Another Drone Encounter

Whoa.

I looked at the comments section and there's a guy named EdFred on there - and it's not me.
 
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas! Get ready for the yearly onslaught.

I does seem that these things will conflict more frequently with police and medevac helos.
 
No one is going to be happy until there needs to be a thick rule book for every hobby. There's nothing inherently wrong with drones. But put them in the hands of complete morons, get them on the news, and all of the sudden they're a target for every group of "concerned citizens" who needs to outlaw something to feel important. I used to blame politicians for dumb laws. As I get older, I'm starting to realize that at least some of the blame has to fall on a populace that goes out of it's way to be so stupid that they require laws to keep from killing themselves or others.
 
nitsuj said:
No one is going to be happy until there needs to be a thick rule book for every hobby. There's nothing inherently wrong with drones. But put them in the hands of complete morons, get them on the news, and all of the sudden they're a target for every group of "concerned citizens" who needs to outlaw something to feel important. I used to blame politicians for dumb laws. As I get older, I'm starting to realize that at least some of the blame has to fall on a populace that goes out of it's way to be so stupid that they require laws to keep from killing themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Really all you can do is neuter them from the factory to stay below 400'. But then you'd have to have some way to allow legitimate pilots to go outside those parameters. Some nuts would hack the restrictions, for sure, but at least that would be a deliberate act of circumvention that could carry a higher penalty.
 
nitsuj said:
No one is going to be happy until there needs to be a thick rule book for every hobby. There's nothing inherently wrong with drones. But put them in the hands of complete morons, get them on the news, and all of the sudden they're a target for every group of "concerned citizens" who needs to outlaw something to feel important. I used to blame politicians for dumb laws. As I get older, I'm starting to realize that at least some of the blame has to fall on a populace that goes out of it's way to be so stupid that they require laws to keep from killing themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about a ban? No one credible that I've heard. Perhaps you've heard otherwise?

An emergency or crash of a passenger flight will result in a huge outcry for a ban for sure.

But given, as you say, that the world contains morons, what is the solution? Neuter the drones to below 100 agl unless the operator attains some kind of certification and register the drone? Then permit higher?

Geofencing around airports and heliports and seaports?

But then there is the existence of hackers.

Do we raise costs or punish (in the case of a ban) the vast majority of safe drone operators?
 
“Absolute worse-case scenario: The drone could come through window and take out the pilot, and the helicopter could come down,” he said.
Click to expand...
Is this sensationalism? The "drones" that I've seen would just go "splat" on the windscreen and then it would just be a lost toy.

Has anyone really tested the REAL (not imaginary) hazard drones pose to aviators?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Is this sensationalism? The "drones" that I've seen would just go "splat" on the windscreen and then it would just be a lost toy.

Has anyone really tested the REAL (not imaginary) hazard drones pose to aviators?
Click to expand...

True most wouldn't do much damage but nor could most reach 700 agl. I suspect drones capable of reaching 700 agl are probably quite a bit larger than the cheapos I saw at Wally World.

Anyway if a 2-5 lb bird can come through a wind screen then a 10-lb drone would **** a pilot's world.
 
petrolero said:
...I suspect drones capable of reaching 700 agl are probably quite a bit larger than the cheapos I saw at Wally World...
Click to expand...

I suspect that climb performance is determined by density altitude, not height above ground.

Or are drones sold in Denver not able to get off the ground?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Is this sensationalism? The "drones" that I've seen would just go "splat" on the windscreen and then it would just be a lost toy.

Has anyone really tested the REAL (not imaginary) hazard drones pose to aviators?
Click to expand...

I think a lot depends on the speed of the aircraft. I would also suspect that a collision with a rotor, or in the case of airplanes, getting sucked into a jet engine, would not require as much relative speed to cause a serious and/or expensive problem.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think a lot depends on the speed of the aircraft. I would also suspect that a collision with a rotor, or in the case of airplanes, getting sucked into a jet engine, would not require as much relative speed to cause a serious and/or expensive problem.
Click to expand...

I have my doubts that a drone strike vs bugsmasher would always result in a GA fatality. Sure it could, but I suspect that most collisions would be less severe.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I have my doubts that a drone strike vs bugsmasher would always result in a GA fatality. Sure it could, but I suspect that most collisions would be less severe.
Click to expand...

Definitely not always, IMO.
 
Palmpilot said:
I suspect that climb performance is determined by density altitude, not height above ground.

Or are drones sold in Denver not able to get off the ground?
Click to expand...

Huh? First, it's 700 agl, second climb performance only comes into play in terms of battery life.

I'm talking more about radio range & battery life than density altitude or whatever you're talking about. Maybe all drones can get up to 700 agl. Beats me. Let me know. Also some drones run off IR and those are the indoor-only variety like those little AirHog helos.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
Huh? First, it's 700 agl, second climb performance only comes into play in terms of battery life.

I'm talking more about radio range & battery life than density altitude or whatever you're talking about. Maybe all drones can get up to 700 agl. Beats me. Let me know.
Click to expand...

What I'm talking about is the concept of service ceiling, which applies to toy drones the same as it does to full size aircraft. Service ceiling is determined by climb performance, and it's expressed in MSL, not AGL. However, if you're talking about ones for which the batteries run down or the control signal gets too weak before they get 700 feet above the launch point, obviously that would come into play before service ceiling would. Of course, updrafts and downdrafts can also be a factor.

Also some drones run off IR and those are the indoor-only variety like those little AirHog helos.
Click to expand...

I assume IR controls have very limited range, but I don't see why they wouldn't work outdoors as long as they were kept within range.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I have my doubts that a drone strike vs bugsmasher would always result in a GA fatality. Sure it could, but I suspect that most collisions would be less severe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess we could accept the occasional GA fatality so drone hobbyists can have their jollies.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yeah, I guess we could accept the occasional GA fatality so drone hobbyists can have their jollies.
Click to expand...

How does that compare to the following statement:

Yeah, I guess we could accept the occasional ground fatality so GA hobbyists can have their jollies.

I'm not in any particular camp on the whole drone question but I find it ironic how quickly those who think they are impartial and logical in defending GA will immediately do a 180 degree turn on the same question once some other group impacts their perceived safety.

It sounds a lot like the small planes raining down into schoolyards full of children nonsense.
 
I wouldn't say "the vast majority" are responsible. . .probably not malicious would be closer to the truth. They'd kill you by acccident, from ignorance. Likely feel real bad about it, too.

But the odds are low of of a fatal, to my mind, anyway, and a rare fatality is acceptable. in exchange for the personal freedom. We accept bigger risk. . .let 'em play.
 
petrolero said:
Who's talking about a ban? No one credible that I've heard. Perhaps you've heard otherwise?

An emergency or crash of a passenger flight will result in a huge outcry for a ban for sure.

But given, as you say, that the world contains morons, what is the solution? Neuter the drones to below 100 agl unless the operator attains some kind of certification and register the drone? Then permit higher?

Geofencing around airports and heliports and seaports?

But then there is the existence of hackers.

Do we raise costs or punish (in the case of a ban) the vast majority of safe drone operators?
Click to expand...

I didn't say I heard about a ban. Just that morons will gather unwanted attention for doing stupid things. I don't know the solution. I'm the worst person to ask, as I'm generally against the government bugging people. My guess is it will start with some sort of licensing or required training.
 
I fly really BIG rc airplanes. I have a quarter scale J-3, a quarter scale PA-18, and a 1/5th scale DeHavilland Beaver. They range in weight from about 15 lbs for the J-3 up to 22.5 lbs for the Beaver. 110" wingspan on DHC-2, 106" span on the Cubs. They can fly further than you can see them, if you really wanted to do so. The same radios are used to fly a large segment of the multi-rotor fleet, too. These quadcopters can fly out of line of sight with some relatively inexpensive radio gear. Cameras, both still and video, can be fed in realtime back to the pilot so that you can operate them in a "First Person View" format. They make great camera platforms, which is in large part why they're so popular. They're also quite easy to fly compared to airplanes and traditional helicopters, which further adds to their numbers. Most are "charge and fly" types, even the very expensive versions. There's very little actual building with them. The multi-rotor kits are generally geared toward the hardcore hobbiest who will select a gyro board, motors, speed controllers, props, etc, to get the best flight times, speed (some people race them while wearing goggles with a live video cam feed) etc. The toy type quads are just toys. But they still do all the flying for the owner. Saying you're an rc pilot because you can fly a quadcopter is like calling yourself a computer programmer because you have a Facebook page. The insanely cheap cost of this technology is making it nearly ubiquitous, and the ability to get cool aerial footage of just about anywhere humans are able to go is too tempting to people who make bad choices. I've been flying rc since 1989, when I was in college, and I hate multi-rotors, quadcopters, whatever the name. I abhor the word "drone" used in conjunction with these things, though. I don't know if I want a registry for them or not. There's good and bad with that. Mostly bad. I recon there will be a lot of interesting events in the near future which will determine what happens with the FAA. https://www.faa.gov/uas/ <-- Some good reading right there. The people who are following the Model Aircraft Operations rules are *NOT* the same ones that are getting in the news with their quadcopters.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think a lot depends on the speed of the aircraft. I would also suspect that a collision with a rotor, or in the case of airplanes, getting sucked into a jet engine, would not require as much relative speed to cause a serious and/or expensive problem.
Click to expand...

Precisely what I was just going to say.
 
As pilots, we all have restrictions and have to go through training and education to be able to fly airplanes, why shouldn't people operating drones have to do the same. After all, they are technically aircraft too aren't they?
 
apparently they are now becoming registered aircraft by they FAA and should be able to get class B clearances and everything. It's like pilots have never had to avoid a bird or several birds at once.
 
yetti said:
apparently they are now becoming registered aircraft by they FAA and should be able to get class B clearances and everything. It's like pilots have never had to avoid a bird or several birds at once.
Click to expand...

One could argue, perhaps, that a bird has a sort of right (for lack of a better word) to fly around. After all, they own the skies. Man merely pays for the opportunity to spend time there with mechanical contrivances.

Quadcopters which are intentionally operated in close proximity to manned aircraft are done so in a reckless and irresponsible manner. Soon to be an unlawful manner, quite possibly. We'll see.
 
Lachlan said:
I fly really BIG rc airplanes. I have a quarter scale J-3, a quarter scale PA-18, and a 1/5th scale DeHavilland Beaver. They range in weight from about 15 lbs for the J-3 up to 22.5 lbs for the Beaver. 110" wingspan on DHC-2, 106" span on the Cubs. They can fly further than you can see them, if you really wanted to do so. The same radios are used to fly a large segment of the multi-rotor fleet, too. These quadcopters can fly out of line of sight with some relatively inexpensive radio gear. Cameras, both still and video, can be fed in realtime back to the pilot so that you can operate them in a "First Person View" format. They make great camera platforms, which is in large part why they're so popular. They're also quite easy to fly compared to airplanes and traditional helicopters, which further adds to their numbers. Most are "charge and fly" types, even the very expensive versions. There's very little actual building with them. The multi-rotor kits are generally geared toward the hardcore hobbiest who will select a gyro board, motors, speed controllers, props, etc, to get the best flight times, speed (some people race them while wearing goggles with a live video cam feed) etc. The toy type quads are just toys. But they still do all the flying for the owner. Saying you're an rc pilot because you can fly a quadcopter is like calling yourself a computer programmer because you have a Facebook page. The insanely cheap cost of this technology is making it nearly ubiquitous, and the ability to get cool aerial footage of just about anywhere humans are able to go is too tempting to people who make bad choices. I've been flying rc since 1989, when I was in college, and I hate multi-rotors, quadcopters, whatever the name. I abhor the word "drone" used in conjunction with these things, though. I don't know if I want a registry for them or not. There's good and bad with that. Mostly bad. I recon there will be a lot of interesting events in the near future which will determine what happens with the FAA. https://www.faa.gov/uas/ <-- Some good reading right there. The people who are following the Model Aircraft Operations rules are *NOT* the same ones that are getting in the news with their quadcopters.
Click to expand...

True. The idiots in the news are the reason we can't have nice things.
 
petrolero said:
True. The idiots in the news are the reason we can't have nice things.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a truism across any part of society. If everyone behaved like me, we wouldn't need police, military, welfare, social services, government healthcare, 99% of the laws on the books, etc...

Our whole society is built to manage the lowest common denominator. The rest of us have to fight or adapt to these annoying, often irrelevant rules to the best of our abilities.
 
bbridges51 said:
From SF Chronicle. Drones at 700 ft? Scary. The best line, though, is "“If your level of aircraft experience is that you ordered something from Amazon, you ought to stay out of the federal air traffic system.”

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CHP-copter-avoids-hitting-drone-in-Martinez-6679935.php
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if your level of experience is that your ordered something from Amazon, you probably don't know what the federal air traffic system is.

Drone makers should be required to include education material with a great big warning notice about education about the NAS. But even then there would be people who miss it.
 
For perspective, it might be well to remember other revolutionary technologies that went through a wild west phase in their early days/decades. Radio and airplanes are two examples. History shows that it takes time for legislators, regulators, and courts to figure out appropriates ways to deal with them.
 
RudyP said:
That's pretty much a truism across any part of society. If everyone behaved like me, we wouldn't need police, military, welfare, social services, government healthcare, 99% of the laws on the books, etc...

Our whole society is built to manage the lowest common denominator. The rest of us have to fight or adapt to these annoying, often irrelevant rules to the best of our abilities.
Click to expand...

Right. Passing laws should be a last resort. Laws and regs don't wash off.

In the case of drones, I think a public education campaign and industry innovation can mitigate the problem. There will always be a few asshats but regs won't deter them anyway. But as soon as someone runs one of these things into an airliner, that'll cause them to get their wings clipped short.
 
Last edited:
Lachlan said:
I fly really BIG rc airplanes. I have a quarter scale J-3, a quarter scale PA-18, and a 1/5th scale DeHavilland Beaver. They range in weight from about 15 lbs for the J-3 up to 22.5 lbs for the Beaver. 110" wingspan on DHC-2, 106" span on the Cubs.
Click to expand...

.

Wow! That's impressive. I would love to see your aircraft in operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top