Amazon and Google making move to eliminate recreational flying - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Dec 19, 2017, 08:17 PM
Wisconsin
Discussion

Amazon and Google making move to eliminate recreational flying


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ser-to-reality

Nothing up their sleaves. Now you see it, now you don't. Recreation use of airspace that is.

"However, groups that want to use drones for business, ranging from Alphabet and Amazon to Ford Motor Co., said there should be no wide, recreational exemptions. Allowing large groups of drones to fly unidentified would provide "cover" to the millions of operators who arenít interested in following the law, said the Commercial Drone Alliance, which has members including Ford and CNN."
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 19, 2017, 10:14 PM
Registered User
pnubtrnjly's Avatar
Lots of cheap fishing line and helium baloons
Dec 19, 2017, 11:08 PM
Registered User
This has been on the cards for a while, if we're really lucky recreational users will be allowed to fly only at designated fields under restrictive guidelines.

In much the same way as cars and trucks took over the roads from pedestrians, small commercial UAVs will take over the skies from recreational flyers.

Park flying is doomed in the long term.
Dec 19, 2017, 11:10 PM
AeroDan
Good Times!!!!! NOT!!!!!!
Dec 20, 2017, 06:39 AM
RAF 001
KMK001's Avatar
That reminds me, I need to pick some more 12ga drone loads for my Remington Drone Gun.
Dec 20, 2017, 07:41 AM
Multirotors are models too!
Not going to stop many, I will keep flying responsibly, and not locked into "approved" fields
Dec 20, 2017, 08:04 AM
Registered User
sxjack's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_kelly
The UAS ID ARC report basically says that only UA capable of flying BVLOS need electronic ID. So what do Bloomberg do? They write an article that emphasises the exceptions by the commercial people who think that all UA over 250g should have IDs.

Steve
Dec 20, 2017, 08:22 AM
Registered User
Simple solution, make drone delivery fly in navigable airspace with the sensors to do see and avoid. Amazon and others want a 200 feet ceiling for recreational flying where they can fly between 200 feet and 400 feet, and over private property. This is basically against the constitution as it violates air rights and the government must compensate land owner's as per SCOUTS Causby decision.

So where do you get those drone rounds?
Dec 20, 2017, 08:40 AM
Registered User
Amazon owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns Whole Foods and WaPo.
Google......do you really want to know what Google is up to? Ever hear of Google Jig Saw? ( Formerly Google Idea Groups)
The technocrats are making their move.
Dec 20, 2017, 09:29 AM
Registered User
If they get their way I am hoping that some States are so unhappy they issue drone hunting license.
Dec 20, 2017, 09:54 AM
Wisconsin
It is a typical take-over of a public resource by Corporations for their private gain. The have the money and own the government at this point in time. They will get what they want.
Dec 20, 2017, 10:16 AM
Hey Guys, Watch This.......
mike2663's Avatar
"The Academy of Model Aeronautics, which represents 195,000 hobbyists, said in the report its members have a good safety record that goes back decades and most of their model planes can’t fly long distances and don’t create a hazard. Therefore, they should be allowed to fly at their FAA-approved sites without having to add radio devices that identify them."

Wait a minute now the AMA is using "model planes" in their PR. The organizations focus had been multi -rotors over the last couple of years.
Model Planes have been the stance since DAY ONE.
Mike
Dec 20, 2017, 10:59 AM
Foam Wrecker
BillBlair's Avatar
Drone Tracking Plan Moves U.S. Delivery by Air Closer to Reality
December 19, 2017

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ser-to-reality

Excerpt:

Allowing any drones to fly unidentified creates a “potentially dangerous loophole,” a representative for the Air Line Pilots Association said in his comments. ALPA is the largest union representing pilots in North America.

The FAA, which is working with federal and local law enforcement agencies concerned about drone safety and security, will now take the industry and hobbyists comments under advisement and begin drafting a proposed set of regulations requiring tracking.

The report comes on the heels of the first U.S. accident report involving a drone-caused midair collision. Drone incident reports collected by FAA have risen steadily and concerns have grown over the potential for terrorists to use the devices for attacks.

The issue of how drones should be identified pits traditional hobbyists and rapidly growing numbers of people who fly them for recreation against groups that want to dramatically expand their commercial uses.

FAA Warns of Drone Collision Risks With Airplanes
November 28, 2017

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-as-use-grows

Excerpt with my [comments]:

The agency estimates that 2.3 million of the devices will be sold for recreational use in the U.S. this year. As of Nov. 3, more than 838,000 people had registered with FAA as owners of small, civilian drones.

[Once again, as with the 2015 Christmas drone apocalypse figures, no mention of the mass distribution, most of those 2.3 million "drones" likely being of the cheap, under 250g toy grade.]


Drone Operator Blamed for Collision With Helicopter in New York
By Alan Levin
December 14, 2017

A recreational operator, who didn’t know that federal authorities had temporarily banned all drone flights in New York, was to blame for a September collision between his recreational device aircraft and an Army helicopter.

The National Transportation Safety Board on Thursday also cited the drone operator’s failure to see the helicopter because the device was flying so far away it was out of his sight. The drone operator, who wasn’t identified in the short report, was in Brooklyn and 2.5 miles away from the device, the NTSB concluded. The crash happened just offshore of Staten Island.

At the time of the accident, the United Nations General Assembly was meeting and flights in the area by civilian aircraft were prohibited, according to the NTSB. The Federal Aviation Administration also forbids drone operators from flying beyond their line of sight.

The collision was the first confirmed mid-air impact between a manned aircraft and one of the millions of drones bought in the U.S. in recent years. Reports of safety incidents involving drones have climbed continually and averaged more than 200 a month last summer, according to federal data.

The drone was an SZ DJI Technology Co. Phantom 4, a small device that is made by the world’s largest civilian unmanned aircraft manufacturer.


NTSB: Drone Operator’s Lack of Knowledge on Rules to Blame for Helicopter Collision
[What, he didn't read the rules on the FAA site about the prohibition of beyond visual range flight when he registered, that education claimed to be one of the main reasons to require RC pilots to register or wasn't he even registered?]

https://unmanned-aerial.com/ntsb-dro...pter-collision

Excerpt:

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined today the operator of a drone that collided with an U.S. Army helicopter in September failed to see and avoid the helicopter because he was intentionally flying the drone out of visual range and did not have adequate knowledge of regulations and safe operating practices.

According to a press release from the NTSB, the incident took place near Hoffman Island, N.Y., on Sept. 21, when a DJI Phantom 4 small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) and a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter collided at an altitude of about 300 feet.

The final report on the accident states that even though the helicopter pilot saw the drone and “immediately applied flight control inputs,” he did not have enough time to avoid the crash. The report also states there was “no evidence of any mechanical or software problems with the sUAS relevant to the flight.”

The helicopter landed safely; the drone was destroyed. The NTSB says a 1.5-inch dent was found on the leading edge of one of the helicopter’s four main rotor blades, and parts of the drone were found lodged in the helicopter’s engine oil cooler fan.

The federal agency claims the sUAS operator was unaware of the collision until an NTSB investigator contacted him. The operator was also not aware of temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) that were in place at the time because of presidential travel and a United Nations General Assembly session, the NTSB adds.

“In his interview, the sUAS pilot indicated that he was not concerned with flying beyond visual line of sight, and he expressed only a general cursory awareness of regulations and good operating practices,” the final report says.

The report also notes that the sUAS pilot was a recreational operator who “flew only DJI products” and “had ‘a lot’ of experience with sUAS.” His data logs had shown 38 flights in the prior 30 days, and he had “taken no specific sUAS training other than the tutorials that are included in the DJI GO4 operating application.”

“When asked about specific regulations or guidance for sUAS flights, he stated that he knew to stay away from airports and was aware there was Class B airspace nearby,” the report continues. “He said that he relied on ‘the app’ to tell him if it was OK to fly. He stated he knew that the aircraft should be operated below 400 ft. When asked about TFRs, he said he did not know about them; he would rely on the app, and it did not give any warnings on the evening of the collision. He said he was not familiar with the TFRs for the United Nations meeting and Presidential movement.


Surge in Drone Safety Reports Prompts ‘Emergency’ Action at FAA
By Alan Levin
October 13, 2017

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-action-at-faa

Excerpt with my [comments]:

Reports of safety incidents involving civilian drones have surged to an average of 250 a month, leading to a federal "emergency" action to approve drone flights in restricted areas, according to a government notice seeking new procedures for the craft.

[The AMA and others have obliterated the FAA's numeric claims of "safety incidents" in the past - ex. MAYBE a "drone" never passing within the required 500 feet to be a "near miss"; something that might have been a "drone" seen flying where it was perfectly legal to do so, etc.)

There is so much pent-up demand for obtaining special permission to fly drones in restricted airspace, that the Federal Aviation Administration says it can’t keep up. The FAA says drone users are flying without approval because of the delays.

[That sounds like COMMERCIAL USE requests, not hobbyists; apples and oranges, but the tech ignorant MSM doesn't even know the right questions to ask.]


MEANWHILE, in news NOT reported, there were, on average, 38 bird strikes reported to the FAA today (with who knows how many not noticed or not reported), just over two reported as causing a "negative effect on flight" and just under two causing damage requiring repair.
Dec 20, 2017, 11:07 AM
RAF 001
KMK001's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxjack
The UAS ID ARC report basically says that only UA capable of flying BVLOS need electronic ID. So what do Bloomberg do? They write an article that emphasises the exceptions by the commercial people who think that all UA over 250g should have IDs.

Steve
Great! Now we'll have another group grope to determine exactly what "capable of flying BVLOS" really means.
Dec 20, 2017, 12:20 PM
Foam Wrecker
BillBlair's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike2663
"The Academy of Model Aeronautics, which represents 195,000 hobbyists, said in the report its members have a good safety record that goes back decades and most of their model planes can’t fly long distances and don’t create a hazard. Therefore, they should be allowed to fly at their FAA-approved sites without having to add radio devices that identify them."

Wait a minute now the AMA is using "model planes" in their PR. The organizations focus had been multi -rotors over the last couple of years.
Model Planes have been the stance since DAY ONE.
Mike
I think that recent history has shown us that when three letter agencies of the government want something, what the AMA might want is pretty much irrelevant. Although they obviously have the funds to fight this idiocy in court since a civilian successfully did so on his own dime and time, they don't have NRA membership numbers and, as a result, they can't threaten the careers of our government "servants" when they misbehave by passing endless, ineffective regulations to (not) fix a statistical non-problem compared to all of the other real threats to manned aircraft and people on the ground let alone the bazillion other daily threats infinity more common and relevant than hobbyist drones.

In their interest in CYA, they will pass any number of rules and regulations, no matter how pointless, ineffective, and expensive against those concerns who don't have the big bucks and membership numbers to fight back in order to avoid the one in a million incident which will expose them to the usual, idiotic political blame game.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Amazon's proposal to limit recreation to 200 feet & AMA fields bmschulman Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 135 Dec 25, 2017 04:06 PM
Discussion 'The sins of Silicon Valley': Backlash mounts against Google, Facebook, Amazon rockyboy2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 0 Oct 15, 2017 08:32 PM
Discussion Would Amazon and Google go through this? cmdl Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 4 Jan 21, 2016 05:28 PM
Idea Eliminate leg connector in EVG920V video googles Ivan_cillo FPV Equipment 12 Nov 15, 2014 06:41 PM
Discussion How to use Google SketchUp to make flying sites? Szymon Bartus Simulators 0 Mar 05, 2008 06:50 AM