Anyone recognize this Fine Upstanding Quad Pilot?
- Thread starter SilentAV8R
- Start date
dirkclod said:Well I finally agree with ya on something SilentAV8R !SilentAV8R said:
The Edited
I could not find a sarcasm emoticon. One would have thought it was obvious, apparently not.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
All things being equal there is no right or wrong, I think that could be wrong but only if the things weren't equal.
Clipper707 said:
I understand what you are saying, and perhaps I didn't fully explain what I meant. In this situation, since SilentAV8R determined the gentleman's distance to be 1,500 meters away from his quad and reportedly 1,500 ft AGL (doubtful), it stands to reason he could not see his quadcopter due to the distance and small size. I will accept and agree to that fact. So from there I will take the scenario further and assume he is flying FPV. But, does the quad operator still not have the ability to see the sky 1,500 meters away with his naked eye? Apparently he does, because either his naked eye or FPV system allowed him to realize there were other aircraft that he needed to yield to. Assuming his useful FOV is 160-170 degrees, it is better than the camera's FOV (wide setting on GP is about 120-125 degrees). I can see stars and the moon at night, which are pretty dad-gum far away. Pretty sure I can see a helo at 1,500M in the daylight even though I can't see my tiny quad.
sdtrojan said:
I wrote the distance from the park to the fire was approximately 1,500 FEET and the manned heli reported that the quad was around 1,500 FEET agl. 1,500 meters, which I never wrote, is closer to 5,000 feet.
sdtrojan said:
That's a given. You can see a helicopter much farther out than 1,500m. Do you know where your tiny quad is in relation to the helo?
My point is you have less situational awareness when you don't have LOS.
I guess at 67 years old, and having the experience of having built and flown analog RC aircraft for a period of time almost 50 years ago, and now operating a Phantom 2 "fly it right out of the box" aircraft, when I see arguments break out about laws versus good, common sense guidelines, I immediately wonder WTF!!!!!!!!!! Add to that, my flying single engine, MANNED general aviation aircraft for twenty years, really gets me back to WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
On the one hand, as an old man accustomed to self-control and governance, I wonder why we need laws to designed to separate manned and unmanned aircraft. I would think that it makes common sense to keep manned and unmanned aircraft separated. Thus, I have never had any problem conforming to the guidelines. I don't need a law.
But on the other hand, apparently an appreciable number of operators don't seem to grasp the simple principle of separating manned and unmanned aircraft. Idiots! Thus, the need for laws and penalties.
"Nobody is so blind as those who refuse to see," so the old saying goes.
All it's going to take is for one drone to collide with one MANNED aircraft, and the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Not to mention the poor souls that may lose their lives.
The 500' altitude and 1000' radius limits and no-fly zones common-sense guidelines have been around for RC aircraft for decades (generations at this point). They made common sense then and they still do now.
So, JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!
Good grief
On the one hand, as an old man accustomed to self-control and governance, I wonder why we need laws to designed to separate manned and unmanned aircraft. I would think that it makes common sense to keep manned and unmanned aircraft separated. Thus, I have never had any problem conforming to the guidelines. I don't need a law.
But on the other hand, apparently an appreciable number of operators don't seem to grasp the simple principle of separating manned and unmanned aircraft. Idiots! Thus, the need for laws and penalties.
"Nobody is so blind as those who refuse to see," so the old saying goes.
All it's going to take is for one drone to collide with one MANNED aircraft, and the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Not to mention the poor souls that may lose their lives.
The 500' altitude and 1000' radius limits and no-fly zones common-sense guidelines have been around for RC aircraft for decades (generations at this point). They made common sense then and they still do now.
So, JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!
Good grief
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Well said Case.
My background in r/c and full-scale aircraft and related experience is very similar to yours.
There's a rampant 'self-entitled' trend in our society today.
My background in r/c and full-scale aircraft and related experience is very similar to yours.
There's a rampant 'self-entitled' trend in our society today.
Thanks, N017RW. It's not often that one gets a compliment when he enters into a heated fray.
My early days of RC aircraft were a heady experience. Hours and hours and hours of construction. Lots of $$$ (when the dollar bought something). My first aircraft was a single channel (rudder) escapement. It was a real step up going multi-channel and proportional. But in general, it was build, crash, learn. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Finally, I got to the point where I usually returned home with the aircraft in one piece. Hehehehe. Good times.
Fortunately, my hours in the left-hand seat were less traumatic. More good times.....although there were a few minutes that aged me a couple years. It's those few minutes that make me highly sensitive to irresponsible drone operators (even though my hairy minutes in the left-hand seat didn't involve drones).
I tell my Character Counts kids that life is a balancing act between our own personal needs and wants and those of our society in general. I think that this drone thing is a perfect example.
My early days of RC aircraft were a heady experience. Hours and hours and hours of construction. Lots of $$$ (when the dollar bought something). My first aircraft was a single channel (rudder) escapement. It was a real step up going multi-channel and proportional. But in general, it was build, crash, learn. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Finally, I got to the point where I usually returned home with the aircraft in one piece. Hehehehe. Good times.
Fortunately, my hours in the left-hand seat were less traumatic. More good times.....although there were a few minutes that aged me a couple years. It's those few minutes that make me highly sensitive to irresponsible drone operators (even though my hairy minutes in the left-hand seat didn't involve drones).
I tell my Character Counts kids that life is a balancing act between our own personal needs and wants and those of our society in general. I think that this drone thing is a perfect example.
Question: is there truly a legal(law binding) altitude limit on recreational quad copters under 50lbs yet in non restricted usa airspace?
phantomguy said:
Strong "guidelines" to stay below 400 ft, but no law as of yet.
Common sense is what we should all be using. But as you can see from the various opinions expressed here, what is considered sensible varies greatly and is harldly "common" amongst us all.
GoodnNuff said:
Yeah thats the thing.....not sure how you gauge and measure common sense which is why there have been laws since we became an advanced culture and society.
If we let people use common sense while driving and did away with the laws.....that would be pretty scary
If we let people use common sense getting their kids vaccinated ........
if we let people use common sense in gun ownership.......oh my bad we do that already lol
Well you get my point i hope. Just like the FAA guidelines help us use common sense but we clearly need hard rules put in place and i know that scares many of you not wanting to be on a list the feds own but i assure you they already know about your porn collection.
phantomguy said:
No, there is not. The only law that applies to hobby flying is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 which contains no references at all to altitude. It requires staying clear of manned aircraft and not interfering with them. In the case of this thread I think the argument would be that the fact that the manned heli pilots noticed the quad and felt concerned about it would mean to the FAA that the quad had interfered with the manned aircraft. The altitude would have been an issue only to the extent that the FAA might say that you could not see a quad at that distance.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf
i don't see the big deal here, what did he do wrong? The video doesn't show the supposed buzzing of the helicopter by the quad, the video only shows the quad descending rapidly and landing eventually. Furthermore it looks like the quad was trying to avoid the airspace surrounding the helicopters....
it seems to me like he can fly pretty well imo.
I'm intrested to know what quad that was, the rate of speed it descended seemed ridiculously fast... looked like a phantom but larger and black? walkera scout x4?
it seems to me like he can fly pretty well imo.
I'm intrested to know what quad that was, the rate of speed it descended seemed ridiculously fast... looked like a phantom but larger and black? walkera scout x4?
It was about the size & shape of a Discovery but it almost looked like there was a top cover on it.capodrone81 said:
N017RW
Premium Pilot
What if he is: not in controlled airspace, was there first, then descended when the full-scales arrived?
Did I miss those details?
Did I miss those details?
N017RW said:
In the UK but that makes sense anywhere, I would say:
Not in controlled airspace = Nothing to ask for (execpt to the land owner)
Was there first= Doesn't matter the manned aircraft has priority. (Unless you asked for segregated airspace for your operation)
Decending when full scale arrived= Good job.
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??
The drone was in controlled airspace but was not operating in violation of any federal regulations.
Edit: I take that back. Glanced at that chart again. There is class D airspace very close to where this took place. I don't know the area so I can't tell if he was inside the class D or outside of it. No clearance is required to enter class D but it is an area where controlled airspace extends to the ground. If he was in the class D, he'd probably be in violation of the no fly within 5 miles deal if nothing else.
Class G airspace is uncontrolled airspace. According to the VFR chart, class G extends from the ground to 700' AGL in that area. Above 700' AGL is class E which is controlled airspace, but no ATC clearance is required to operate there. There is controlled airspace which does require an ATC clearance in that area, but that airspace doesn't begin until you get to 5000' MSL.Spiritskeeper said:
The drone was in controlled airspace but was not operating in violation of any federal regulations.
Edit: I take that back. Glanced at that chart again. There is class D airspace very close to where this took place. I don't know the area so I can't tell if he was inside the class D or outside of it. No clearance is required to enter class D but it is an area where controlled airspace extends to the ground. If he was in the class D, he'd probably be in violation of the no fly within 5 miles deal if nothing else.
Similar threads
