- Joined
- May 2, 2014
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh boy...where to begin.
My first post here and rather than simply saying hello, I'm wading into the deep end.
I Made my first flight today with my P2V+. It's replacing my gas fixed wing RC toys.
I'm also a commercial pilot and (now retired) professional skydiver (D-18218).
I also dabble in model rocketry...and routinely punch tiny holes into Class E airspace at 200+MPH.
I now work as an air safety investigator. So that's my credentials (or excuse, depending on how you look at it).
Anything that has to do with flying, I'm into it.
I've been reading and reading everything I can get my hands regarding my new hobby...including the infamous FAA Advisory Circular from 1981 that addresses RC aircraft operation. IMHO, it's an outdated piece of scrap paper, but it's, for now, the ONLY scrap paper we have.
The basic principle of aircraft separation is two-fold:
Big sky/little airplane.
See and avoid.
All the other regulations are there to cover our collective butts when principles #1 and #2 fail.
So where does that leave our little group of flying cameras?
I think the signal to noise ratio is pretty skewed right now. The OP's biggest threat is Canada geese. And if the OP's head is on a swivel looking for kamikaze geese, a similar-sized aircraft with strobe lights should be equally visible...regardless of altitude. (I've worked a bird strike that occurred at FL310...a mallard duck. Apparently, that is actually where many ducks cruise during migration).
In a practical sense, our aircraft present no more of a threat to navigation than Daffy or Donald. However, the threat does exist and cannot be ignored. The question is, how to EFFECTIVELY address the threat?
Make regulations too onerous and you risk either crushing the industry or, at the other extreme, have ALL regulations simply ignored. That's not being effective.
At the other end of the scale are regulations that serve no purpose other than to allow some bureaucrat to justify his GS15 paycheck, while doing nothing to improve flight safety or promote the safe use of the national airspace.
What's the answer?
That's beyond my paygrade. I would like to see commercial licensing and certification for commercial operators of UAS.
Different levels of commercial ops. I'd like to provide aerial video of properties my sister is selling (she's a real estate broker).
I'd like to be able to offer some aerial footage to my local news of the flooding near my home.
There's no logical reason for that to be completely banned, with zero recourse.
Why is it banned? Because no bureaucrat is willing to risk his pension on writing a regulation that ends up being quoted in the USA Today the first time a 2-pound news-gathering UAS tumbles into a burning building and bonks a fireman on the head.
The sad fact is, we no longer have "The Press". We have news-media companies whose sole purpose is to sell the news. How do they sell it? By getting their stories pushed to the top of search engines. Search engines are driven by keywords and right now one of the biggest keyword drivers is "drone". So every news editor is trying to stuff as many instances of the word "drone" into every news story possible. It's all about selling news, not about the first amendment, not about facts and certainly not about credibility. It's all about money.
Unfortunately, the word 'drone' is the current moneymaker for the media and the bureaucrats who write the regulations are loathe to risk their comfortable positions to develop effective policies regarding our little hobby, knowing full-well that the media is going to drag it into the "drone" fray along with every Predator and Global Hawk.
WE, as an organized group of hobbiests, need to take a lead. Similar to what skydivers did in the 60s with the Skydivers Information Manual.
I could go on, but it's 3am and I'm tired. More later.
PS: Hi everyone! I'm airmotive...and I have 17 minutes of flight time on my P2V+.
My first post here and rather than simply saying hello, I'm wading into the deep end.
I Made my first flight today with my P2V+. It's replacing my gas fixed wing RC toys.
I'm also a commercial pilot and (now retired) professional skydiver (D-18218).
I also dabble in model rocketry...and routinely punch tiny holes into Class E airspace at 200+MPH.
I now work as an air safety investigator. So that's my credentials (or excuse, depending on how you look at it).
Anything that has to do with flying, I'm into it.
I've been reading and reading everything I can get my hands regarding my new hobby...including the infamous FAA Advisory Circular from 1981 that addresses RC aircraft operation. IMHO, it's an outdated piece of scrap paper, but it's, for now, the ONLY scrap paper we have.
The basic principle of aircraft separation is two-fold:
Big sky/little airplane.
See and avoid.
All the other regulations are there to cover our collective butts when principles #1 and #2 fail.
So where does that leave our little group of flying cameras?
I think the signal to noise ratio is pretty skewed right now. The OP's biggest threat is Canada geese. And if the OP's head is on a swivel looking for kamikaze geese, a similar-sized aircraft with strobe lights should be equally visible...regardless of altitude. (I've worked a bird strike that occurred at FL310...a mallard duck. Apparently, that is actually where many ducks cruise during migration).
In a practical sense, our aircraft present no more of a threat to navigation than Daffy or Donald. However, the threat does exist and cannot be ignored. The question is, how to EFFECTIVELY address the threat?
Make regulations too onerous and you risk either crushing the industry or, at the other extreme, have ALL regulations simply ignored. That's not being effective.
At the other end of the scale are regulations that serve no purpose other than to allow some bureaucrat to justify his GS15 paycheck, while doing nothing to improve flight safety or promote the safe use of the national airspace.
What's the answer?
That's beyond my paygrade. I would like to see commercial licensing and certification for commercial operators of UAS.
Different levels of commercial ops. I'd like to provide aerial video of properties my sister is selling (she's a real estate broker).
I'd like to be able to offer some aerial footage to my local news of the flooding near my home.
There's no logical reason for that to be completely banned, with zero recourse.
Why is it banned? Because no bureaucrat is willing to risk his pension on writing a regulation that ends up being quoted in the USA Today the first time a 2-pound news-gathering UAS tumbles into a burning building and bonks a fireman on the head.
The sad fact is, we no longer have "The Press". We have news-media companies whose sole purpose is to sell the news. How do they sell it? By getting their stories pushed to the top of search engines. Search engines are driven by keywords and right now one of the biggest keyword drivers is "drone". So every news editor is trying to stuff as many instances of the word "drone" into every news story possible. It's all about selling news, not about the first amendment, not about facts and certainly not about credibility. It's all about money.
Unfortunately, the word 'drone' is the current moneymaker for the media and the bureaucrats who write the regulations are loathe to risk their comfortable positions to develop effective policies regarding our little hobby, knowing full-well that the media is going to drag it into the "drone" fray along with every Predator and Global Hawk.
WE, as an organized group of hobbiests, need to take a lead. Similar to what skydivers did in the 60s with the Skydivers Information Manual.
I could go on, but it's 3am and I'm tired. More later.
PS: Hi everyone! I'm airmotive...and I have 17 minutes of flight time on my P2V+.