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.