http://www.fredandruby.com/American-...475188_tHNZLJPGoogle "oregon company to sell drone defenses." And if it comes to a showdown? Google "spitfire tipping v1" for suggestion from history. JUST JOKING?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Printable View
http://www.fredandruby.com/American-...475188_tHNZLJPGoogle "oregon company to sell drone defenses." And if it comes to a showdown? Google "spitfire tipping v1" for suggestion from history. JUST JOKING?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Should be interesting watching two industries develop. Radio controlled UAV's are subject to radio interference. I have no doubt that there will be some folks who build and sell gear, legal or not, that prevent radio control in the vicinity of their activities. We have the radar detector industry as an example of cause and effect. A smart investor might put money into both industries and laugh all the way to the bank.
From the point of view of EAA and recreational pilots, we see that the FAA appears to be vigorously protecting its existing regs and "turf". That currently works to the benefit of you and I as pilots of manned aircraft. But as the builders and sellers of UAV's look to make $$ (like all of us), it is not unreasonable to expect the UAV equivalent of the recent Lightsquared (I think that was the name) wrestling match over commercial service interfering with GPS signals.
It is in all of our interests, from multiple perspectives, to pay attention to the UAVs, support EAA's position on UAV's, and be politically active.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
So I fly UAV's did for the Army and Now as a civilian. You can read about me in the Military Times Magazine "The Edge". The only thing that I know is the FAA is thinking about doing an "Airspace Test" in only a few states. Alaska is one that might be and just a few in the Lower 48. There is nothing to worry about. I don't crash into planes, I am a manned pilot myself! I don't spy. I'm not crazy and try to peak in your window! The media is doing a great job scaring the mass people of america!
[QUOTE=Snowyibook@me.com;28643]There is nothing to worry about. I don't crash into planes, I am a manned pilot myself! /QUOTE]
You sound willing to bet my life on it. Are you willing to bet YOUR life on it?
See here's the question. A collision with an airplane manned or unmanned is well..... A COLLISION with an airplane. People think that UAV operators are not going to be able to see any traffic and fly into planes. OK lets think about that before everyone looses a screw or two. First UAV operators talk to tower and I think that it's tower jobs to keep separation of planes. And second, what is the reaction time that a pilot has to react to any air plane collisions? I think it's three seconds or so. So whether or not it's manned or unmanned aircraft. To me flying in FAA airspace is all the same. Look back when Microwaves came out. People thought they were going to get radiation or something and now everyone has one. My point is Manned and Unmanned can fly together if tower is doing their jobs and keeping separation between planes.
I regret to inform you that your base assumption is incorrect. Towers do NOT provide traffic separation services in their airspace. That is straight from the book. You may desire to look it up. The tower "controls" access to the runway. No separation.
So everything else falls apart after that.....
Sorry,
Wes
N78PS
I too fly UAVs.. and teach aerobatics with RC planes and do product development, as well as fly full scale. What is not being considered here is height separation and flying in Class A airspace etc. Most UAV ( The term is actually FPV aircraft - First Person View ) will be flying at no more than 500 feet, most aircraft will fly at more than 500 feet so this solves 90% of the argument right here. Sure, you can jump on you tube an see people going for height records of 8-9,000 feet but this is just not the norm. It takes a complex ground station to achieve and for the most part, is largely frond upon by the FPV ( not drone ! ) community.
Most FPV planes fly at 35-50 MPH.. MAX, some alot faster but these cant fly for long ( 10 minutes or less ) and are not suitable to go far and wide so do not pose a real threat, Most FPV pilot also like flying at 3-400 feet as you can actually enjoy the flight but up at thousands of feet, you not going fast enough to get the sensation OF flight so 90% don't.
This is my opinion from many years ( and over 3000 hours ) flying both RC planes, FPV planes and full size. Its worth a thought.
I attended an all-day Airspace and Infrastructure Work Group(AIWG) meeting last Thursday in Dayton, Ohio. I was invited to attend this meeting representing the interests of private pilots. The invitation occurred the preceding night when I was in attendance at an Ohio Airspace Integration Study(OASIS) that was noted in an AOPA e-gram. The U.S. Air Force is looking for a place within 60 miles of Wright Patterson field to do UAV testing.
The meeting was very well structured with facilitators, a dedicated audio/video specialist, staff people, representatives from Dayton and Springfield and two general aviation pilots. In all, about 25 people were present with one called Pappy who teleconferenced into the meeting from Washington. I enjoyed talking with and meeting all of those gathered who I felt had the knowledge and experience to make the correct decisions.
The main focus of the meeting was to present to the ESG (?)our recommendations or evaluations of UAV airspace sites. The site selection criteria included such things as emergency landing area, proximity to special use airspace, away from populated areas, avoid ground hazard areas, low airtraffic volume, stay away from traditional GA traffic (flyways and training areas) ect……
The UAVs that would be flying in the selected area were classified as group 1 through group 3. These would include hand launched weighing from 1 to 20 pounds through group 3 weighing 1320 lbs. or less flying less than 250 knots. The altitudes of use would be between 10 feet to 6,000.The area needed would be some 10 to 20 square miles.
After spending all day looking at various locations, the consensus of the group was to place a restricted area for UAV testing under the existing MOAs in the southern part of Ohio. Then Pappy, the man from Washington reminded the group of his suggestion earlier in the day to extend the Class D airspace from Wright Patterson field to Springfield and use this area for the UAVs as it would take too long for the FAA to approve any restricted area for the UAV testing.
As Pappy seemed to be the leader of the group from afar, the meeting dissolved. I expressed to Pappy and the group my uneasiness about using the Springfield/Dayton area for UAV flights as this area was not far away from GA activities and populated areas. We have powerful local politicians who want to keep and expand local jobs in the UAV activities business sectors. I can understand their position yet let’s not do something stupid.
There was mention of using COA's (certificate of authorization) within the Class D airspace. One local college is using this to fly UAVs within the property bounds of the Springfield airport. One flight instructor stated at the Wednesday night meeting that he had to wait several times to land because the UAV was not immediately landed as per the agreement.
Had to chuckle as the Springfield governmental rep keep mentioning on Thursday that the Springfield airport had arming pads ready for the Air Force to use.
Reading UAV/UAS/RPV operator Snowyibook's posts make me more worried than I was before.
USAF Q-type aircraft (drones) accident rates are, by the USAF's own admission, "unacceptably high." According to the accident reports, many of these accidents happen at civilian airports.
When there is more man-made stuff in the airspace, there is more chance of a collision if any of that stuff moves. "I said, she said, we met, we don't, it won't......" I risk being killed if your whatever-you-call-it collides with my aircraft. No matter where, or what altitude, or what safety measures you or others have taken. Until you accept the same risk, you have no right to increase my danger. Plain and simple, do you accept that risk? If not, you agree with me - that increased collision risk is unacceptable.
That is a squirrelly road to go down. It makes sense to insist that UAV's have operating requirements that keep them out of the way of manned aircraft. But the argument that a type of operation endangers "me" opens the "me" up to the argument by another operator that the "me" endangers them because the "me" trains to a lower standard, is a lower priority user of the airspace, etc. It all depends on who "me" and "they" are. No matter who you are, there is a "me" that thinks that you are a lower priority and qualified user of the airspace.
I will suggest that a better argument is that all users of the airspace must meet a minimum performance standard. So humans have eyes and make use of electronic devices and common procedures to observe potentially conflicting traffic and fit into the sequence of other traffic. I suggest that UAV's that are to share the airspace with manned aircraft, and that is almost all airspace in the continental US, be required to have some equivalent of "eyes" and be able to "see and avoid" and go with the flow just like manned aircraft do. The industry has lots of technology that can be used to meet this performance standard. Their challenge is to integrate that technology into a package that fits the size, weight, etc form-factor that they need. But I suggest that is their problem not ours.
Fly safe,
Wes
N78PS
"That is a squirrelly road to go down ... the argument that a type of operation endangers "me" opens the "me" up to the argument by another operator that the "me" endangers them ....I will suggest ... all users of the airspace must meet a minimum performance standard."
There already is a minimum performance standard. And the present airspace users have accepted it along with the risks of the present system. Now a newly-defined group wants to change the rules to the detriment of established users. If it is really as safe as they say, then they should not object to the present performance standard. Mess up? Die. Don't overcomplicate. Privacy? No. Technology? No. My widow gets to decapitate you and stuff airplane parts down your neck???? Yes. Don't want to risk that? Don't launch your ...........yes, it istheir problem. Do not let them make it your problem without sharing your risk.
[QUOTE=WLIU;28924]That is a squirrelly road to go down. It makes sense to insist that UAV's have operating requirements that keep them out of the way of manned aircraft. But the argument that a type of operation endangers "me" opens the "me" up to the argument by another operator that the "me" endangers them because the "me" trains to a lower standard, is a lower priority user of the airspace, etc. It all depends on who "me" and "they" are. No matter who you are, there is a "me" that thinks that you are a lower priority and qualified user of the airspace.
This subject seams to be a sore one and uneducated as well. Every one thinks that UAV's are just some joe blows that knows nothing about flying. I fly them and I am required to have a Class 2 Medical, As well as pass the ground school. And I take it one step further I Fly in Manned as well! So I know the airspace. But like I said this is a sore subject right now for manned aviators. And i can say that right now i feel comfortable in my little restricted airspace.
I hope that I don't sad bad. I love manned aviation far more then UAV's and would go flying any day!
Uneducated? Do not throw stones, glass-house dweller. You have already proved you have huge knowledge gaps, as most of us do. Bottom line. Do I get to hunt you down like a diseased dog after your remotely piloted air vehicle collides with a human-carrying air vehicle? Will you play by the rules currently in effect or not? Error-free or die? Put up or shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowyibook@me.com
It's getting a little too heated in here, folks - everybody take a deep breath or whatever works for you.
I think this discussion is crucial - help me guarantee that we can continue to have it by dialing it back just a little.
Thanks!
OK, I admit to hyperbole. I am kind of surprised nobody has brought up the obvious. Commercial airline flight booked. Driving to airport on 2-lane hiway, 65mph speed limit, pre-dawn, light drizzle, oncoming traffic. Automated toll gate at parking. Elevator to walkway, moving sidewalk to terminal. automated tram to gate areas. Etc. Terminal monitor shows wx is rvr 2600, indef ceiling. On-time departure, climb in solid clouds to cruising alt. Arrival airport wx lousy, but Cat III ils works fine. Most of the day was automated already, why am i objecting? because that oncoming Google-car had a human driver, ditto the Cat III crew. The flight was in controlled airspace with special equipment requirements, much like access to class d or class a. But uav operators want to add new requirements (and increase the risk) for all the present airspace users at no personal physical risk for their own financial gain. No. Not acceptable.
I have not seen any new data presented in the last several posts so I will guess that we will have to wait and see what the FAA churns out. They have been given a deadline by Congress so we know that something will be coming.
I will note that the FAA regulatory process should kick out a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as the first public step towards permanent rules. The Certificates of Authorizations and temporary special use airspace issuances tie up FAA resources so there most certainly will be a policy established and NPRM's. Will be interesting to see what they write.
Film at 11.
Wes
N78PS
One of my biggest concerns other than mid-airs is that UAVs can't see what's under them. If they lose an engine, they're going to hit something below them. Unlike a manned aircraft, they don't know the playground below them has 20 children playing on it or that the other field has a soccer game going on. I know for a fact that some of the UAVs being used by the Army in Afghanistan don't have the ability to sense where they're going to land after an engine out. They just enter an autorotation and hit whatever is below them.
I want the pilot in there to be able to avoid the school, playground, house, etc. How frequently do we hear about pilots dieing at airshows because they guided their craft away from the nearby houses and the spectators on the ground.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/us/maryland-drone-crash
I hate to say it, but our non-pilot neighbors worry about you and I having an engine failure and landing on them. This is such a rare event that I do not think that you can use this as an argument against UAV's. Legislating your fears, rather than real numbers, is a slippery slope that leads to bad things like airport closures or operating curfews. I suggest that by our using with UAV's, the same arguments that unhappy airport neighbors use against us, we all lose. Pilots claim that they make better decisions. We should apply that skill to this discussion.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
Part of what you say makes sense and is true, but the general public doesn't understand glide ratio's and that losing and engine doesn't necessarily result in a crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
I have talked with UAV manufacturers that indicated there really isn't any sort of control over where a UAV lands after an engine out. These ones just continue in a straight line until they either hit something or land. IE, my fear is factual and based on current technology. As someone else in this thread pointed out, the engines aren't necessarily tested/certified the same way aircraft engines are. We don't have those guidelines for reliability, which means we can't be sure that engine failures will be that rare in UAVs.
I think that there are two very reasoned arguments that you are missing. You are giving way too much credit to the certification process for engines used in recreational aircraft, and way too much credit for pilots. If you have followed the AD's on engines and propellers over the last 30 years, you can easily come to the conclusion that the quality of certificated components is a trial and error process that you and I pay for. Look at the recent Boeing battery issue. And neither you nor I can predict that pilots do the expected thing when a mechanical failure occurs.
For better or worse, pilots have misjudges weather and fuel since just after Wilbur and Orville launched for the first time. Look up how many airplanes Lindberg and Doolittle crashed. It takes a certain type of individual to go through the process of becoming a pilot. The personality has good and bad aspects. We would like fewer folks to wreck airplanes, but the reality is that we will never achieve that unless we take pilots out of the cockpits. In engineering we say that perfect is the enemy of good. Its a trade-off and we do our best to manage risk.
I will note that accidents are bad for any business and if you look inside the engineering processes of the UAV builders I am certain that you will find guys spending lots of time calculating and testing reliability. So the absence of governmental regulation does not mean low quality. It may be higher quality because customers won't pay big $$ for junk. And the biggest detriment to GA keeping up with the latest technology is the FAA certification process. In another discussion we complain about how long it has taken for the FAA to maybe allow you to use your iPad in flight. The FAA process, in general terms, slows progress rather than embraces it. But that is another discussion.
Aviation is an activity where you must learn to manage risk, not just avoid it. This is different than the messages we see a lot in our normal, feet on the ground, daily routine. If you are purely avoiding risk, you can not be a pilot. Leaving the ground involves risk.
Getting back to UAV's, the FAA understands performance standards for safety, but the mere expression of fear and discomfort does not provide data that can be processed by the rulemaking calculation. To influence the formal process, statistics and logically constructed and supported methods or procedures carry the most weight. Look at how EAA and AOPA submit their comments to NPRM's for examples.
Fly smart, fly safe,
Wes
N78PS
Again, I can't argue with all your points, but the certification process is a hurdle that does in the end prove the equipment to meet some level of standards. As you point out, industry will demand some level of standards, but those will be weighed against cost. People are willing to buy a $50 electric drill that they have to replace next year in place of the $400 one that will last 15 years. By letting industry decide, you risk cheap outweighing safe as it has in most of our day-to-day lives.
We also have to remember that our airspace system is based upon "see and avoid" and until that changes, UAV integration will be a problem. Perhaps the solution is to require every aircraft to carry ADS-B out capabilities, but that is a different discussion.
It will be interesting to see how UAV integration ends up happening and what it means for general aviation. There are, as pointed out, positives with UAVs and negatives.
"Perhaps?" Right. Uh, huh. So, when all the UAV operators and $$$ people bet their lives on "perhaps" in the same way they expect us to, well...........perhaps we can continue the debate with some new data for Wes "WLIU".Quote:
Originally Posted by skier
Well one thing that would help is for every UAV to be painted hunter orange to help see it.
I would also like to see a new symbol on the sectional for airfields where UAVs are regularly based out of, like they do for skydiving ops.
That's a reasonable proposal. I will suggest that In addition to requiring high visibility paint and/or markings you could also suggest requiring that UAV's meet the FAR requirements for anti-collision lighting. And require that UAV used for commercial purposes be registered with the FAA and marked with the name of the manufacturer, a serial number, date of manufacture, name and address of owner, and if different, name and address of operator. And require that when in flight that right-of-way rule that applies to UAV's is that they give way to all other aircraft.
For folks who want to keep track of FAA UAV work, or even submit suggestions, take a look at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/ Interesting info there.
I will also note that some of our elected representatives have expressed interest and opinions on the topic of UAV's. There was a recent high profile Senate filibuster for instance. Sending suggestions to those folks will accomplish a lot more than simply venting on an internet forum. When a Senator or Congressman sends a formal inquiry to a federal agency, they must provide a reply.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
I'll agree with the N-number and data plate, but not names and addresses.
The right of way rule is already there - slower traffic get it - and I don't see that changing.
However, since UAV's have a long duration in the air (or, rather, most do), something along the lines of "UAV operations should be launched and recovered as to have minimum impact on commercial and general aviation, such as from low traffic airfields and times of day." To be honest, they could have UAV's taking off and landing every half hour at most of our local airfields and the only person that would notice is the guy cutting the grass between the hangar and the taxiway....because he's the only one at the airport.
Now I am curious. If UAVs are likely to land where they should not, or possibly collide with other aerial vehicles, and manned aircraft must carry a registration certificate naming the owner and providing an address, why should UAVs not be required to carry similarly identifying info that can be easily read?
I will also call into question that UAV's are slower than manned aircraft. I have seen a UAV that can operate above Mach 1.
Thanks,
Wes
N78PS
My point on right of way works both ways - sometimes a UAV should have right of way, sometimes it shouldn't. However, I'd steer clear of anything without a human pilot just to be on the safe side, just like I would do for a human pilot barging his way into a traffic pattern without a radio...in the wrong direction (and yep, it happens).
We need to be cautious about calling for sweeping restrictions on UAV's, as it may come back to bite us.
What if we demand that UAV's be restricted to the point that they can't share the pattern with manned pilots?
Then airfields will have "UAV only" hours where GA pilots can't use them. And now, if one lands during the UAV window, even if there are no UAV's operating, you're in violation of violating restricted airspace.
Don't think anyone will call in your tail number? All we need to do is keep painting UAV pilots as ignorant, irresponsible and untrained idiots that don't have anyone's safety in mind....as if it matters since they're "piloting" completely unsafe contraptions that are more likely to crash into a schoolyard of children ("Oh! the children! We must do it for children!" they cried) than anything else and they'll have our number scrawled on a note pad and the call to the FAA ringing.
This is a great discussion. I'm begining to see some parallels with future UAV operations and the operations of DEA and Customs/ICE back in the 90s. Norad was in the mix as well. What affected 800 oil & gas industry helos then, could affect all GA aircraft tomorrow. Back then, my fellow pilots and I operated along the Gulf of Mexico out 250 to 300 nm from Alabama to the Texas/Mexico border. So did drug smugglers. And that attracted the above players.
There are more than a dozen high volume locations along the coast that use a CTAF to have reasonably safe operations. The "State Aircraft" usualy disregarded the CTAF, barged in and it looked like a western movie when the wild bunch rides roughshod through town, terrorizing the shop keepers. One of our pilots, also a USNR Captain commanded an aviation unit at the NAS in New Orleans. He contacted the Customs boss, also a tenent unit there. The commander to commander approach worked for quite a while. A "State Aircraft" can be a game warden's Cub, the Blue Angels, a Sheriff's UAV, etc. My question is: Can a UAV operator sitting in El Paso effectively use a CTAF if his AC is over Ohio? Will he?
At times, I heard Houston Center transmitting an IFR clearance on VHF to a state aircraft. He read back on VHF, so he was non military. The clearance had the phrase "due regard". Look it up, but it means this. That pilot assumes responsibility for separation. Oh yeah, it can only be used in G airspace. What can go wrong?
A friend of mine was in solid IMC doing a GPS approach to Morgan City (E airspace) with 10 passengers on board. Somewhere between FAF and MAP there was a break and he spotted a King Air 90 at 4 oclock sliding 100 ft under his belly, disappearing back into the klag at 10 oclock. E airspace. Other simmilar happenings in D airspace in IMC. I met the same K' Air when he did a 90 deg intercept passing LESS THAN 50 FEET ABOVE ME. He wouldn't answer me on CTAF until we were both on the ground and I told him I was telling on him. Question: Can a UAV operator request a due regard clearance? Can he safely comply?
I got a belly full following a particularly outragous encounter with a Citation that had US Customs painted on the side. My passengers were terrified. I called the FSDO and got our Principle Operations Inspector. No I did not go through my Chief Pilot. The POI said that enforcement was hard on these cases. No I did not get an N number but I could describe the rivet pitch on his wing. We agreed that I ought to let this one slide because no one took a picture. He did say that they were succesful in one case against these guys. Question: If a UAV operator commits a careless and reckless violation, can he be brought to justice?
Bob
I think this is taking it a bit far. UAV pilots are obviously trained for the missions they perform. The question isn't so much about the pilots themselves as much as the aircraft they pilot. The question comes down to are they equipped with the technology necessary to safely integrate with the national air space system as it stands now and are they are safe to fly above the general population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Giger
If they are not equipped with the technology necessary to safely integrate with the current air traffic, there are two options:
1. require that they develop a way to see and avoid other traffic (the basis of our current airspace system)
2. put the burden on the rest of the air traffic and require something like ADS-B out and require that the UAVs have the capability interpret that information.
Once we have found a way to integrate them safely with the existing traffic, we need to ensure they are safe to fly over the general population and that they won't be falling out of the sky (unlikely) and won't be having more engine failures that normal aircraft (through a certification process like part 23 or even requiring a 40 hour test phase like experimental aircraft). If they do have an engine failure or loss of connection with the pilot, they need the ability to safely guide themselves (or be guided) to a landing or crash away from people on the ground.
"We need to be cautious about calling for sweeping restrictions on UAV's, as it may come back to bite us"
I will suggest that I appreciate Mr Dingley's story and that when dealing with federal agencies you do not get a reasonable solution if you start by giving up ground. I will suggest that my opening position is that all UAV's have to give way to all civil manned aircraft and that all current operating rules for piloted airplanes remain as is with UAV's as second class users of the airspace. From that position I will listen to logical arguments as to how UAV's can operate with the same level of safety as we have today. And I expect to support large liability law suits if a UAV gets offsides and causes death or injury. That is the system of checks and balances that we work with today.
"put the burden on the rest of the air traffic" - I will suggest that no pilot will support this idea. My tax dollars paid for the current system and I oppose further burdens on behalf of commercial users.
"they need the ability to safely guide themselves (or be guided) to a landing or crash away from people" - Since human pilots have a hard time doing this, I will suggest that it is even more unlikely that we can expect UAV's to live up to this expectation.
The future should be interesting.
Wes
N78PS
you were kidding with that comment, right? that battle has been fought, the requirement is in effect, and it does not include all aircraft for some very good reasons that have already been agreed to and i'm guessing won't be changing anytime soon. besides, according to the nall reports, there are about eighteen thousand reported midair collisions over the good old USA every year and only about ten of them (not ten thousand, ten, as in one zero) involve two or more piloted aircraft. so even if every man-made object had ads-b, there would still be about 17990 midairs a year - maybe more, since many "drones" maybe wouldn't be seeing and dodging most birds (those other 17990 midairs). we take risks and manage them knowing the potential costs. same risks, same costs for all airspace users? then i'm fine with uav's. no new equipment or rules or restrictions for present manned aircraft users needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by skier
defense property disposal office sales, anyone?
Navy Wants Lasers on Marines’ Trucks to Shoot Down Drones
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013...-laser-drones/
Skier, right now UAV pilots are well trained because the companies are on the ground floor and don't want a wreck as they do testing and demonstrations for sales. We don't know what their level of training will be in the future.
Personally, I'd like to see UAV pilots required to have a Sport Pilot with a controlled airspace endorsement or PPL as well as a (new) UAV endorsement. That way they'll have an appreciation for what having skin in the aviation game is all about. For the UAV endorsement they should be required to share the pattern at an uncontrolled airfield with a UAV....both in takeoff and kin the pattern.
On liability, I'm in agreement. In the event of gross incompetence they're like every other company.
I also think the future of UAV's isn't some guy in NYC piloting a UAV over Huntsville, Alabama. I think it's going to be much more localized than that. Let's say FEMA was going to put up a drone after Katrina to survey the situation. They'd fly it out of Baton Rouge....faster turn around and the raw data is right there for the decision makers on the ground to work with.
Which makes me think that perhaps the secret to see-and-avoid is to have an operator/observer team requirement at the point of launch and recovery. Naturally this shows my concern is during these phases of flight more than when they're droning about on their mission.
Either that or require they fly out of controlled airspace and follow ATC directions, which is preferable to me as I don't ever use controlled airspace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...47c_story.html
Maybe these things aren't ready for prime time?
Just an idea of how far some of these (RC planes) can go with "FPV" kits on them (FPV=First Person View) Some guys are using VHF/UHF controllers and video transmitters and recievers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2lUhrFkLM
The UAV technology is great and getting better all of the time. I just wish general human common sense would also rise to a higher level.
The smaller RC versions will be everywhere.
I posted this on the www. RCGroups.com site the other day in the “350 QX BNF With SAFE™ Technology by Blade®”
“Please remember that safety is the number one issue. Read the AMA guidelines on RC flying.
While I might catch a Nano QX in my hand, it’s unsafe to catch a 350 QX without some type of safety protection. You should not be that close to the 350.
I see videos of people flying higher than they should. As I Private pilot, I don’t want to hit anything in the air with my aircraft.
I work on computers all day; I know that electronics and software can all have glitches.
Have fun with the 350 QX but always fly safely to protect yourself and others.”
I feel like one blowing into the wind. There will be tens of thousands of ignorant people flying these things as the price lowers with even greater capabilities to fly faster and higher.
Look at this video -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0X7Z...ature=youtu.be
Don’t get me wrong. I am excited with what can be done and the technology.
See this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J-2JezMxiA
I am flying the QX 350 and loving it. I want to fly almost anything!
However, we need to educate more people about safety in a shorter period of time than many had envisioned or they will be in the faces of those who pilot aircraft flying low and slow.
When the uav operators face results equal to those of aircraft occupants after a midair collision, i will accept them in public airspace. I didn't make up the idea. Leviticus 24:19,20. Deuteronomy 19:21. Put the results on youtube. after all, these aren't evil people. Just ignorant or reckless. Educate them about cause and effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Rademacher