IFR in DFW Another Drone thread

SixPapaCharlie

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,051
Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
No idea what the rules are but I assume this is in the class B to the surface.

It is foggy here like I have never seen before here today.
Tango Whiskey has a cool photo I will see if I can get him to post it.

Anyway. More drones.
 
Not sure how legal that is, but it's beautiful.
 
There are no airspace related restrictions on model aircraft other than published TFRs and the FRZ. The altitude is legal, since there basically is no legal altitude limitation. The recommendation in an old advisory circular from the 80s advises to remain below 400agl, which this certainly is.

The FAA is moving towards requiring line of sight control. It's questionable and debatable if that is legitimate law right now. The hobby organization (AMA) has it as a rule. This clearly was not line of sight do to the fog. But again, the legality of that is as up in the air as the aircraft itself.

There is nothing unsafe I see about this. He has visual from the video downlink, and he has telemetry from the data downlink.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
There are no airspace related restrictions on model aircraft other than published TFRs and the FRZ. The altitude is legal, since there basically is no legal altitude limitation. The recommendation in an old advisory circular from the 80s advises to remain below 400agl, which this certainly is.

The FAA is moving towards requiring line of sight control. It's questionable and debatable if that is legitimate law right now. The hobby organization (AMA) has it as a rule. This clearly was not line of sight do to the fog. But again, the legality of that is as up in the air as the aircraft itself.

There is nothing unsafe I see about this. He has visual from the video downlink, and he has telemetry from the data downlink.
Click to expand...

The accepted AMA and FAA working with the AMA is to maintain line of sight between the operator and the RC. Video downlink does not count.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
There are no airspace related restrictions on model aircraft other than published TFRs and the FRZ. The altitude is legal, since there basically is no legal altitude limitation. The recommendation in an old advisory circular from the 80s advises to remain below 400agl, which this certainly is.
Click to expand...

The building on the right is 920' tall. The one to the left of it is 890' to the top of the spires. Fountain Place (the pointy one) is over 700'. I'm guessing he's at least 500' AGL. He's at least close to that.
 
Something is telling me that AerialDFW will be getting a call from the Dallas FSDO very soon.

There is nothing unsafe I see about this. He has visual from the video downlink, and he has telemetry from the data downlink.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

It's Instrument Flight Rules weather. IMC. You know what that is, right? Nothing but controlled airspace all around where this UAV is operating. Depending on it's actual location and altitude, it's probably in controlled airspace down to the surface. It's probably not on any ATC controller display. None of the IFR aircraft would even see this aircraft until the last second and ATC would not call it to anyone's attention because it's not on their display. Everybody in that airspace is probably under positive control by ATC except this aircraft. Put yourself in one of the many aircraft going into Dallas Love or Dallas Executive doing 120 -140 KIAS and this UAV pops up just above the clouds. Too late. Nice knowing you.

Please don't defend careless and wreckless UAV operations. This type of operation and for that matter, you defending it, does nothing for the UAV industry moving forward.
 
Take from West Dallas, around N Hampton and Singleton roads I would say. At that time of morning, tops were reported ~700'. The entire thing was in IMC conditions for cloud clearance.
 
Is striking a typical drone likely to cause any more damage to an aircraft than striking a large bird?

As far as I know, we haven't yet banned birds.
 
cowman said:
Is striking a typical drone likely to cause any more damage to an aircraft than striking a large bird?

As far as I know, we haven't yet banned birds.
Click to expand...

Try this experiement. Get one of those big fans you see in auto shops. Grab a seagull, toss him into the fan.

The seagull won't want to go into the fan, but with a good hard toss you can get him in there.

A seagull is mostly guts and hollow bones. A red spray will make a mess of your garage but your big fan will be just fine, perhaps a nick on a blade at worst.

Now get your five pound drone. The one with at least two lithium batteries in it, plus assorted other metal and hard plastic parts.

Your drone isn't afraid of the fan, it'll fly right into it.

Note that you now have a seriously bent fan blade on your big fan, and your garage is now on fire from the two battery explosions that you just witnessed.

BIRD != DRONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Is striking a typical drone likely to cause any more damage to an aircraft than striking a large bird?
Click to expand...

If you're a pilot I think you know the answer to that question already. If you're not a pilot the answer is -

Yes. An aircraft moving at 100+ KIAS colliding with a moving or stationary object the size and weight of your typical UAV will cause more than minor damage. If it hits and goes through the windshield, well you can figure that one out. If it hits the prop, one of the ailerons or the rudder - control of the aircraft becomes greatly compromised. Good luck getting it back on the ground in one piece. If a UAV enters the turbine of a commercial jet, not a good scenario there either. Of course, most of what I have just typed is common sense, but I'm sure you know all of this right?

We can't do a whole lot about the birds. We can do something about wreckless operation of UAVs.
 
I guess it depends on the UAV.... most of the ones I've seen are mostly styrofoam with some light plastic props, tiny motors, and a small battery/control module.

I wouldn't want to hit either but it doesn't seem like that would be worse than say... and eagle or something.

Just playing devil's advocate here.
 
There are the toy grade quad copters [little ones you fly indoors] and then there are the hobby grade, e.g DJI Phantom family and the F450/F550 family, which are platforms that carry a GoPro. When you go beyond that you are in the commercial realm and it becomes really expensive quickly. These machines are $8k and up and add a camera to it, you start talking real money. People , who fly such equipment will protect it and not take risks losing it. It is the folks with the DJI Phantom that retails for up to $1100.00 or so that will take more risks than warranted, as it flies right out of the box without any training... You do not want to meet any quad copter or octo copter when happily flying along in your little C150!
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be afraid of hitting a drone in a C207. Those things have more metal on them than an abrams tank
 
A bird took out a C172 at the flight school where I trained, something around ten years ago. Instructor and student killed.
 
DavidWhite said:
I wouldn't be afraid of hitting a drone in a C207. Those things have more metal on them than an abrams tank
Click to expand...
I would be, and we were out flying there yesterday... Not cool! It's hard enough to spot a Cessna when you are in a turn and the controller gives you an O'clock position and these things aren't often painted for high vis, either.
 

Attachments

  • RED_1736.JPG
    RED_1736.JPG
    19.4 KB · Views: 17
docmirror said:
Take from West Dallas, around N Hampton and Singleton roads I would say. At that time of morning, tops were reported ~700'. The entire thing was in IMC conditions for cloud clearance.
Click to expand...
Given how wide angle these cameras are, could even be east of the river. Either way, there would be no IFR aircraft at 700' in that area.
 
Personally..... I think the video is rigged.....

From .045 to about 1 minute 20..... the thing sat PERFECTLY still..... Hard to believe a drone could sit still that long, considering that shot was a time lapse that probably took 20 minutes to pull off...:confused::confused::dunno:

My guess is the camera was hoisted on some structure/ antenna and then lowered down back through the clouds. IMHO....
 
N801BH said:
Personally..... I think the video is rigged.....

From .045 to about 1 minute 20..... the thing sat PERFECTLY still..... Hard to believe a drone could sit still that long, considering that shot was a time lapse that probably took 20 minutes to pull off...:confused::confused::dunno:

My guess is the camera was hoisted on some structure/ antenna and then lowered down back through the clouds. IMHO....
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the drone was moving there, not the clouds. It looks real-time.
 
Never mind, I guess it is some kind of time lapse. GPS hold with some video stabilization and fast-moving clouds would make it possible.
 
Apparently, the buzz kills at the FAA reached out to AerialDFW. From his YouTube posting:


Update: Got an official letter and had a meeting with the FAA UAS coordinator for North Texas on 12/10/14. I know what I did wrong and won't do it again. I hope you enjoy the video, it was done strictly for enjoyment purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top