|
Tide posted:Reminds me of some interior vid of Fat Albert Some nice zero-G poo poo going on at the tip over. Someone secure that radio!
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
The wobbly hula-girl on the glareshield is the best thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Some nice zero-G poo poo going on at the tip over. Never mind the radio, what about the guy in the seat nearest the camera?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:Did someone ask for a mix of turboprop aerobatics and noise? Here's a Lockheed test pilot jackassing around in a C-130J in France: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIVWxs9QmW4 Incredible
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:Never mind the radio, what about the guy in the seat nearest the camera?! They're marines, they'll be fine if they hit their head. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I flew model airplanes as a kid all the time. Loved em. Great hobby, great skills. Drones? Well - take it out of the box and you're ready to go! I really think it's awesome, but when people are removed from their actions like they are with a drone it gets weird. All the model RC guys take pride in their aircraft and their abilities. It takes a lot of skill to fly an airplane/helicopter that's remote controlled. You need to keep it within sight and have intuitive knowledge of the planes abilities. From what I understand of drones, it takes much less skill, and as long as you keep mashing the FULL POWRE button it'll keep climbing.. I really want you to have fun with drones, hell I may want one at some point, but we are in a thread called Aeronautical Insanity. We give a poo poo about airplanes and flying and the awesomeness that is aviation in general. Cletus and Bob give no fucks about any of that, they just want to go to the top of a roof somewhere and fly their drone that they aren't really responsible for, pilot wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8ICo18jFfo&t=13s Poetic slow motion airliner footage (+ gratuitous rampie glory shots)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I flew model airplanes as a kid all the time. Loved em. Great hobby, great skills. Hi apollo, there are bad drone pilots. As well as bad rc pilots, and bad airplane pilots. (The dude doing 4 snap rolls is a dumb bad idiot.) Now calm down. TIA
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:
And you think regulation will stop these people? I've a quadcopter with a gopro on and it's fantastic for filming flying with buddies and other stuff. Especially just going out and landing in fields etc. I'm sensible about it, any filming is always briefed with others in the group and I usually also have someone keeping a second eye out for me. It works well and gives some great footage. Even with regulation I suspect the problem would always arise from those who don't care and aren't interested in following it in any case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:From what I understand of drones, it takes much less skill, and as long as you keep mashing the FULL POWRE button it'll keep climbing.. The people who do this will very quickly destroy rather expensive hardware. Think of those people as the rich guy who does his ppl in a cirrus and then kills himself by flying into IMC. The main culprit is the DJI Phantom. But it would be about as harmful as a seagull and they outnumber the phantom by a wide margin. See and be seen is the rule for uncontrolled airspace. It works both ways and for all types of traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:And you think regulation will stop these people? No but when Cletus, Bob, and a couple of other guys get fined a lifetime's salary for violations and end up in prison for 150 homicides after bringing down a 737, there might be a deterrent effect on flying near an airport.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm not certain that one article you quoted proves that point entirely. I just want drones to stop trying to hit the airplanes I'm controlling. I've taken two reports in the last 3 months from such situations. Drones of smaller sizes don't show up on radar and they don't have transponders. There's very little that ATC, or traffic collision avoidance systems can do to mitigate the risk of drone operators flying near busy airspace. They need to be regulated. We're sitting here in the USA with out thumbs up our butts; the FAA is saying that paper airplanes and $19.95 AirHogs are "aircraft" in the exact same way a Cessna 172 or Boeing 747 is an "aircraft" and the pilot's union is exerting all their influence to stop any and all competition from UAVs. I bet those "drone reports" you took were hobbyists, not commercial pilots, and therefore the ban on commercial UAV use would not have stopped them!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No but when Cletus, Bob, and a couple of other guys get fined a lifetime's salary for violations and end up in prison for 150 homicides after bringing down a 737, there might be a deterrent effect on flying near an airport. Why does this need any extra regulation? The damage caused should already be their liability. As Helno says the principle in open airspace is see and avoid. Drones shouldn't be operating unannounced in controlled airspace, but that is the case now anyway as I understand it (at least it is in the UK). My point is that it is difficult to stop people who don't care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I flew model airplanes as a kid all the time. Loved em. Great hobby, great skills. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Fat Apollo is the Best Apollo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
helno posted:I am a pilot who calculates w & b and also happens to fly RC aircraft. What a vocal portion of the drone community wants is to remain completely unregulated because "they know best." RC airplanes aren't the kind of drones I'm talking about anyway. You RC pilots keep your airplanes within line of sight, correct? Also, I've flown around airports before when RC clubs have events and there are notices to airmen posted. The guy flying his drone over downtown Dallas in the DAL/DFW airport airspace didn't do any of that, and his stuff is up on youtube for all to see. I don't think that kind of first-person camera operation is the same thing as RC airplane flying with visual observation from the ground, and I don't think individual drone operators like that guy respect aviation in the same way that established RC clubs do. Colonel K posted:Why does this need any extra regulation? The damage caused should already be their liability. As Helno says the principle in open airspace is see and avoid. Drones shouldn't be operating unannounced in controlled airspace, but that is the case now anyway as I understand it (at least it is in the UK). My point is that it is difficult to stop people who don't care. They're operating in controlled airspace too, without asking for permission (in the US). And many drones can't see-and-avoid because of their limited field of view. A pilot or aircraft has peripheral vision and the ability to quickly scan around the windows. Even then, see and avoid is a very tough prospect for something as small as a drone. Plus, many of these can be made to fly on automatic tracks instead of being hand flown. The operator doesn't even need to be looking at a display while it's airborne! They go up, fly a predetermined path, come back and land. People with deep pockets actually own these things. Presently, in the US, they can operate independently of any FAA regulations because the FAA doesn't create and enforce criminal or civil law. The FAA creates regulations that certificate holders must comply with, and drone operators aren't presently required to hold any licenses or certificates. So if a drone operator breaks an FAA regulation today, the FAA doesn't have anything they can take action against because the drone operator works freely from the FAA's licensing and testing systems. What would the FAA do? Threaten to "suspend" the drone operator's license after they flew over an international airport? Which license are they going to suspend exactly? Sure, local ordinances and law enforcement agencies can handle such disruptions, but the point is I want to see federal regulation on this from our aviation agency. Vitamin J posted:I bet those "drone reports" you took were hobbyists, not commercial pilots, and therefore the ban on commercial UAV use would not have stopped them! Definitely. And that's why I'd like to see more measures of regulation enacted on them. We have several UAV operations in the Corpus Christi and Rio Grande Valley, Texas, areas. They've done a great job coordinating their activities with us and remaining within designated areas/altitudes. They call before they launch, they call after the land, and some will even have a chase plane follow them when they're operating at high enough altitudes. It's a reasonable system that seems to work just fine for us ATCers, but like you said, a hobbyist operator isn't required to do any of these things. helno posted:See and be seen is the rule for uncontrolled airspace. It works both ways and for all types of traffic. I'm gonna quote you again because I hate this idea. Drones are too small. They can't be seen. Drones see with cameras, they can't "see" as much as a pilot. Besides, in the US (and I know you're not talking about US operations but this is where I'm coming from) the FAA sets the rules regarding see-and-avoid, which iswhat we call "see and be seen". The FAA regulations presently don't apply to every RC airplane hobbyist or drone operator. So in our present setup, the pilots of manned aircraft are required to see, and the drone operators have no such requirement other than their moral, and possible civil/criminal liability to avoid colliding with a manned aircraft. Colonel K posted:And you think regulation will stop these people? Regulation gives our (the US's) aviation agency the authority to punish violators instead of leaving it up to local law enforcement agencies which may not even have a policy on drone operation. I'm glad you're a responsible drone operator, I don't see what that has to do with everybody else though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
I do fpv flying at the airport. Most fpv flying is done low. Only reason to go high is if you want to fly far. Th fpv guys who fly high and far have to do it away from towns because the radio background noise is what kills the range. Things are quickly moving towards smaller and smaller fpv quad copters because they are portable and work well close in and down in the trees( Google fpv racing to see what I mean) As for see and avoid, you seem to have missed my bird comment. Birds outnumber and are larger in many cases than the more common sized multi rotors. Rules based on size would make a lot of sense but will never stop idiots who violate airspace just like notams that don't get read.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
The kind of regulation I think would work would be a technical specification. An aircraft classified as "drone" (defined by certain performance envelopes) would be required to have the standard red/green/strobe anti-collision lights, say 3 Watt minimum LED or similar. They should also have a device that can receive mode-S transponder signals, and an automatic avoidance routine baked into the control firmware based on that data. Theres no reason why these technologies need to cost a lot of money. Alternatively, airports can employ a spotter armed with a laser cannon. That would also be acceptable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
helno posted:I do fpv flying at the airport. Most fpv flying is done low. Only reason to go high is if you want to fly far. The near collision reports I've taken were within 10NM of a US Class C airport between 2,500 and 3,000ft. Birds can't be regulated by the FAA so I won't pursue that line of argument. They also don't know any better because they are birds. Rules will allow enforcement action on the people who break them. That's what I want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
If it's a matter for law enforcement I don't see why the FAA should be dealing with it. As you say it's not licenced. I own an aircraft and share another and am only too accutely aware of the cost and burden of regulation. Whilst the US is must better in this regard than europe, it's still an issue which not only provides a barrier to entry but also I think prevents people staying current which doesn't help safety. The maintenance bills this year have been pretty significant considering that nothing really has needed done other than routine maintenance items and checks. This leads to quite a number of people who just go off by themselves. Owning an aeroplane, not insuring it, maintaining it themselves and just flying. My concern is that the more excessively you regulate the activity the more it pushes people outside of it. GA is being killed in europe by such issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:If it's a matter for law enforcement I don't see why the FAA should be dealing with it. As you say it's not licenced. Do you not see the need for the FAA to be involved in manned aircraft operations? What's the distinguishing factor for you? quote:I own an aircraft and share another and am only too accutely aware of the cost and burden of regulation. Whilst the US is must better in this regard than europe, it's still an issue which not only provides a barrier to entry but also I think prevents people staying current which doesn't help safety. The maintenance bills this year have been pretty significant considering that nothing really has needed done other than routine maintenance items and checks. I'm sympathetic to this, but we don't even require drone operators to register their aircraft in any way. There is 0 accountability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Do you not see the need for the FAA to be involved in manned aircraft operations? What's the distinguishing factor for you? quote:I'm sympathetic to this, but we don't even require drone operators to register their aircraft in any way. There is 0 accountability. My point is that by requiring some sort of registration system it would most likely only be entered into by people who aren't much of a problem to begin with. Leaving the people outside in the same state as present.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Fat Apollo is the Best Apollo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:Yes, but does the US have anything similar to single seat de regulated (SSDR) which doesn't need a licence or the likes. down to weight, performance and having only one seat. I'm generally in favour of the FAA's approach to manned aircraft ownership, my plane is on the American register as it's far better than the G-reg. We do, but I have no idea how it works. I see that U.S. Title 14 CFR Part 103 covers ultralight operations, but if no licensing is required I'm not sure why the regulation matters. I haven't yet had a near-collision report or issue in my ATC career or personal flying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Here is how you partially solve the drone problem. Since aircraft will at some point be required to do so, fit all drones capable of flying higher than 100' AGL with an ADS-B receiver, connected to a "kill switch" that automatically shuts the drone off if an aircraft comes within a specified horizontal or vertical distance from the drone. The receiver doesn't have to be expensive like the certified units fitted to aircraft either; a few tens of dollars worth of electronics added to the drone would probably be enough. Admittedly it's far from a perfect solution, but it is better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:My point is that by requiring some sort of registration system it would most likely only be entered into by people who aren't much of a problem to begin with. Leaving the people outside in the same state as present. This is the same pointless argument as "the criminals we care about regulating won't follow the law, so why regulate guns at all?" Some of the incidents are caused by genuine ignorance, and making explicit guidelines about what you can or can't do will help reduce some of those situations. In other cases it's possible that the person wants to deliberately break the law, but if the equipment is designed to not work in that way, it's more difficult for them to do so. It's totally possible for a person to buy an AR-15 and install an automatic sear that turns it into an M-16. But most people don't have the skills to do that, and the people who do are usually unwilling to break a federal law for a few bucks. Similarly, if you required that drones be equipped with a TCAS-like safety system that makes it (eg) fall down to 50 feet and hover when another aircraft is nearby, certainly some people would be able to circumvent it, but Bubba and Cletus buying a drone off the internet would probably just be stuck with it. e: A drone's motor power rating is directly related to its size, mass and performance. I think that requiring standard anticollision lights and some kind of transponder or automatic TCAS system on every drone with more than X watts of power would be the best way to regulate things. A 1000 watt platform carrying a 10 pound camera definitely needs collision-avoidance, but a 20-watt styrofoam thing that's outweighed by a pigeon, eh, who cares. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I would base the rules on operating altitude and weight. balloons with payloads are under 1 kg are not regulated at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Inacio posted:They're allowed to do that poo poo over a city? Normally no; but the description says this was made during the 2011 Paris Air Show and it is indeed taking place over Le Bourget. And honestly I don't see any other reason why a Lockheed test pilot would fly aerobatics in a USAF aircraft in France.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
There definitely need to be better regulations and laws regarding drones, but pilots going 'it is my airspace get out plebs' isn't helping the case. Particularly because becoming a pilot costs a fortune so we know the biggest whiners are entitled rich white kids. Weight regulations for drones would be ideal, and seems to be popular with legislators, as it's the easiest way to differentiate between a kids toy and something legitimately dangerous. Australia seems to be moving towards that. As for piloting drones, the skill level depends on the model. I've heard the phantom takes a bit of practice to fly, but the parrot drone is easy as poo poo. It even has automatic take off and land buttons. For small drones ONLY, consider that there are no regulations for remote control cars, which you can still drive into traffic and potentially cause an accident. Drones under 1kg are almost as harmless, and regular civil liability laws are good enough. Most of those drones really can't fly at an altitude that affects aircraft anyway, unless they're buzzing around an airport, in which case that should definitely be illegal, but probably already is: surely there are laws to prevent you flying a kite next to an airport?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:What a vocal portion of the drone community wants is to remain completely unregulated because "they know best." The Ferret King posted:Do you not see the need for the FAA to be involved in manned aircraft operations? What's the distinguishing factor for you? Either way you're not being realistic. What is a "drone?" Is a Phantom 2 a drone? It only flies for 10-15 minutes and after that will fall out of the sky. Radio range is limited by low-power FCC Part 15 devices. It has limited autopilot capabilities. We know that dangerous things can be done even with something like this, should it be registered with the FAA? DJI has said they sell 30,000 of them a month... But what about a Hubsan X4? Is that a drone? It is about 50 grams and flies for maybe 5 minutes and can't handle more than 5mph winds. Does that need to be registered with the FAA? What about a classic RC model? An average gasoline powered balsa RC plane has more range, a faster climb rate, much longer endurance, and is much heavier than the Phantom 2, do they need to be registered? Is the FAA prepared to register millions and millions of new aircraft? I'm sure the FAA already has all sorts of authority to nail someone to the wall who flies their Phantom 2 on JFK's approach route without that person registering their craft or holding a license. If not then the local police certainly can. Conversely; I'm a commercial UAV operator with a registered business, insurance, and a monetary interest in being as safe as possible, as well as 99% of my business taking place below rooftop level, but I'm barred from flying because...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Splode posted:
Yeah, this is a dumb comparison to make, which is to say there is no comparing the two (drones vs RC cars). One is going to possibly cause a car to swerve and hit another car or whatever (more likely, the RC car just gets run over). The other is has a high chance of causing something to drop out of the sky like a brick with 1 to 300plus occupants in it then exploding into whatever it hits (ground (best case) or building (worst)).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Inacio posted:They're allowed to do that poo poo over a city? It generally isn't considered a proper Paris Air Show unless something (usually a Russian plane) crashes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Tide posted:Yeah, this is a dumb comparison to make, which is to say there is no comparing the two (drones vs RC cars). One is going to possibly cause a car to swerve and hit another car or whatever (more likely, the RC car just gets run over). The other is has a high chance of causing something to drop out of the sky like a brick with 1 to 300plus occupants in it then exploding into whatever it hits (ground (best case) or building (worst)). I think you may be going a little overboard here. I would have thought a drone strike would be more akin to a large single birdstrike. If that has a high chance of causing a large jet to plummet like a brick then there's a serious issue with the certification.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Tide posted:Yeah, this is a dumb comparison to make, which is to say there is no comparing the two (drones vs RC cars). One is going to possibly cause a car to swerve and hit another car or whatever (more likely, the RC car just gets run over). The other is has a high chance of causing something to drop out of the sky like a brick with 1 to 300plus occupants in it then exploding into whatever it hits (ground (best case) or building (worst)). Toy drones can't reach the altitude to hit a plane unless it's flying dangerously low already. I said that in my big post. Also my drone, which is a decent hobbyist drone, weighs about half a kilo, and it's what I'd consider the limit for "toy drones", after that things are much bigger and too expensive for hobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Tide posted:Yeah, this is a dumb comparison to make, which is to say there is no comparing the two (drones vs RC cars). One is going to possibly cause a car to swerve and hit another car or whatever (more likely, the RC car just gets run over). The other is has a high chance of causing something to drop out of the sky like a brick with 1 to 300plus occupants in it then exploding into whatever it hits (ground (best case) or building (worst)). Please define "high chance", or at least give some statistics on what percentage of birdstrikes lead to the aircraft "dropping out of the sky like a brick then exploding". These things are made of styrofoam and plastic, not depleted uranium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Please define "high chance", or at least give some statistics on what percentage of birdstrikes lead to the aircraft "dropping out of the sky like a brick then exploding". Larger models are made from carbon composites and weigh ~5kg. That's much harder and heavier than any bird you're likely to hit. A whole chicken that they use to test birdstrikes weigh what, 1kg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Well, Congress has declared that model aviation shall not be regulated by the FAA plain and simple. If you are flying for recreation you are basically able to fly with impunity. This might now be challengable since the NTSB board ruled that model aircraft are aircraft and subject to FAA regulations, which pre-date the Congressional mandate. I certainly hope challenges and changes are made. quote:Either way you're not being realistic. What is a "drone?" I don't know, I want that to be hashed out. But being operated outside of line-of-sight is a big sticking point for me. This is what makes me more comfortable with RC airplane operations over drone operations. Drone operators have no way to see and avoid other aircraft if the drone operates well outside their line of sight. quote:Model specific hypotheticals I don't know, I imagine that can be worked out. If they're above a certain weight and capability, then they should be regulated for use in controlled airspace. quote:I'm sure the FAA already has all sorts of authority to nail someone to the wall who flies their Phantom 2 on JFK's approach route without that person registering their craft or holding a license. If not then the local police certainly can. If you're not a holder of an FAA license then I'm not sure what, if anything, the FAA can do to you. The local authorities already handle these situations but they are not familiar with the national airspace system. Colonel K posted:I think you may be going a little overboard here. I would have thought a drone strike would be more akin to a large single birdstrike. If that has a high chance of causing a large jet to plummet like a brick then there's a serious issue with the certification. Colonel, I'm sorry but I think that has a lot to do with the size of the drone. I expect the majority of hobbyist operators are flying tiny quad copter things at low level for fun and excitement. The reports I've taken in the past are about larger, fixed wing, metallic objects with optical equipment attached. Is that normal for the hobby? I'm betting not. But they're around, and they're causing some trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Splode posted:There definitely need to be better regulations and laws regarding drones, but pilots going 'it is my airspace get out plebs' isn't helping the case. Particularly because becoming a pilot costs a fortune so we know the biggest whiners are entitled rich white kids. Rich white kid here. Last thing I'm thinking about when I saw that drone fly by my windshield was how much more money I have vs the drone operator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Please define "high chance", or at least give some statistics on what percentage of birdstrikes lead to the aircraft "dropping out of the sky like a brick then exploding". Just FYI not all airplanes have more than one engine. Also FYI, not all twin engine airplanes can climb in only one good engine. Also another FYI, the windshield in an airplane is lovely as gently caress. Ever see the bird going through the cockpit window? My mooney going 160mph hitting a stationary slowly moving piece if plastic is still gonna suck.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:59 |
|
|
Can I interrupt the drone chat for a infodump that is at least 50% about dumb things that are wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 01:18
|
|
