvious? In my book, the "guidelines" are. Don't fly in airspace reserved for REAL aircraft carrying flesh-and-blood REAL people. Don't fly in airspace above ground congested with REAL flesh-and-blood people going about their lives. Stay away from airports where REAL airplanes carrying REAL flesh-and-blood people are landing and taking off and are below their normal minimum altitude restrictions. And don't fly at distances beyond that where you can really see your aircraft and ascertain what it's doing, and/or lose radio contact with it.
One thing I DO know is that these simple, common sense "guidelines" will soon be replaced with enforceable laws. Another case of common sense things (like actually stopping at a stop sign) having to be replaced by actual enforceable laws. This will happen because some drone pilots choose to ignore a set of simple common sense rules. Call them bozos, fools, dolts, stupid, idiots, selfish. Call them libertarians, pioneers, innovators, artists, daredevils. I don't really care.
I do know, however, they're going to make a simple thing like self-policed responsible RC flying much more expensive and complicated by getting the REAL police and courts involved. Too bad.
Now get out there. Ignore common sense. Take a chance and maybe kill somebody. Now that's real fun.
Last edited:
y
It's not restricted it's called controlled. That's the whole point of the FAA requiring a certificated pilot to fly a any aircraft in controlled airspace. Knowing what it is and where it is. Restricted airspace as delineated on FAA Sectional Maps, is usually over military bases, etc. if I want to fly across the street from Love Field, I could. I would have to be a licensed pilot with an Section 333 exemption in place a request a COA from the local FSDO with all my info. Then be in contact with ATC during the flight and conduct my business. My flight. So we do not know if this flight was done proper or not.
Gosh, it's been a long time since the last time I tried to kill a motorcyclist.
Motorcyclists ain't all innocent! They're usually part of their own problem.
But I DO AGREE: Common sense is not that common.
Last edited:
He's not being contrarian, he's providing a different, and usually well thought out, perspective intended to open your eyes to other possibilities! Think of it as sometimes he's right, rather than sometimes you're wrong...
And as long as no one takes the conversation into the realm of personal attack, that can be a VERY constructive thing and is critical to critical thinking, which is important if we are to solve the problem of public perception.
And this problem of public perception of drones is by design so the FAA and DOT can push thru new regulations based on a loophole called "public safety" (as evidence by their recently released and deeply flawed study on sUAV safety that preceded their registration announcement by just enough time to get wide-spread news coverage), with the local news being the useful idiots in this debauchery of the rule of law. Don't become another useful idiot in the FAA's arsenal!!
Last edited:
Not to go too far off on a tangent here--as you do make good points.It's pretty simple to me. The "RC Guidelines" have always made common sense. I first ran into them ~45 years ago when I built, flew and pretty soon crashed my first RC (analog, of course) model airplane. I was part of the RC community, and everybody knew the RC code. The "guidelines" were designed to minimize the chances of catastrophes, while enabling RC pilots to still have their fun and engage in their hobby passion. I don't know anybody that violated them. The RC code ("guidelines") was common sense. Obvious.
Common sense? Obvious? In my book, the "guidelines" are. Don't fly in airspace reserved for REAL aircraft carrying flesh-and-blood REAL people. Don't fly in airspace above ground congested with REAL flesh-and-blood people going about their lives. Stay away from airports where REAL airplanes carrying REAL flesh-and-blood people are landing and taking off and are below their normal minimum altitude restrictions. And don't fly at distances beyond that where you can really see your aircraft and ascertain what it's doing, and/or lose radio contact with it.
One thing I DO know is that these simple, common sense "guidelines" will soon be replaced with enforceable laws. Another case of common sense things (like actually stopping at a stop sign) having to be replaced by actual enforceable laws. This will happen because some drone pilots choose to ignore a set of simple common sense rules. Call them bozos, fools, dolts, stupid, idiots, selfish. Call them libertarians, pioneers, innovators, artists, daredevils. I don't really care.
I do know, however, they're going to make a simple thing like self-policed responsible RC flying much more expensive and complicated by getting the REAL police and courts involved. Too bad.
Now get out there. Ignore common sense. Take a chance and maybe kill somebody. Now that's real fun.
However as you know there are major differences between "traditional" RC aircraft from the 70s and your Phantom 3.
Like flying so far away. Especially in an aircraft that's more symmetrical in appearance and smaller than your more traditional RC. I don't care how experienced or skilled a pilot may be but anything more than 30 feet away and you have little depth perception to guide you either. I think having FPV is more helpful and useful than "line of sight alone" for orientation--especially when used appropriately with "clearing turns/yaws".
Yes many people point out that the technology is not reliable. Yet little 2-stroke engines (from the 70s) aren't completely reliable either, no gas gauges and nitro fuel with a short shelf life. Yes you could glide with an engine failure, thus not be completely reliant on that technology, but a quad copter only flies because of a computer making calculations much faster than a human brain can comprehend. You lose one motor and your toast. I don't care how "skilled" one is flying in ATTI mode--you're still relying heavily on a computer and an array of internal sensors. Not flying beyond visual range is very important for traditional RC but not so important for aircraft who's very flying abilities is as reliable its own sensors and computer and thus its FPV and "fail safe" RTH abilities. My point is that keeping a P3 within visual range doesn't make its operation inherently or significantly "safer" like it does for non-FPV RC airplanes.
BTW, jlummel, I love your signature!
Last edited:
Did you even read the part about knowing your flight environment. There is nothing in your response that shows an ounce of rational thought just more internet muscle flexing like so many here.
US Military at Aberdeen Proving Grounds had a blimp break loose (not break dance) dragging a static line with it which was then dragged across many power lines resulting in, according to the never wrong media, resulting in over 18,000 customers losing power. No big deal made of it by the media other than to keep showing photos of the deflated blimp draped over some trees in the woods. NOW, it it had been a drone, FAA, DHS, OGA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service, the bag boy at the local grocery store, would have all be been called in to find the felon who crashed the drone into a power line.
But in this case...they knew exactly where the blimp came from.
But yes, had a drone done the same damage as the blimp, they would work very hard to find the pilot. As they should.
You are correct, Bert. But I have to wonder WHY is the media (in general) so opposed to the truth? What IS the reward for all the deception/misdirection/and-God-knows distraction? I thought the "reward" might be ratings, but that certainly is not it - check out MSNBC. That said, I just do not have a clue why some "reported" things are either false or overblown, and other -actually quite important- things are not reported at all. Go figure. To be perfectly frank and honest, I am sick of it.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 50
- Age
- 67
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 50
- Age
- 67
- Status
