Shop our Airplanes Products Drone Products Sales
Thread Tools
Dec 14, 2017, 06:48 PM
Registered User
Discussion

Ntsb finds drone operator at fault with army helicopter collision


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...river_home_pop
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 14, 2017, 09:32 PM
Suspended Account
The perp is 58, been flying drones for 2 years. IS registered with the FAA and,

"The National Transportation Safety Board said the drone operator's lack of knowledge about aviation safety regulations contributed to the mid-air collision. "

Get ready to be tested.
Dec 15, 2017, 03:27 AM
Registered User
When you look at the lack of restrictions on general aviation before the Great Depression during the barnstorming days, it appears that this is where model aviation is currently at. I am sure it will be a matter of time before the FAA takes a more proactive approach to the drone problem. But the good thing is, a Part 107 operator does not require any form of medical certificate. They don't even have to self-certify like glider, ultralight, and balloon pilots do. All that's required is a test they have to pass, and they're in. And I am sure the course work is far less demanding than that of an aviation mechanic.

I once had a love for the model airplane hobby, because I liked aircraft in general. But I guess all that changed back in the mid 1990's, when I tried to get a medical certificate and was denied. I played the RC part of this stuff for a while, but eventually lost interest. Maybe some sort of licensing requirement will restore some value, and gain my respect for the hobby. But I don't see that happening any time soon, as I personally feel that any accountability and licensing requirements in model aviation are many decades off.

Maybe some day, when I feel an operator's license is something of value instead of a little piece of paper out of a cracker jack box, I'll return to the hobby. But for now, I will wait until model aviation gains the same respect I would have had for general aviation.
Dec 15, 2017, 07:25 AM
Hey Guys, Watch This.......
mike2663's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK001
The perp is 58, been flying drones for 2 years. IS registered with the FAA and,

"The National Transportation Safety Board said the drone operator's lack of knowledge about aviation safety regulations contributed to the mid-air collision. "

Get ready to be tested.
and people wonder why were being regulated....................................

Mike
Dec 15, 2017, 07:29 AM
Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
franklin_m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK001
The perp is 58, been flying drones for 2 years. IS registered with the FAA and,

"The National Transportation Safety Board said the drone operator's lack of knowledge about aviation safety regulations contributed to the mid-air collision. "

Get ready to be tested.
AMA has trumpted to lawmakers and regulators that they're the experts and thus should be part of the solution. Yet at the same time, the AMA's Executive Director Dave Mathewson said this in an email to me back in April: "...we found out the most members did not understand the text of the TFR nor could they understand the sectional.."

Think about that for a moment, they know their members don't understand NOTAMs/TFRs and airspace, yet they've done nothing about it. How many articles have you seen online, in MA, or in their emails that attempt to close this knowledge gap. I can't think of any in the last year.

How can an organization think they'll have any credibility with lawmakers and regulators when their members don't understand the airspace and rules?
Dec 15, 2017, 08:16 AM
Registered User
If there is one message here, it's that wreckless, rogue operators will be found. The operator here thought he lost it in the water. Somehow, the authorities found it and traced it back to him.
Think he was an AMA member ? Hmmn.

I'll be following this as it's apparent that charges and fines will be announced.
Dec 15, 2017, 08:44 AM
Registered User
kbird's Avatar
Certainly the closest thing to what you mention that I have read in the last year has come from "real pilots" and not from the rc users or asociations.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography...here_are_some/

Quote:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
AMA has trumpted to lawmakers and regulators that they're the experts and thus should be part of the solution. Yet at the same time, the AMA's Executive Director Dave Mathewson said this in an email to me back in April: "...we found out the most members did not understand the text of the TFR nor could they understand the sectional.."

Think about that for a moment, they know their members don't understand NOTAMs/TFRs and airspace, yet they've done nothing about it. How many articles have you seen online, in MA, or in their emails that attempt to close this knowledge gap. I can't think of any in the last year.

How can an organization think they'll have any credibility with lawmakers and regulators when their members don't understand the airspace and rules?
Last edited by kbird; Dec 16, 2017 at 06:20 PM.
Dec 15, 2017, 10:41 AM
AMA 986339 FCC KB5LAM/4
davidterrell80's Avatar
Another look: https://www.suasnews.com/2017/12/nts...tom-collision/
Latest blog entry: RCM Magazine Covers
Dec 15, 2017, 12:22 PM
Registered User
That report is certainly comprehensive and answers all questions.
Dec 15, 2017, 01:47 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by f.imbriaco
That report is certainly comprehensive and answers all questions.

Sure does, and apparently the only way they traced the "sUAV" back to the owner was from the serial/production number from the one brushless motor that managed to embed itself into the helicopter. The FAA's requirement of labeling the "sUAV" with a sticker or a marking pen or a....... would have been absolutely useless in this particular incident.

So where do we go from here. Require laser engraving/smart phone code of FAA Registration numbers on all components such as but not limited to propellers, engines, fuel tanks, batteries, servos, receivers.........?

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that had this "sUAV" pilot been a member of the AMA, and had with him at that particular time, on that particular day, during those particular meteorological conditions---NONE of which could be absolutely recreated at a later date---- a "spotter" with "super human eyesight" to assist the pilot with FPV flight according to the AMA guidelines as operating a "model aircraft" contrary to the FAA rules and regulations of Sec. 336 as operating an "sUAV" as a "model aircraft", this particular flight would have been condoned by the AMA as "safe"?
Dec 18, 2017, 10:55 AM
Registered User
Consider that if he had a spotter with powerful binoculars' then this would not have happened. Also consider that the spotter and pilot must be unaided visually. So they would still have broken the rules. No human exists that could have seen the drone without magnification.
Dec 18, 2017, 11:35 AM
Registered User
Another reason they should regulate Drones, and not Rc planes. Unfortunately they're to stupid to know the difference
Last edited by Drahcir; Dec 19, 2017 at 01:04 PM.
Dec 18, 2017, 11:42 AM
Registered User
Quote:
pilot must be unaided visually
that's where document FPV 550 fails
within VLOS of the person operating
Dec 18, 2017, 01:39 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by boombang
that's where document FPV 550 fails
within VLOS of the person operating
I don't understand what is it about that that fails? Perhaps you fail to understand it.
Dec 18, 2017, 02:27 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I don't understand what is it about that that fails? Perhaps you fail to understand it.

See "FAA Special Rule For Model Aircraft" Section 336(c)(2) and get back with us after comparing it to AMA Document #550.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion DJI Phantom 4 Collides With US Army Helicopter SergeantAsh Multirotor Drone Talk 1 Oct 06, 2017 07:20 AM
Discussion U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor finds Depronicus Life, The Universe, and Politics 3 Aug 21, 2016 06:41 PM
Discussion FAA study finds trained pilots *worse* at operating drones EddieWeeks Multirotor Drone Talk 7 Jan 16, 2015 02:15 PM
Discussion Women BEATS UP drone operator at the beach, old or new? wac Multirotor Drone Talk 5 Jun 08, 2014 02:35 PM
News NTSB Judge Rules Commercial Drone Use Legal Matt Gunn FPV Talk 9 Mar 07, 2014 10:12 PM