- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,285
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I think the September 21st incident over New York City when a drone hit an Army Blackhawk helicopter and caused significant damage to the Blackhawk's main rotor blade contributed to the change in registration policy. I find it interesting that the drone operator's first language is Russian. The drone operator told investigators that he was unaware of the TFR in place at the time because of activity at the United Nations, and was also unaware of the requirement to keep the drone in sight.
If u are building one, I am paying for it. Just build 2What would really be great would be to get a huge ass drone and register it in my ex's name and fly it around the yard of the whitehouse with six road flares duct taped to it.
That would be government logic. The NTSB was able to identify the operator of an unregistered drone almost immediately, which means we need drone registration. The accident was caused in part by the operator ignoring regulations, which means we need more regulations.I think the September 21st incident over New York City when a drone hit an Army Blackhawk helicopter and caused significant damage to the Blackhawk's main rotor blade contributed to the change in registration policy. I find it interesting that the drone operator's first language is Russian. The drone operator told investigators that he was unaware of the TFR in place at the time because of activity at the United Nations, and was also unaware of the requirement to keep the drone in sight.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170922X54600&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=IA
![]()
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...-far-beyond-sight-during-black-hawk-collision
Just do what they did with laser pointers. Interfere with AC operation and it's a Felony. Word will get around.
That's specious. The only reason the NTSB was able to identify the drone operator is because one of the drone motors got tangled in the helicopter structure and was recovered by the army who turned it over to the FAA FSDO. The NTSB was able to track the motor serial number through the drone manufacturer to the retail customer. It was pure serendipity that the motor remained with the helicopter.That would be government logic. The NTSB was able to identify the operator of an unregistered drone almost immediately, which means we need drone registration. The accident was caused in part by the operator ignoring regulations, which means we need more regulations.
"The government" can't win; they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
And it would be pure serendipity to recover whatever tiny part of the drone had the registration number scribbled onto it with a Sharpie. Probably the battery compartment door, but who knows? Could be anywhere, and could be really small.It was pure serendipity that the motor remained with the helicopter.
This is unreasonable because it’s almost useless. Truly reckless operators won’t register.Regulations to resume drone registration are needed to identify reckless operators who pose a threat to aviation safety, and this incident is a good example of why reasonable regulation is needed.
The gov can’t win because they showed up too late with an ineffective piece of security theatre, rather than a true solution. They don’t deserve to “win.”"The government" can't win; they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
You prove my point.It was pure serendipity that the motor remained with the helicopter.
The goal should be aviation safety, and enhancing the ability of those whose job it is to keep the airspace safe for all users to quickly identify operators who violate safety rules without depending on chance.You prove my point.
The FAA on Dec. 19 published a much-anticipated report from the aviation rulemaking committee formed to study and recommend a systematic approach to identifying drones in flight, enabling law enforcement, air traffic control, and security authorities to instantly identify the owner of the drone. The FAA will now consider the data and recommendations in crafting a final rule that will remove one of the most significant obstacles to advanced unmanned aircraft operations including flights over people and beyond the remote pilot's line of sight.
The goal should be...
"Half fast" said:”Much anticipated” is a polite way of saying woefully late. Note also that neither of the two recommendations has anything to do with writing a number on your drone. Notice also that there are no specifics, and nothing recommended can be done for existing drones already being flown.
It's a start.
Did you even read the UAS ID ARC Final Report? There are lots of specifics. Writing a number on your drone is completely ineffective in identifying the operator if the drone is destroyed in a mid-air collision.
Ok then, how would you solve the problem?
Not sure there is a problem. Probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of “drones” or model RC aircraft have flown. We’ve had like one or two midairs??? Not exactly a common thing.
If one manned aircraft hit is a problem and it needs to be solved, then EVERY drone sold would have to have built in altitude and distance restrictions. These restrictions would make them so expensive and unpopular that no one would buy them.
The person who hit the Black Hawk knew exactly what he was doing. It’s cool to fly a drone a couple miles from your house simply by using a FPV device. That sort of activity is going to keep on happening and there’s nothing the FAA can do about it.
For those of you that thinks drones don't cause problems, when working in aviation fighting fires out west, operations were shut down on a weekly basis because some idiot was flying a drone over the fire. With multiple aircraft flying (there are quite a few involved with spotters, lead aircraft and numerous tankers) and a drone is spotted everything shuts down. How would you feel if your house almost got saved and all the airplanes disappeared. I was working for the company that has the DC-10 tankers and those guys drop from 200 feet in a valley and hauling ass, the last thing they need is to be dodging drones. Even a small one is capable of taking out a engine.
Not sure there is a problem. Probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of “drones” or model RC aircraft have flown. We’ve had like one or two midairs??? Not exactly a common thing.
If one manned aircraft hit is a problem and it needs to be solved, then EVERY drone sold would have to have built in altitude and distance restrictions. These restrictions would make them so expensive and unpopular that no one would buy them.
The person who hit the Black Hawk knew exactly what he was doing. It’s cool to fly a drone a couple miles from your house simply by using a FPV device. That sort of activity is going to keep on happening and there’s nothing the FAA can do about it.
At least one drone manufacturer has locked down their drones, to an extent. This reference, from 2 years ago, gives some detail- https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-fly-safe-system . However, home-made and older drones wouldn't be programmed in this fashion. I haven't heard that DJI is losing market share.
I'm generally in agreement with your sentiments. Didn't I mention 2 "exceptions" to these restrictions?Like I said, EVERY drone would have to have these restrictions. Those are hardly restrictions on the DJ when the operator can easily override them. They only apply in certain air space also.
All the RC aircraft I fly don’t have any restrictions built in. If they did, I’d find a way to bypass them.
I'm generally in agreement with your sentiments. Didn't I mention 2 "exceptions" to these restrictions?
For the DJI drones, one has do something to lift the restrictions that is traceable to the account (and presumably the owner). I don't know if the ownership could be spoofed. However, the restrictions were put in place by one manufacturer and others could do the same. A simple altitude/distance restriction should be easier to implement than the airspace restrictions used by DJI. Be that as it may, I merely only intended to let you know that drones could be programmed with restrictions, it's being done now, and it hasn't made those drones more expensive.
It's too bad fools are acting in such a fashion that people are contemplating removing a freedom that we have.
It's too bad fools are acting in such a fashion that people are contemplating removing a freedom that we have.
Yeah I understand and am aware of drones that come with restrictions built into the software.
What I’m saying, in order to prevent any midair with a manned aircraft, these restrictions would have to be in effect in all aircraft and in all airspace. Example, the Black Hawk hit the drone at only 300 ft. That’s a popular altitude for helicopters. It’s even our min altitude for Part 135 helo flight. So basically if we want to truly keep drones from manned aircraft, you’d need like a 200 ft restriction. That’s not practical and I’d never fly a drone with that type of restriction. My RC jets do around 100 mph and can easily stay within sight above the popular, although misunderstood, 400 ft altitude. If using common sense and having controls (spotter, remain in sight, portable radio), this type of operation can be done safely.
The problem, if we can even call it that, is what you said in your last sentence. AMA has already stated that all these infractions are from non AMA members. No idea if that’s true or not but my interaction with AMA members is positive and we abide by the rules laid out by AMA. You get these guys that are non members,doing stupid things with their aircraft and it creates a bad image for all of us. That’s the true problem.
The BlackHawk incident wasn't the best example to use. He broke 2 rules- flying in the TFR, and flying the drone out of his line of sight; I read over 2 miles away. If he kept the drone within his line of sight, he may have been able to drop it lower or do something else to avoid the helicopter. Use of a spotter, as you say, could have avoided the incident too. But this was a yahoo who clearly didn't read the rules, nor all of the instructions that came with his DJI drone. "Stupid drone tricks" have gotten them thrown out of national parks and wildlife refuges.
What would you do?
There's probably problems with selling a "limited" drone that is programmed from going very far or high unless someone reads far enough into the instructions to find out how to take a course and test that gives an unlock code that allows them to do more with the drone. That would maybe reduce the problem by limiting the abilities of the yahoos to make trouble, and still allow people with RC planes utilize their aircraft as they always have.![]()
Yet, they can not do this. They are BANNED by enacted law to issue regulations covering 'drones' that fit the definition of model aircraft in the law.
It matters not how they want to spin the definition of an drone or their responsibility to safety, they can't do more than they are authorized by law to do.
They can REGISTER them, that's the only thing that the NDAA restored. It doesn't entirely repeal the prohibition on the regulation of "model aircraft."Did you miss that Congress just changed the law? The FAA now can do this.
Because that absolutely works, right?
There were 3,960 laser strikes reported last year, according to the FBI, an average of 11 incidents a day.
Source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/why-its-terrible-idea-point-lasers-airplanes-n28841
Care to elaborate on that rather ambiguous statement?Nothing is absolute.
I think there's a difference between someone who buys a laser pointer and someone who buys a UAS.
Actually, the FAA does have UAV regulations. Part 101 Subpart E covers model aircraft, and Part 107 covers operations that don't fit within Congress's definition of model aircraft. Part 107 does have the 400 foot rule and the line of sight rule. Part 101 does not. It just has some very general requirements which, as I understand it, echo what's in the statute. One of those requirements is that the operator follow "a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." The "Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code" is an example of that. (Whether there are others, I don't know.)Because the FAA never did the rule making process for the UAVs. So what everyone thinks are rules (400 foot, line of sight) are just suggestions to follow.
What they did do is legitimize the drones and call them an aircraft. So by doing that, they are just like any other Piper Cub going low and slow. So the rules in place are see and avoid. Who is at fault when two Cessna 172 collide mid air?
...”a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization."