P3 altitude record 980m

[delirious]

Killer, I don't think you are going to win this argument. There's too much stacked against you. I'm saying this as nice as I can. Play nice with your toy and follow the rules. They are well thought out and in place for a reason. There are laws... You can break those laws if you wish but someday there may be unintended consequences. Someone may be injured or die. Buzz is right. He's arrogant about the way he communicates. I find it offensive, but he's right. Not everybody has great communication skills but listen to what he's saying. Consider having a child of yours on a commercial flight. It would be so sad to loose my daughter to a hobby drone. I highly doubt a drone would bring down an aircraft but it could happen.

I don't see any drones around my neighborhood. To my knowledge, I'm the first. I want to make sure I can keep flying, so I need to make sure I also respect the limits and don't pester people. Rules will change. I'll enjoy my drone until I can't. It just the way things happen. If I were you, I'd stop posting and move on. For the sake of the hobby, don't draw any more attention.

 

[Apparition]

I'm considering writing a letter to my local FSDO office to ask what to do to get the point across to some of the Clowns here.

Never invite the man into your life. No good will come of it.

 

[bbfpv]

Its like half the people complain that you can't go above 500m with a p3, and half who complain that you can. Wonder which half is bigger...?

they'd have to be the same size.

 

[cjmwales]

I know a commercial pilot drone operator, and he is a jerk and has done some extremely reckless stuff with his drones and rc aircraft... the Indians have been in the US much longer than us but they are scarce now, being or doing something longer doesn't give you more rights...

I don't even want to discuss AMA anymore.

I don't want a row with you mate (internet confrontation is pointless) but I really don't think the message is getting to you - or you're choosing to cherry pick what's presented to suit the version of reality you'd like.

Saying 'someone else is doing it' doesn't really hold up as an argument unfortunately.

The reason you're getting stick is because your actions (and similar actions by other people) will kill this hobby. This thread is only a google search away, and if you read some of the threads on www.pprune.org there's a growing lobby of pilots who are getting pissed off at seeing UAVs from their window as they're queuing to take off; there have been several very recent incidents like this.

It's a rare scenario where the actions of a few will affect many. And for what? Some sort of bragging rights or a mediocre 13 minute video clip of a phantom going up vertically for 6 minutes, and then back down again for 7?

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c.html

 

[Buzz313th]

Killer, I don't think you are going to win this argument. There's too much stacked against you. I'm saying this as nice as I can. Play nice with your toy and follow the rules. They are well thought out and in place for a reason. There are laws... You can break those laws if you wish but someday there may be unintended consequences. Someone may be injured or die. Buzz is right. He's arrogant about the way he communicates. I find it offensive, but he's right. Not everybody has great communication skills but listen to what he's saying. Consider having a child of yours on a commercial flight. It would be so sad to loose my daughter to a hobby drone. I highly doubt a drone would bring down an aircraft but it could happen.

I don't see any drones around my neighborhood. To my knowledge, I'm the first. I want to make sure I can keep flying, so I need to make sure I also respect the limits and don't pester people. Rules will change. I'll enjoy my drone until I can't. It just the way things happen. If I were you, I'd stop posting and move on. For the sake of the hobby, don't draw any more attention.

Lol...

I actually appreciate this post.. And I thank you.

My wife and friends tell me all the time that I need to work on my writing skills, especially online.. That I do sound like a jerk. I honestly don't mean too and pride myself on my integrity and fairness.

This happens often when I'm passionate about something and try to get my point across..

Thanks for helping

Sincerely.

 

[delirious]

Lol...

I actually appreciate this post.. And I thank you.

My wife and friends tell me all the time that I need to work on my writing skills, especially online.. That I do sound like a jerk. I honestly don't mean too and pride myself on my integrity and fairness.

This happens often when I'm passionate about something and try to get my point across..

Thanks for helping

Sincerely.

No worries. I suffer from the same problem. My wife helps me. I try to be tactful. My brain is just wired to be blunt

 

[Buzz313th]

Regarding whether or not a phantom could bring down a plane...

Ever heard of the acronym "FOD"?

The concord crash?

Turbofan, TurboProp and TurboShaft engines are tested for bird strikes. Frozen Geese, and Chickens are thrown into the intakes in a lab durring Runup tests. A certain percentage of these tests, must result in operational survivability or the engine won't pass.

FOD is a different story.. Hard metal items like bolts, screws and other hardware if ingested into a turbine engine routinely result in operational failure... Concord...

The 4 motors on a phantom are made out of hardened metal. They are much larger and heavier than FOD that routinely brings down aircraft.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and confidently state that if you did the same tests with phantoms instead of chickens and Geese the test would result that every single phantom ingested by a turbine engine would result in operational failure resulting in an automatic shutdown, or voluntary shutdown of the affected engine.

 

[Buzz313th]

No worries. I suffer from the same problem. My wife helps me. I try to be tactful. My brain is just wired to be blunt

So is mine...

I find being blunt to be a more efficient use of time than beating around the bush...

Plus I respect people who get to the point.

 

[Marlin009]

... i'm sure there are thousands of analogies I can come up with to make my point...

No doubt in my mind. Each one sillier than the last.

 

[cjmwales]

U do realize that what you are almost saying is, ok a phantom 3 can probably make an aircraft engine inoperable, so we should ban p3s because the engine would fail. Shouldn't the airline take up a little more responsibility to improve the engine to the point where it can't fail because now there are p3s in the air? I'm not saying that the p3s should fly in the aircrafts path by any means, but when u get on a plane, its basic law that says they are responsible if they were negligent in any way. So if there is technology to create engines that won't fail, they would be negligent to not use them. It would also therefore be negligent if they don't use bulletproof windows and other protection for the wings and body... i'm sure there are thousands of analogies I can come up with to make my point... you actually pointed out that since the concord is not safe, therefore they don't fly anymore, same should hold for any other aircraft these days...

You can't protect a modern turbofan engine from FOD. Even if you could, it would be heavy (more fuel needed) prohibitively expensive to manufacture (cost more to buy), meaning that cheap airfare isn't so cheap anymore.

It's far cheaper and more practical to take steps to avoid FOD, like routine inspection of runways, bird scarers, trained falcons etc.

Oh, and PEOPLE NOT FLYING A 1KG DRONE IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE.

The safety of a few hundred people on a commercial jetliner is more important than the 'freedom' to operate a remotely controlled toy at heights people know they shouldn't be operating at.

 

[Buzz313th]

U do realize that what you are almost saying is, ok a phantom 3 can probably make an aircraft engine inoperable, so we should ban p3s because the engine would fail. Shouldn't the airline take up a little more responsibility to improve the engine to the point where it can't fail because now there are p3s in the air? I'm not saying that the p3s should fly in the aircrafts path by any means, but when u get on a plane, its basic law that says they are responsible if they were negligent in any way. So if there is technology to create engines that won't fail, they would be negligent to not use them. It would also therefore be negligent if they don't use bulletproof windows and other protection for the wings and body... i'm sure there are thousands of analogies I can come up with to make my point...

Bluntly.....

No! Nobody is going to mandate that an aircraft engine spinning at tens of thousands of revolutions per minute be capable of surviving a strike from 4 hardened metal 2 -5 ounce 1 inch by 1 inch metal objects. With current engine technology, it might be impossible. Maybe you can help by Not making that opportunity a reality?

Bulletproof windows? Really?

I am truly astonished by your lack of understanding...

 

[Buzz313th]

PM I got from Govman. New member, no name, no id number...



I certainly think that airlines must update their aircraft at this point... Pure negligence not to do so. If you are gonna say the tech doesn't exist, then I'd say our military planes are not war ready, heh. And its the same companies that build both commercial and military aircraft...

I am so glad you received this.. And not at all surprised that you did.

I also would like to request that the Moderators of this forum consider deeming threads such as these inappropriate and remove them... For the best interest of the drone community.

 

[blade strike]

Don't worry this will be fixed.. This just shows that people can not regulate themselves

 

[blade strike]

U do realize that what you are almost saying is, ok a phantom 3 can probably make an aircraft engine inoperable, so we should ban p3s because the engine would fail. Shouldn't the airline take up a little more responsibility to improve the engine to the point where it can't fail because now there are p3s in the air? I'm not saying that the p3s should fly in the aircrafts path by any means, but when u get on a plane, its basic law that says they are responsible if they were negligent in any way. So if there is technology to create engines that won't fail, they would be negligent to not use them. It would also therefore be negligent if they don't use bulletproof windows and other protection for the wings and body... i'm sure there are thousands of analogies I can come up with to make my point... you actually pointed out that since the concord is not safe, therefore they don't fly anymore, same should hold for any other aircraft these days...

No, you as a pilot should take more responsibilities.. People like you are the reason why we have more and more regulations. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What is wrong keeping the **** multirotor under 400'?

 

[nirvine88]

I'm a newb and even I realise this guy flys like an idiot.

 

[ianwood]

I'm a newb and even I realise this guy flys like an idiot.

Let's keep it civil. No name calling please.

 

[Stan_in_KS]

too much discussion. someone just post some nice video over clouds please. =D

Here are some over the cloud images for you. Legal too

Probably about 21,000 feet.

And my P3P was riding in the back.

 

[claws]

Ever heard of the acronym "FOD"?

The concord crash?

Turbofan, TurboProp and TurboShaft engines are tested for bird strikes. Frozen Geese, and Chickens are thrown into the intakes in a lab durring Runup tests. A certain percentage of these tests, must result in operational survivability or the engine won't pass.

FOD is a different story.. Hard metal items like bolts, screws and other hardware if ingested into a turbine engine routinely result in operational failure... Concord...

I'm not sure I follow your Concord example...

 

[ianwood]

Shoulda just kept it to myself. This is what I get for being kind and sharing info for what half the people want... ohh well, I better start learning to program.

We're happy for you to share your flights. But, when a chorus of people are asking you (some even pleading) for you to reconsider your actions, it should give you pause to reflect on what is being said. If you can show us that you understand where we're coming from, it might help to calm things down.

I'm not sure I follow your Concord example...

Concorde was taken down by a small metal strap that fell from a prior flight.

 

[dirkclod]

I'm a newb and even I realise this guy flys like an idiot.

I believe ianwood told ya already and I see ya new here , maybe ya missed reading these !
http://www.phantompilots.com/pages/communityguidelines/