Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old May 31, 2011, 01:08 AM
Balsadustus Producerus
Escondido, CA USA
Joined Jan 2001
956 Posts
That's why I specified clean water. And as a side note, again I'll point out the rat poison is knowingly added with the water with the understanding it will add more risk to it. Not the intent, but the acceptance of that increase of risk is where I object to FPV-BLOS. Especially when you decide that for me. You're not the full size pilot-in-command in that example. I am. And I give that over to no one. I accept the responsibility accompanying being the PIC; otherwise I don't go. I would expect anyone experienced, current, proficient and rated is the same way. Or they ought not be in the air. It's that simple.

The collision I referred to happened over the Grand Canyon on 30 June, 1956. Both the Douglas DC-7 and the Lockheed L-1049 were operating VFR per the Captain's request of both airplanes. No one forced anyone to do that way. Both flight crews seemingly held they could deal with separation VFR, apparently both not knowing the other airplane was near but because of clouds along and in their way it turns out neither could carry out the needed see-and-avoid. Apparently the Government thought otherwise, dissolved the CAA and formed the FAA with almost totalitarian control of how air travel and traffic separation was to be accomplished. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 might just seem to the current FAA a good blueprint for governing our activities along with the other UAV equipment. Separation has been much improved after 30 June 1956 over what it was before. All we'll need is one fatal or near-fatal (as defined by the undiscerning public and/or greedy lawyers) accident.
Balsabird is offline Find More Posts by Balsabird
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 31, 2011, 01:13 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,820 Posts
I don't buy the one accident argument, it's too late for that. Also, midairs happen between certified "manned" aircraft. The this is my airspace edict is over... We need to share the air
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 09:47 AM
Suspended Account
Denver, CO
Joined Dec 2004
260 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balsabird View Post
Actually, I don't really care how you operate FPV/BLOS flight as long as you can provide the same level of separation I currently have with other airplanes. In other words, do your thing but don't add more danger to me while you do. With no on-board pilot flying the BLOS model but relying on the narrow view of the camera, compared to wider view the average human has, how do you propose to accomplish that?
Well, the last time I was on a commercial flight I saw another plane pass below us and cross our path only a few thousand feet away. Sounds good to me! How about we round up and say 1 mile?

Here is how I will accomplish it:

-Click on this link: http://www.thud.us/suas/MIT-UAV-risks-study.pdf
-Look at the map that Daemon pointed out on page 15
-Fly in the white/blue area when I want to go above 400' (I live in CO so this will be easy!)
-Fly under 400' everywhere else I want to fly.

Does this sound like a good plan to you?


Also, I've noticed that your posting and opinions seem to be more based on your credentials as a pilot, how you "feel," and fear of the unknown. Daemon's posts reference many different sources of risk analysis. Perhaps you could post some sources that will back up your opinions?
Vitamin_J is offline Find More Posts by Vitamin_J
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 10:07 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,820 Posts
It would be out of character for the FAA to employ science on the UAS issue.
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 01:37 PM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickegan View Post
It would be out of character for the FAA to employ science on the UAS issue.
I am involved with the FAA and RTCA on UAS access (have been for 2 years now) and I have to say the exact opposite is true, at least for the offices I've been involved with (UAPO and it's counterpart in the operations organization).

What you say is true in some parts of the FAA, but usually at the higher levels- for example, how those in charge of the controllers have ignored a decade of science on how to carry out 24hr ops without killing employees.



Dave
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 01:43 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,381 Posts
To help combat the inevitable I have culled some of the best points that have been made on the subject. Surely in these facts we have the resources to turn things around.

1) There are more geese than model planes.
2) Planes already crash into each other without model plane involvement.
3) Foam planes canít hurt anything at least the ones with foam motors and batteries.
4) How could they possibly catch us?
5) What could they do if we were caught?
6) Here in America are we not free to do as we please.
7) How can they regulate the air that we use for breathing?
8) Since we have done just a good job of complying with AC 91-57 why would anything more be needed?
9) Do you have any proof that we are not following it?
10) Licensed pilots are fear mongers donít listen to anything they say.
11) Same goes for AOPA.
12) To make things equal all licensed pilots should be required to fly using security cameras viewed through video goggles.
13) What is the worst that could happen?
14) We can calculate the odds for anything, what do you want to prove?
15) Why is the Desert Beat Test Center the only one selling FPV airspace waivers?
16) This argument can be won right here on RCGís.
17) Canít we all just get along?
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 05:11 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,196 Posts
How does that snarky list help this discussion? Almost every point is either
an outright distortion or taken completely out of its meaningful context.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Jun 01, 2011, 06:08 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,381 Posts
It is called satire.
This situation reminds me of someone who has been taken to court charged with a crime and found guilty. Now before the judge he is asked if he has anything to say before sentencing. This is his last chance to have any impact on what is coming but instead of addressing that he decides to embark on a philosophical discussion of the evidence presented log ago. While that may make him feel good it will have no affect on his sentence but maybe it will take his mind off what is happening.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 06:51 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,196 Posts
Your example situation implies a false premise that we're still discussing this because
we think the FAA can be convinced of anything. At this point I simply assume the worst
from the FAA (and now the AMA) and will be pleasantly surprised if they do anything
more reasonable. I'm much more concerned about the attitudes of fellow pilots,
be it full scale, visual R/C, and some FPV. Those are the people still engaged in
the discussion here, and they're the same people who represent the only
practical enforcement arm of the FAA, if those individuals truly believe that amateur
FPV piloting represents a significant risk to their person or hobby. Discussion
and education can still have positive benefits within that population. Polarizing
their attitudes based on distortion, will not.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Jun 01, 2011, 07:29 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,381 Posts
Of course be my guest. The choir is awaiting the song.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 01, 2011, 10:23 PM
Registered User
imagebuff's Avatar
United States, TX, Tomball
Joined Jan 2011
692 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
Of course be my guest. The choir is awaiting the song.
What suggestions do you have?
imagebuff is online now Find More Posts by imagebuff
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2011, 12:00 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,820 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
I am involved with the FAA and RTCA on UAS access (have been for 2 years now) and I have to say the exact opposite is true, at least for the offices I've been involved with (UAPO and it's counterpart in the operations organization).

What you say is true in some parts of the FAA, but usually at the higher levels- for example, how those in charge of the controllers have ignored a decade of science on how to carry out 24hr ops without killing employees.



Dave
Well, I asked Rick Prosek himself at the AUVSI show in August about the data issue. Nothing yet and no data capture system. Granted, I've been out for a year, but I have been involved for many years. Could share the list of data they are trying to collect?

RTCA...

Margaret Jenny addressed Congress (2009) about the pressing issues for the NAS. UAS was not one of those issues mentioned. I look at the Board of Directors and the Policy Board and I don't see many friends of UAS.

ASTM...

Isn't much better as it it chock-full of industry driving the UAS bus far from a viable business plan.

patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2011, 12:33 AM
Missileer Extraordinaire
Mel Duval's Avatar
Joined Jun 2001
2,040 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
I am involved with the FAA and RTCA on UAS access (have been for 2 years now) and I have to say the exact opposite is true, at least for the offices I've been involved with (UAPO and it's counterpart in the operations organization).

What you say is true in some parts of the FAA, but usually at the higher levels- for example, how those in charge of the controllers have ignored a decade of science on how to carry out 24hr ops without killing employees.



Dave
Dave,
My observation from being somewhat involved with the ARC is that there was no science at all to base the ARC Recommendations on. It was all emotion from the full scale guys. (I believe Patrick will back that statement up, he was in the middle of it) Having not been involved much since, I can't say what the current status is for sUAS. What I have seen is that for Global Hawk and Predator size UAS, the FAA does do science, but it is the same science they do for full scale aircraft--Guess what, the GH and Pred are full scale aircraft. IMHO, the FAA just does not have any idea on how to handle a 4 pound foam UAS/model plane from a risk assessment standpoint.
Mel Duval is offline Find More Posts by Mel Duval
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2011, 04:07 AM
never mind the boll⁣⁣⁣ocks
brosius85's Avatar
Australia, NSW
Joined Dec 2010
1,256 Posts
fact is no matter how "illegal" it ever gets it will never be enforced.

what will they do? shoot the plane down and arrest it? or if they see someone in a feild with video goggles and a tx, assume they are breaking the law and lock them up? or would they ask you what you are doing and prosecute you if you admitted anything?

police are the only ones with a chance of catching anyone, and they dont know the basic laws anyway, and even if they did, they could not prove you had broken them.

they could organise a "sting" i suppose. . . . if they suspected you were being naughty they could wait for you to land it and "seize" the evidence -if you had recorded it :P


its like the modified car scene- you need an engineer's report if you want to change the wheel size on your car. no one has that so they are all open to being given defect notices. no one gets that defect notice unless they are a menace and the cop wants to give them a quick lesson on manners. same goes with exhaust, loud stereo, air filter, stickers on windows, empty window squirter bottle.... the list goes on.

laws are there to keep people from hurting themselves. if you have such a low perp rate that you aren't making any money on fines, you need more laws.
brosius85 is offline Find More Posts by brosius85
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 02, 2011, 07:33 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,381 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagebuff View Post
What suggestions do you have?
My suggestion has been to be responsible and not help the prosecution.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 02:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 01:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 01:05 PM