Originally Posted by IBCrazy

We all would. Unfortunately it's not going to happen. It never has in the history of the World... except through revolution.

The truth is that our laws are written mainly by influence from lobbyists working for large corporations. In order to change things, you need your own lobbyists. Since we as hobbyists don't have lobbyists, we are at the mercy of larger corporations that do. This is how the chairman of the ARC (appointed by the FAA none the less) also happens to be the head of Aerovation... Luckily, we as hobbyists have an exception, which is a huge jump for us and the security of our hobby.

Does anyone know if any research or testing has been done on the impact of aerial collisions with full scale aircraft or sUAS and other structures? If so, please send me a link. I would be interested in the findings.

-Alex

I would think that impact data for UAV aerial collisions is not the big issue. The problem would be what happens when a UAV is sucked into a jet turbine and the jet crashes or as you indicate when a UAV impacts a structure, motor vehicle or person. Even if it only struck the roadway it could still cause a vehicle accident.

The big difference between a bird impact and a UAV impact is that you can't sue the bird.

A similar issue is when a golfer that hits a ball off the course which then strikes a windshield sending a car into another causing injury. The golfer is at fault and will be sued. I would expect the UAV pilot would have the same issue.

Originally Posted by Eagle202

I would think that impact data for UAV aerial collisions is not the big issue. The problem would be what happens when a UAV is sucked into a jet turbine and the jet crashes or as you indicate when a UAV impacts a structure, motor vehicle or person. Even if it only struck the roadway it could still cause a vehicle accident.

The big difference between a bird impact and a UAV impact is that you can't sue the bird.

A similar issue is when a golfer that hits a ball off the course which then strikes a windshield sending a car into another causing injury. The golfer is at fault and will be sued. I would expect the UAV pilot would have the same issue.

This unfortunately is going to be the way it is too, you are liable for your equipment, if it gets sucked into a jet engine or a prop plane and that plane suffers any damage, it will be the pilot that was flying it responsible. This is no different then your car, your house, business, etc etc. I take full responsibility for anything that could happen due to my aircraft, hopefully it never happens :P.

Originally Posted by NorCalMatCat

This unfortunately is going to be the way it is too, you are liable for your equipment, if it gets sucked into a jet engine or a prop plane and that plane suffers any damage, it will be the pilot that was flying it responsible. This is no different then your car, your house, business, etc etc. I take full responsibility for anything that could happen due to my aircraft, hopefully it never happens :P.

Taking responsibility for ones action is the right and only thing to do.

Originally Posted by IBCrazy

Watch out. The bird strike warnings are going to fly Luckily bird strike fatalities are non-existent. Same will be with foam airplane strikes. Damaging, sure, but not fatal.

Fun fact: The most two damaging animals to aircraft don't even fly.

-Alex

Alex,
I respect your work and appreciate your generous contributions to the RC community, I dont mean to offend anyone on this forum, but i have seen a small GA plane taken down by 1 dove. if it goes through the prop it can cause such an unbalanced condition the pilot will shut it down and be forced to an off field landing. It will likely easily go through their windscreen. The small planes like i built (RV7) cruise at 175-207 MPH. don't kid yourself that people can't die. My bixler was going 72 mph yesterday. My battery weighs a good bit more than a dove.

Originally Posted by wilem

Alex,
I respect your work and appreciate your generous contributions to the RC community, I dont mean to offend anyone on this forum, but i have seen a small GA plane taken down by 1 dove. if it goes through the prop it can cause such an unbalanced condition the pilot will shut it down and be forced to an off field landing. It will likely easily go through their windscreen. The small planes like i built (RV7) cruise at 175-207 MPH. don't kid yourself people can't die. My bixler was going 72 mph yesterday. My battery weighs a good bit more than a dove.

I want to know what you are doing to go 70mph, I can barely get my Bix to go 70kmh, let alone mph.

For those 1280mhz users......

In the June 2012 issue of QST magazine (ARRL publication), page 9...

A few months ago the FAA began installing Common Air Route Surveillance Radar (CARSR) that operates in the 1240 - 1350mhz band. Aeronautical Navigation is one of several primary services in the 23cm band that amateur services must protect.

There is more to the article but the FAA is already complaining that they are getting interference in the Los Angeles area .

Since they are already installing radars, it shouldn't be too long before they take away this frequency band.

The potential for conflict in the band has always existed. HAM use has always been secondary.
More info here. http://rchelicollective.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2318

ian

Originally Posted by NorCalMatCat

I want to know what you are doing to go 70mph, I can barely get my Bix to go 70kmh, let alone mph.

i am using 4 cell on a 2212-6 with a 6x4 prop. I have been having trouble getting the RTH to function properly. the fail safe on the radio had a high throttle setting and i was quite high. I initiated RTH and it pitched down 30 degrees or so and increased to near full throttle. i was letting it run out for a bit to see if it would turn home and when it did not i then took it back. on 4 cells (gets hot quick) it scoots pretty good.

Originally Posted by NorCalMatCat

I want to know what you are doing to go 70mph, I can barely get my Bix to go 70kmh, let alone mph.

I hear that usually its barely fast enough to stay airborne. i was using 2 cell 5000s then 3 cell 2200s then i made a regulator and went 4 cell 3300 w/ no camera battery.

i am using 4 cell on a 2212-6 with a 6x4 prop. I have been having trouble getting the RTH to function properly. the fail safe on the radio had a high throttle setting and i was quite high. I initiated RTH and it pitched down 30 degrees or so and increased to near full throttle. i was letting it run out for a bit to see if it would turn home and when it did not i then took it back. on 4 cells (gets hot quick) it scoots pretty good.

4 cell 3300?? Man you must not have much else in that plane :P

Originally Posted by NorCalMatCat

4 cell 3300?? Man you must not have much else in that plane :P

it is a lead sled. eagle tree pro osd, v4 logger, gaurdian, 10hz gps hobby king 5.8 vtx
KX191 color and night mode CCD camera. futaba 8 ch pcm reciever. rctimer 2212-6 w apc 6x4 prop.

man why have i been avoiding making the antennas? i even have a SWR meter nor.:-) i am getting out to a mile, lost a little when i combine the battery's. and picked up some faint horizontal lines.








Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Originally Posted by ara25demayo

Im With you for an fpv normal aircraft is impossible to go far up as 20,000 ft it maybe dangerous near airports maybe but almost impossible a terrorist could fly a fpv to the jet engine almost impossible cause in this days is easier get a stinger than the possibility of striking a plane with rx aircraft and modern jet motors are supposed to be designed to survive to bird strikes as a fozen chicken ans some other birds way bigger that usual fpvs well not bigger but a lot harder and a lot heavier you can't compare 2.5m of plywood. Balsa fiberglass or foam to 10 pounds of bones and muscle

at the speeds jets travel hard or soft does not matter. its been proven. Some fod might get through the fan (major $$$) but if it gets into the compressor section its shutting down,

Originally Posted by thekubiaks

For those 1280mhz users......

In the June 2012 issue of QST magazine (ARRL publication), page 9...

A few months ago the FAA began installing Common Air Route Surveillance Radar (CARSR) that operates in the 1240 - 1350mhz band. Aeronautical Navigation is one of several primary services in the 23cm band that amateur services must protect.

There is more to the article but the FAA is already complaining that they are getting interference in the Los Angeles area .

Since they are already installing radars, it shouldn't be too long before they take away this frequency band.

Originally Posted by Daemon

The potential for conflict in the band has always existed. HAM use has always been secondary.
More info here. http://rchelicollective.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2318

ian

This is largely FUD and the picture circulating around of the ARSR-4 locations has zero to due with CARSR. ARSR-4s were installed during the early 90s btw.

CARSR is a joint FAA/USAF program upgrading over 80 radar sites that have been up and running since the 1950s. Guess what? They have always been operating in that frequency band. The upgrade program is projected to last through 2015/2016.

Oh and that LA site has always had problems.

Originally Posted by wilem

it is a lead sled. eagle tree pro osd, v4 logger, gaurdian, 10hz gps hobby king 5.8 vtx
KX191 color and night mode CCD camera. futaba 8 ch pcm reciever. rctimer 2212-6 w apc 6x4 prop.

man why have i been avoiding making the antennas? i even have a SWR meter nor.:-) i am getting out to a mile, lost a little when i combine the battery's. and picked up some faint horizontal lines.








Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Yeash, I run a 2700 3s, RCTimer 2212/6 2200kv motor with APC 6x4, FY31AP + Hornet OSD, Sony 640 cam, 1.2Ghz vTX, 500mah 3s for cam/vTX/Hornet, and a 5a BEC. I usually cruise 30 to 60km/h.

If this ends up being a yahoo flying FPV we are screwed:

http://www.9news.com/news/article/26...-air-collision