NTSB Report is out on Phantom4 vs Blackhawk from Sept 2017

[The Springs]

I like my privacy!

Anonymity is what you are after.

 

[Loudon MacReady]

I like my privacy!

...he said on the internet. [emoji848]

 

[GadgetGuy]

What about the sUAS Registration number that is required to be on aircraft, (assuming that you are flying in the US under the hobbyist rules)?

Uhh, must have fallen off!

 

[GadgetGuy]

In all candor, anyone with nefarious intentions can easily anonymize themselves and their flight, and breach any NFZ and height limit. These DJI measures only work for those that really pose no threat other than through ignorance or negligence, which is helpful, but won't stop the real bad guys who intend harm.

 

[sar104]

In all candor, anyone with nefarious intentions can easily anonymize themselves and their flight, and breach any NFZ and height limit. These DJI measures only work for those that really pose no threat other than through ignorance or negligence, which is helpful, but won't stop the real bad guys who intend harm.

Which is fine, because I'm sure that ignorance and negligence represent by far the majority of the problems and if DJI can prevent even some of those instances then they have reduced the overall risk. Even laws, as if often pointed out, are ineffective against anyone determined to break them - they merely give society recourse to deal with those people.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Which is fine, because I'm sure that ignorance and negligence represent by far the majority of the problems and if DJI can prevent even some of those instances then they have reduced the overall risk. Even laws, as if often pointed out, are ineffective against anyone determined to break them - they merely give society recourse to deal with those people.

Indeed!

 

[offroadpyro]

Drone pilot was an idiot..Having said that ,I have encountered a lot of mil aircraft below 400 feet..No warnings no tfr in place just them doing what they want...Why would it be so hard to say aircraft stay above 400 ft and drone below 400 feet..Such a simple solution they have no reason to be that low unless in rescue or military assault..And have encountered low private planes below 400 feet...Perhaps FAA should focus on them..They have transponders air traffic should see how low they are..Drones don't need transponders we just need to make it 400..we stay below they stay above ezpz..

 

[PhamTon]

It's a fair view of the issue, offroadpyro.

The airfield NFZ should prohibit drones from flying too close to aircraft as they climb up to and descend from their minimum height of 500'.

If drone pilots don't take the piss, flying BVLOS at 3000' agl etc etc, risks should be mitigated to the lowest level reasonably possible.

But fully qualified FAA PPL holders have a responsibility too as PIC and the groundschool experience behind them also to help them make the safest choices when they fly.

I fear though us members here generally know this. It's the public who don't bother reading forums like this that should be reading forums like this!

 

[VictorBravo77]

"Hey, I will get my Part 107, if I had to, though I would think that my pilot's certificate should have covered that. "

I believe Part 107 is intended to cover 'drone' flight for recompense, i.e. commercial flight. Yes, that includes fixed wing r/c aircraft flown for pay. If your cert is valid (w/ appropriate valid medical) I think a Sect. 333 waiver applies instead.

 

[N017RW]

With very few exceptions the FAA will not grant 333 exemptions anymore since 107 covers the vast majority of operations. Current 333's are still valid until expiration.

From jrupprechtlaw.com:

"...The FAA has finalized the first operational rules for routine commercial use of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) (part 107, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems). The new rule, which went into effect August 29, 2016, offers safety regulations for sUAS weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-hobbyist operations. The vast majority of operations authorized under previously-issued exemptions under Section 333 have been addressed by part 107; now that part 107 is in effect, these operations do not necessitate an exemption. However, your Section 333 exemption remains valid until it expires. You may continue to fly following the Conditions and Limitations in your exemption and under the terms of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). If your operation can be conducted under the requirements in part 107, you may elect to operate under part 107; however, if you wish to operate under part 107, you must obtain a remote pilot certificate and follow the operating rules of part 107. "

 

[BigAl07]

"Hey, I will get my Part 107, if I had to, though I would think that my pilot's certificate should have covered that. "

I believe Part 107 is intended to cover 'drone' flight for recompense, i.e. commercial flight. Yes, that includes fixed wing r/c aircraft flown for pay. If your cert is valid (w/ appropriate valid medical) I think a Sect. 333 waiver applies instead.

The Section 333 Exemption is a LOT more difficult and trouble to get than the Part 107.

If you're a Part 61 certificate holder then the process is even easier. You take the online test and pass. Then take the documents etc to the DPE and they complete the process. You have your TEMP certificate immediately and for the price of whatever the DPE charges for their time (usually 1 hr fee).

As already stated, Section 333 Exemptions are not being issued in cases where the Part 107 covers operations. Section 333 Exemption allows for flights that are NOT covered under other means... hence the term "Exemption". If Part 107 (with waiver) doesn't cover your flight needs then you can start the Section 333 Exemption process.

 

[BoneThrower13]

Al is specifically talking about non GPS controlled aircraft. Theres a HUGE difference. Some of the older RC pilots know that it actually requires skill to fly an RC heli or plane and thats what sets them apart. Anyone can fly a Phantom, like a 5 year old, and pretty good I might add. Some spend years just learning to properly hover a CP RC heli. No person flying a non GPS craft is going to fly beyond visual sight because if you do, your going to crash.

Right on and a very good point from an old Helo RC guy.

 

[Helihover]

Oh

My

Goodness.....


Drone Operator Sues Blackhawk Pilot for Destroying Drone over Staten Island | Aviation Acorn

 

[N017RW]

The drone 'pilot' names do not match.
This thread's subject pilot was ID'd as: Vyacheslav Tantashov.

The article in the above post is ID'd as: Jeff Barrett.

 

[Helihover]

The drone 'pilot' names do not match.
This thread's subject pilot was ID'd as: Vyacheslav Tantashov.

The article in the above post is ID'd as: Jeff Barrett.

Ahh. Fake news?

 

[sar104]

Oh

My

Goodness.....


Drone Operator Sues Blackhawk Pilot for Destroying Drone over Staten Island | Aviation Acorn

Is this another collision? It's clearly not the collision that is the subject of this thread, since it's a different pilot and a different location.

 

[N017RW]

Is this another collision? It's clearly not the collision that is the subject of this thread, since it's a different pilot and a different location.

Yea. Too lazy to investigate this further at this time.

Just pointing out the difference(s) and wondering why no other 'coverage' of this particular incident too.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Is this another collision? It's clearly not the collision that is the subject of this thread, since it's a different pilot and a different location.

Agreed, and this new pilot comes with "attitude"!
No mea culpa from him!

 

[PhamTon]

The article reads like a joke.

‘I had a 15 degree field of view from the camera and used the Dji app to see over 2 miles away.....’

‘I was flying in a TFR, the helicopter shouldn’t have been there.....’

 

[N017RW]

Yes. After reading more carefully I agree. Either AviationAcorn was duped or it should be called AviationOnion.