RunRyder RC
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )    >    >> ] 3193 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › Message from AMA President Bob Brown
11-01-2013 01:34 AM  4 years agoPost 41
Retired2011

rrElite Veteran

Lee's Summit, MO

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Heck, I have closer calls than that everyday on the Harley.
He was at least 100' above.

Chet

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 03:14 AM  4 years agoPost 42
GyroFreak

rrProfessor

Orlando Florida ...28N 81W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

He was at least 100' above.
Yes, but it looks like a cable going down to the ground, and the plane just missed it ???
Was that a cable for towing or is he flying using the wind while anchored to the ground ???
Look at the 26 sec mark where it shows an enlarged view..
.
His only comment was "whoop", me I would have said "Holy Sh**, get me down NOW".

.

I think about the hereafter. I go somewhere to get something, then wonder what I'm here after ?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 12:29 PM  4 years agoPost 43
Retired2011

rrElite Veteran

Lee's Summit, MO

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I didn't notice the cable. What the heck is he doing, riding in a balloon or a kite that is still anchored to the ground?

Chet

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 06:00 PM  4 years agoPost 44
Simmer

rrElite Veteran

Massachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I have not read all the comments yet but, I personally have a problem with this. If I was in a boat say fishing on in a kayak or even swimming, what it???? What if the gps failed? and it dive bombed me or my boat! I know its just 3lbs and foam, but that thing could do some damage to you if it went down into you as a swimmer or in a kayak, heck if you didn't see it coming, couldn't hear it coming. I'm saying you cannot trust 100% in the electronics. Not a pilot issue, but could be also a problem there. say to operator had a heart attack, (if no GPS) maybe he got stung by a bee and twitched? Nope to me there is a risk and I would be not happy with this flying over me or my boat.

Hey its just my opinion, feel free to bash me.

This one is 3lbs, who is to say where you draw the line? How about 20lbs, several rotors, or an 800 sized heli with CF blades spinning at 2200RPM? maybe No GPS? Look I don't like rules, for rules sake and even with rules they can and will be broken, but look, you open the gate, you don't control size, space, equipment? So many people I see now buy the cheapest electronics they can and tell me, ah its fine it works why not go cheap? Ill tell you why, because the failure rate is high. No question.

where do you draw the line, how do you enforce it, its an accident waiting to happen. then the laws will come down hard and they will potentially effect many other aspects of our current flying. If you don't agree with me fine, but at the least look at what I am saying here. Agree to disagree but these points are valid. I'm a strong Helicopter and RC advocate, been a club president, but I am not the only one who will thing of these circumstances happening. Can of worms, can of worms. I don't have the answer, but 5 miles out !!! No flight plan?? If I was on a boat, I would shoot that thing down in a heart beat. (and I don't own a gun.) but your over water. People are crazy these days. How would I know this little 3lb foamy doesn't have some harmful cargo like a bomb? Terrorist would love to freely use this technology. Why make it easier for them? You must have hear or read about the attempt's in the past to fly a plane with explosives in to buildings in the past? The two that come to mind were years ago. Today, its easier, and cheaper to do. Fly from 5km away, the authorities would have a hard time catching you.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 06:42 PM  4 years agoPost 45
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Everything you said people have said about model airplanes and helis and even r/c cars.

All the same stuff.

Terror is what it is and they will use any means they can...even common pressure cookers.

Anything can be turned into a weapon...pencil, keys, watch or a cup of coffee.

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 06:54 PM  4 years agoPost 46
Simmer

rrElite Veteran

Massachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

maybe .....terrorist stuff aside... This was I agree a bit of a stretch, my bad.

If I am in my boat, or on a highway, at work or in my backyard, I don't have and do not expect to have any RPV flying over my head.

A flying field is an area designated as such. WE at our club have rules. You cant fly over the condos or houses that line the field.
This helps to ensure we do not lose our field due to neighbor complaints. Its not a "right" to fly wherever you want.

Simple stuff man. I do not trust the pilot or the electronics of our RC flying aircraft enough to feel comfortable with it flying over my house , boat or family.

Commercial aircraft follow rules to ensure they are as safe as possible. There are people to hold responsible should an accident occur, (and we know it occurs in full size aircraft)

Go ahead.. convince me its safe and should be allowed (without the terrorist argument)

(by the way Mike, respect you as much as many of the guys on this forum. Trying to get a handle on why it does not seem to be an issue for some folks)

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 06:57 PM  4 years agoPost 47
highrpm

rrApprentice

Shelby Twp,Mi

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Valid argument simmer, but seriously who os going to enforce these rules of in place? How would you catch the "perp" if he or she is 5km away?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 07:34 PM  4 years agoPost 48
Simmer

rrElite Veteran

Massachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yea I admit there will always be people who don't follow rules, no one could catch them most likely. I've retracted the terrorist part of my initial statement.

But I maintain, do we simply not make rules because folks can and will break them?

I feel there must be some expectation of where these FPV will fly. If your out in the badlands of the Dakotas, or in the middle of a desert area, large clearing where no one is living. knock yourself out! On your own property, do as you wish.

As someone pointed out, what if there were 10 flying together FPV, I would think the danger ramps up 10 times more risk.

Look if I was just an ordinary person with no knowledge of RC, I might not have such strong feelings. But I know what the limitations of the hardware and software are, and I do not trust people to never make mistakes or make poor judgments.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 08:22 PM  4 years agoPost 49
whoamis

rrVeteran

san francisco, ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

@highrpm: most recently, onboard gopro memory fingered the responsible party... but feasibility of enforcement isn't really a primary factor.

oops, bounced it!

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 08:46 PM  4 years agoPost 50
qraptor

rrApprentice

Illinois

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Simmer,

You raise some very good points. I think we have to consider FPV flying for fun to be in the same category as other activities people do for fun.

Flying over open water or over a lake should be treated the same as other recreational water activities.

We have rules that say no-wake zones, no motors over certain horsepower, no boating between certain hours. These are all restrictions on individual liberties, but we all agree that they need to be followed.

Perhaps we as a community can come up with similar recommendations:
do not fly over people at a low altitude; do not buzz people, animals or vehicles; stay away from kids; do not fly when visibility is poor, etc.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 10:10 PM  4 years agoPost 51
Retired2011

rrElite Veteran

Lee's Summit, MO

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Perhaps we as a community can come up with similar recommendations:
do not fly over people at a low altitude; do not buzz people, animals or vehicles; stay away from kids; do not fly when visibility is poor, etc.
A little common sense is always a good thing.

I just think that you face much more dangerous situations everyday on the higways where there are all kinds of rules, regulation, and laws, than you do sitting in your boat worrying about an R/C anything.

Chet

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 10:12 PM  4 years agoPost 52
NQNA

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Add.. Do not fly in any area near or when unable to ensure separation from full size aircraft.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-01-2013 10:17 PM  4 years agoPost 53
NQNA

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Or any manned aircraft activity.. (Read parachutist)

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-02-2013 04:53 AM  4 years agoPost 54
Mike Fortin

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Fully loaded 747's fly over my neighborhood day and night as well as thousands of other heavily populated areas all over the United States and those occasionally crash killing hundreds on board and on the ground.

1 single jet can do far more damage in a single crash than a 20lb remotely controlled multirotor can. Like say when jetliners crashed into WTC and a Phantom crashed into a building in NYC, so honestly I don't see what all the complaining is about.

You think guys are flying around trying to peek into your windows to see some housewife wearing granny panties...probably not.

I'm in my car quite a bit and driving around I've yet to see a single drone flying around spying on anyone.

A few nights ago I tried to extract 2 drivers that both died from a head on collision from their vehicles. Both traveling at 70mph and wearing seat belts on a legal road but yet they died. Moral of this story, people die all the time doing exactly what they should be doing legally.

Rules, Rules, Rules....

Have Rotors, Will Fly!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-02-2013 12:52 PM  4 years agoPost 55
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

1 single jet can do far more damage in a single crash than a 20lb remotely controlled multirotor can. Like say when jetliners crashed into WTC and a Phantom crashed into a building in NYC, so honestly I don't see what all the complaining is about.
You bring up a good point here, IMO. and in fact there is one eesny bit of reason in the rules on this. And I mean eensy so work with me here lol... on very rare occasions the FnAA er I mean FAA does something that makes a little sense. Not often, but very rarely.

But the idea is "commanded kinetic energy". Basically, the idea is, the higher the commanded kinetic energy, the more strict the requirements are on the aircraft and the pilot.

For example, this is why FAA has never budged on the weight limits for part 103 (the FARs that govern ultralights). They don't want higher commanded kinetic energies without a corresponding increase in qualifications on the pilot and "vehicle". In the US ultralights don't require any training at all; you can teach yourself to fly in them if you want. So obviously, you don't want this happening in large aircraft. Why the limit is 254lbs exactly, who knows, but that's the basic reasoning behind it and why it has never been raised.

When it comes to UAV's and models, they probably have the same thing in mind. And to me that's rational and makes sense.

That's apart from the fact that accidents still do happen; that's not necessarily an excuse to abandon requirements for at least some basic qualifications before you go fly something.

But it may explain a eensy bit of FAA's thought process on this. Just throwing that out there, anyway. Ultimately no one knows what's going on in the mind of FAA, or who's lining pockets over there to get what they want. But this could explain part of it at least.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-02-2013 01:43 PM  4 years agoPost 56
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

PS:
To support Mike and Chris more on this, tho, I don't want my remarks to sound too exaggerated towards regulation. The issue here is kind of becoming worldwide; our fellow modelers in New Zealand, for example, are facing a similar problem:

Watch at YouTube

Also keep in mind that our more conservative representatives in the govt. are lying to you when they talk about "limited government" and "fiscal responsibility". In fact, they're frothing at the mouth over "drones" and want to waste our taxes on nonsense like this "Scout" thing:

Watch at YouTube

Any one of us can build this same thing for 1/100th the cost our conservative friends want you to spend on this exact same thing from outfits like this - 60 large for basically a Phantom? Hell you can buy a Phantom 2 from DJI that does exactly the same thing and ship that to the Pentagon. Or an F550 with a Wookong FC in it and an iPad and you have _exactly_ the same thing, for what maybe 2large or thereabouts. Saving you and I many many thousands of bucks in tax revenue....
Feeding outfits like this with our military spending needs to be stopped if possible, since they're the ones getting rich off the notion of "drones".

So while yes I think we need sanity in the regs for our hobby, Mike and Chris do raise legitimate points. This thing about commercial operations can set bad precedents that can threaten our FPV hobby....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
11-02-2013 04:59 PM  4 years agoPost 57
Simmer

rrElite Veteran

Massachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dont get mw wrong I'm not against FPV not at all and I'm not for a bunch of rules but let's not stray off point. someone in an ultralite is putting his life at high risk and must be using high quality electronics and some sort of intelligence. much more for an airliner. there is no risk to the FPV flying the cheapest electronics. today the risk is low because there's not that many of these things flying around. but who knows in the future and why should I have to deal with that risk? I'm saying don't fly over me.

the airliner analogy, does not fit. Statistically the number that fly compared to the number that die is ridiculously low. Much more likely to be killed in a car crash.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
11-02-2013 05:03 PM  4 years agoPost 58
wc_wickedclown (RIP)

rrProfessor

long beach calif

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

those are two excellent videos you should have made a separate post on them

i dont agree with the guy in the first video wanting to create aa sensor
to detect approaching air craft .

models have no business in civilian air space his invention would be breaking the law .

Insha Allah made in america

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 3 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )    >    >> ] 3193 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterHelicopter Main Discussion › Message from AMA President Bob Brown
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 13  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, October 21 - 12:48 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online