Taking my Phantom to the Grand Canyon tomorrow
- Thread starter mediaguru
- Start date
- Status
Wherever you fly...If you are a new flyer....just remember that when the warnings start to kick in....the LAST thing you want to be (trying to be) doing is to CLIMB BACK UP to your launch position. Climbing seriously increases the power drain...you will need progressively more throttle until you reach full throttle...and the bird might only be able to hover. And then it will cut out an drop like a rock.
1-4 pound model aircraft are banned but at least a half dozen full size turbine helicopter charters are allowed to "adversely impact" threatened and endangered species???
Just returned. I was at the North rim and all the facilities were closed. It would have been a good time, with hardly any people there etc. Winds were high and there weren't any decent places to launch. Lots of tree cover and no wide open spaces. So I bailed on taking the chance of getting busted and of losing my new GoPro hero3+ black.
I DID however do a flyover at Coral Pink Sand Dunes state park in southern Utah. I'll post some photos soon. Crazy place.
I DID however do a flyover at Coral Pink Sand Dunes state park in southern Utah. I'll post some photos soon. Crazy place.
mroberts said:
the only way to change stupid rules is to break them. if people keep following stupid rules then the government thinks that they are actually smart
MILLER4PRESIDENT2020 said:
Ummm....yeah. That's ONE way of looking at it. Because history is chock full of examples of legislators looking at crime statistics and saying, "Well, they just dont stop breaking this law. Let's repeal it!"
And history is full of laws that have had their consequences and their fines increased when too many idiots ignored said laws.
DUI laws are a great example.
There is a world of difference between civil disobedience and and actively disobeying a law that could result in bodily harm to an innocent victim because you simply don't respect or like that particular law.
the american revolution wasnt exactly legal but that worked out for the better. I for one am glad I don't have to worship that Old hag the queen of england.DrestonF1 said:
We all know that someday the FAA is going to crack down on our phantoms and it will be some ridiculously restrictive rule like nothing above 100' or maybe just banning them altogether. Then your poorly funded RC group (I am not even a member so i don't know what its called) will challenge the rules and it will go nowhere. The only hope is that more and more people buy phantoms and UAV's, etc to the point where the FAA says "we cant stop the floodgates the best thing to do is compromise".
Thats the way it works with almost every issue in our genius government whether its gun control, UAv's or drinking and driving. Someone does something stupid, there is an overbearing kneejerk reaction by the government. People start to realize how ridiculously overbearing the rule is and don't follow it anymore. The government slowly realizes that the world isn't black and white and so you can't fault the 99% of people who act responsibly with their guns, their toys, their cars and loosen up the restrictions.
ive dealt with the FAA trust me. Look at electronics approval below 10,000 feet that recently came out and is slowly being integrated. If every passenger on every airplane just sat their with their thumbs up their asses saying to themselves "better follow the rules" then the lifting of this restriction would have never happened. Instead most people choose to ignore it anyways, the flight attendants tell their supervisors that they have to yell at 20 pax a flight to turn off their phone, their supervisor goes over to the chief pilot supervisor and asks "hey do your instruments really get messed up because of pax cellphones? to which he replies no. The FA supervisor goes to her boss who goes to someone at the FAA to say "hey were getting sick of yelling at pax to turn off their phones and the pax are getting sick of us when we both know it doesnt do anything, can you take a look into this?" And 5 years later and billions of tax dollars wasted, the rule gets changed.
The squeeky wheel gets the oil, the circle of life, whatever you want to call it.
No, I didn't. In fact if I remember correctly I recieved an A in Inductive Logic and a B+ the following quarter in my Deductive Logic class.
Did you go to college?
No, it is not. You're very wrong in what you think a logical fallacy (aka Straw Man argument) is defined as.
Perhaps you can look online for a proper definition, and educate yourself a bit.
No, I'm afraid your wrong again. We were discussing "laws" and how they are changed by the way the public reacts/treats those laws. They are either strengthened and more strictly enforced, or they are abandoned. Whether you view a law as a "good" law or "bad" law depends on many factors. I'm guessing your judgment is influenced by how much the "bad" law restricts your percieved freedom.
If there is a viewing platform full of tourists in the desert? I need to explain that to you? I'm assuming you want this desert scenario to be void of people, right? Ok.
Not a soul is present in the desert. Ever heard of Cryptogamic soil? Probably not. Here is a link: http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/bio-soil.htm
And here is a link that explains the damage trampling (and crashed quadcopters I assume) does to this fragile but important biological crust:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4 ... 2924141187
I know, I know, you will argue that unless the quadcopter crashes, no harm will ever come to that cryptogamic crust. And I will counter with another drunk driver analogy (that you'll probably confuse for a straw man again); a drunk driver is only a danger if he hits another car or person, right?
I've no doubt.
That is nice. It is still breaking the law, and you only view it as a "stupid law" because the light is not in your favor, and there is not another car there for you to yeild to at that moment. That doesn't make the law stupid...
So again, did you go to college?
I'm just curious which institute of higher learning instilled in you the belief that peppering your rebuttal with insults and snarky retorts makes for good debate?
MILLER4PRESIDENT2020 said:
Your statements are true in general about many actvities that have been regulated out of existence, but...
When push finally comes to shove and the FAA gets off their collective asses and puts something on paper, the pro-commercial-drone lobby is going to be a lot more substantial (and substantially funded) than just a bunch of disgruntled old farts like myself. A sizeable portion of the film and video production industry (and some other key industries as well) already consider drones to be critical tools, and are guaranteed to spend mucho dinero fighting to protect their access to them. And, every day that the feds wait to get the legal aspect in order, the more entrenched drones become, and harder to sweep away with knee-jerk legislation.
Sweet Jumpin' Jesus! I can not believe what I am reading. I think I will just pay my AMA dues, fly at our approved field covered by insurance, pay the dues to our local club that pays for the solar charging station, the porta-potty as well as other amenities, and fly my Phantom until some of you jerks manage to get us all grounded. :roll:
- Status
