Helicopter meet Phantom. Phantom lost

In my opinion it makes no difference.

Right - I realize that, but the poster I was responding to was arguing that hobbyists are perfectly capable of regulating their hobby. I agree with that, but that's different from a hobby organization regulating non-hobby users, which is what we were discussing.
 
Right - I realize that, but the poster I was responding to was arguing that hobbyists are perfectly capable of regulating their hobby. I agree with that, but that's different from a hobby organization regulating non-hobby users, which is what we were discussing.
Meh - it's a blurry line to me - lots of folks getting their 107 permits who are primarily hobbyists - and lots of people on forums like this one who think that everyone should have those permits (or equivalents, abroad) even if they're only hobbyists. To keep going with the FCC/ham comparison, the GROL (which very few folks would ever get if they did not require it for their jobs or business) is also not administered by the FCC. That is farmed out to GOLEMs (instead of VEs). There is nothing particularly special about the GOLEMs, frankly, and several listed on the FCC's web site are non-profit organizations.
 
Meh - it's a blurry line to me - lots of folks getting their 107 permits who are primarily hobbyists - and lots of people on forums like this one who think that everyone should have those permits (or equivalents, abroad) even if they're only hobbyists. To keep going with the FCC/ham comparison, the GROL (which very few folks would ever get if they did not require it for their jobs or business) is also not administered by the FCC. That is farmed out to GOLEMs (instead of VEs). There is nothing particularly special about the GOLEMs, frankly, and several listed on the FCC's web site are non-profit organizations.

Right, but that's still getting away from the point that, even if some, or even many, Part 107 operators are also hobbyists, Part 107 is not a hobby certification, so that is not a good supporting reason.

The FCC example may be a good one though. There is certainly no reason for the testing not to be delegated to other organizations - just like Part 107 already is. The question is whether a purely hobby organization is appropriate.
 
For those of you who 'do not think their should be a basic practical flight test' please go to YouTube and type in 'drone crash' or drone hit a wall, or drone hit my face! Drones are not toys and can inflict real damage, taking a written test is needed to know the laws, and taken a basic flight test is needed so that you understand how to handle the drone, yes as simple as fly forward, backward go left go right and land. At least if those simple things maybe they wont fly into their face or someone else. Oh also look at youtube for 'first drone flight' and you can appreciate the idiots out their that think they can fly and can not.
 
The thing I hope the authorities take home from this is both parties were operating in a completely legal fashion.
Folks forget that life isn't predictable and risk mitigation has to allow for that - nothing is served by requiring licensing, draconian restrictions or even outright bans.
Yah but you know outright ban will eventually come if collisions with Drones or a loss of life occurs as result of a Drone/s
 
Sorry but your response only makes the whole situation more confusing, not less. If the FAA explicitly states that drone pilots are legally able to fly our machines under 400 ft. AGL, and manned helicopters are also allowed to fly under 400 ft. AGL and there happens to be a collision --- why is it always the drone pilot's fault if everyone is allowed to fly under 400 ft? Common sense says if you are flying your drone at 390 ft. and you see an approaching helicopter that has a flight path dangerously in line with your drone, then it is imperative to you descend immediately. But what if you are hovering at 390 ft. in your backyard and suddenly a heli flies overhead with no warning and collides with your drone? How can a drone pilot be faulted for that?



99% of all the helis I see flying under 500 ft. are not spraying chemicals or doing any other task that requires them to be under 500 ft. It's almost like they are too lazy to get up above 1000 ft. where they can safely be out of the way of drones, high-voltage power lines, cell towers, etc. I really have never seen any good explanation why so many helis are seen flying in that 300-1000' AGL airspace. Really weird and confusing stuff !!

I spend quite a lot of time in helicopters all over the U.S and in my experience there is an unofficial cruising altitude of 500' that helicopters fly at. It keeps them out of the way of fixed wing aircraft that are usually above 1000' unless in airport traffic areas.
 
Due to sea plane and ultralight activity in my town (Lakes Region of NH), manned aircraft regularly fly below 500' (usually at tree top level). That literally makes the 400' drone ceiling an immaterial guideline/rule. You can't launch with tall pine trees or buildings near you that restrict your VLOS. If the weather is good, especially on weekends, you need to launch in a open area which allows you to see over the tree tops to enable you to see manned aircraft over 2000' away so that you can react to incoming sea planes and/or ultralights. It sounds like, from what I have read above, that the drone pilot, using mapping software, had his vision blocked by trees or buildings so that he/she could not respond responsively. Admittedly, safe drone flying places a large burden of due diligence on us as drone pilots.
 
It's a slippery slope fallacy, not a slippery slope. Regulation of hobby flight is currently negligible. There is no altitude limit, no VLOS requirement, no controlled airspace, and no mechanism to ensure that hobbyists know anything at all about safe flying before they open the box and hit auto-takeoff. That's untenable, long term, with the explosion of use of aircraft that can easily fly miles away and 500 m high.
Once the novelty wears off on aerial pics and vids, when they are a dime a dozen (maybe already are LOL), I think things will thin out a bit. ;-)
 
Still doesn't answer the conundrum of why drones are allowed to be in the sub-400' airspace but if there is a collision, we are automatically at fault just because the other machine has a human inside of it. The law is not supposed to be contradictory --- but that is exactly what the FAA is trying to tell us --- " y'all can fly under 400' but if something bad happens, then you are at fault --- even though we gave you permission to be there".

Just dont make sense no matter how many times I look at it.
Ever heard of conditional permission? ;)
 
I feel a bit short-sighted if I believe unmanned aircraft won’t force a change in manned aircraft rules. Autonomous craft (Uber, UPS, DHL, FedEx, Amazon) will carve out a section of the NAS and manned aircraft will need to stay out. Hobbyists will see a ceiling of 300’, piloted Part 107 VLOS a 400’ ceiling, autonomous BVLOS 300-500’ and manned greater than 500’.

Commerce will rule. Manned piloted helicopters will lose to autonomous unmanned computer piloted, people carrying - package carrying aircraft. Follow the money, generate the most, you win.
 
long thread IMHO the drone operator was at fault . no reason that 1. he could not hear the copter way before he saw it. 2. that he could not descend fast enough or take other evasive action to avoid hitting the copter . takes some kind of stupid to hit a copter or any other AC . adding flight testing for hobbyist or part 107 is a joke and would be a waste of time and money . the written testing alone is enough to know the airspace rules . always give way to manned flights no matter alt. Flight testing would accomplish nothing . I've mentioned it before up,down, forward , backward, side to side . nothing flight testing could do to avoid stupid . they don't have common sense classes as it seems it can't be taught . Adding on to testing would make no difference and only add unneeded regulations that would eventually limit those who fly by either making it cost prohibitive , or time prohibitive . of course it would be a good thing to any testing facility as now they can make more money
 
FYI: The CH47 is the FASTEST helicopter in the United States military inventory. They normally fly NapOfTheEarth. It is gone before your brain can process the information.
 
FYI: The CH47 is the FASTEST helicopter in the United States military inventory. They normally fly NapOfTheEarth. It is gone before your brain can process the information.
it ain't flyng no 714 mps . and this was not the copter in the indecent . the military is not flying the CH47 below 400' anywhere around the US except in training areas and they are NFZ's . and to say it's gone before you can process the info that a copter is coming and gone is a stretch . lmao .
 
it ain't flyng no 714 mps . and this was not the copter in the indecent . the military is not flying the CH47 below 400' anywhere around the US except in training areas and they are NFZ's . and to say it's gone before you can process the info that a copter is coming and gone is a stretch . lmao .
They are just making comments about my post. Most helicopters fly low over my ridge. Sometimes I have difficulty getting out of their way. My hearing isn't good. I didn't have to hear when the CH47's came over. They shook the whole house. I wanted to see what was going on. lol
Only one time I had a helicopter go under elevation from me. Fortunately I was not that close to it. I think they fly low, because why go higher when they cross the ridge, after that, their 1,200 ft above the valley.
 
They are just making comments about my post. Most helicopters fly low over my ridge. Sometimes I have difficulty getting out of their way. My hearing isn't good. I didn't have to hear when the CH47's came over. They shook the whole house. I wanted to see what was going on. lol
Only one time I had a helicopter go under elevation from me. Fortunately I was not that close to it. I think they fly low, because why go higher when they cross the ridge, after that, their 1,200 ft above the valley.
my mistake . up where I Elk in Eagle Colorado on the flat tops they do dust offs . you can hear them from miles away even at 10,000 ft . make a hell of a racket they'll come to the edge of mountain and barely touch down on one skid . they do high elevation training
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,591
Members
104,979
Latest member
jrl