RunRyder RC
WATCH
 31 pages [ <<    <     11      12     ( 13 )     14      15     NEXT    >> ] 27153 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Lawsuits filed challenging stricter FAA Rules
08-24-2014 05:28 PM  3 years agoPost 241
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

But, OTOH,
one is professional drone & the other one is amateur drone, both r/c tho

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 05:31 PM  3 years agoPost 242
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

one is professional drone & the other one is amateur drone, both r/c tho
Nah, I think it's just a Phantom multirotor with a camera on it.. I'd even feel confident calling my S800 FPV machine a hexacopter FPV machine and not a "drone". It definitely looks like the public portrayal of a "drone" when I fly it LOS.. but when folks do come and see me flying it and ask questions, etc., I'm very emphatic with them that, no, it's a multirotor model aircraft and not a "drone"...

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 05:37 PM  3 years agoPost 243
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Nah
sure, you call it whatever you want to & others can do the same calling multirotor-camera a drone, no need to get upset about it

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 05:53 PM  3 years agoPost 244
carzan

rrVeteran

Lone Star State

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

unclejane

Can you please provide us with the definition of drone?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:08 PM  3 years agoPost 245
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

sure, you call it whatever you want to & others can do the same calling multirotor-camera a drone, no need to get upset about it
I'm not upset, for the record... just stating what my basic position is on the moniker "drone"....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:15 PM  3 years agoPost 246
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

unclejane
Can you please provide us with the definition of drone?
Not meaning to just answer your question with a question, but why are you asking me? Do you really want a precise definition? Or do you just want a lay definition or do you just want to pick a fight with big ol bad ol UJ or what?

Think about it: Isn't the definition of exactly what a "drone" is something that needs to really be hammered out? Again, we're talking about PR here, so we need to be consistent and we need to be accurate. Else the FAA will define it for us, you see where this is going? Of course you do.

Right now we only have very broad ideas on what a "drone" is. Do you consider your heli a "drone"? A kid with a Phantom a "drone" operator? Some say no and yes, some others may say yes and yes, others no and no, and so forth...

Here's something a little more formal that we might be able to start with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
or perhaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmann..._aerial_vehicle

What do you guys think?

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:21 PM  3 years agoPost 247
GyroFreak

rrProfessor

Orlando Florida ...28N 81W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How would this law be enforced? Does the FAA have "agents" in most cities? Do they have the authority to issue citations, or would they have to go to the local police to enforce the law?
Also, can airport radar detect R/C aircraft from 2-5 miles away?
A neighbor reporting the flights to the local police. Just about every RC flying field has someone nearby that is a complainer/troublemaker. Same goes for flying at home on 20 acres, neighbor called police on me. Police showed up and laughed about it, I wasn't even near his property. But that is how it would get reported.

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

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:34 PM  3 years agoPost 248
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What do you guys think?
multirotor [professional or amateur] is made to carry a camera, hence calling it drone
model aircraft is made for hobby-flying & called r/c heli, r/c airplane [rotary-wing, fixed-pitch, cp, co-ax, fix-wing, planker, etc]

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:43 PM  3 years agoPost 249
GyroFreak

rrProfessor

Orlando Florida ...28N 81W

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Here is a great place to fly but it is 3.7 miles from the end of a very busy international airport. Been there a long time. It is east of Sanford Fla. Any body in this discussion a member ? If so whats your club discussion on this ?
Location
28D 46.034N
81D 9.22W

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

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:51 PM  3 years agoPost 250
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

multirotor [professional or amateur] is made to carry a camera, hence calling it drone
model aircraft is made for hobby-flying & called r/c heli, r/c airplane [rotary-wing, fixed-pitch, cp, coax, fix-wing, planker, etc]
Oki doke, that's a start. Now, what about the type of camera? If it's just a cam for an FPV video downlink, and not a recording type camera, does that make a simple FPV multi a "drone"? I sincerely don't know. In my opinion, it doesn't, but if there's a rational argument that shows that it does... ?

How about my FPV helis too: those aren't made to carry a camera but they do carry cams for my FPV usage via DIY mounts I made for them. They also aren't multis, but true helicopters. Are those "drones" now?

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 06:57 PM  3 years agoPost 251
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Oki doke, that's a start. Now, what about the type of camera? If it's just a cam for an FPV video downlink, and not a recording type camera, does that make a simple FPV multi a "drone"?
sure, multirotor FPV-drone
How about my FPV helis
the heli itself was made as model aircraft kit for sport, scale-like, 3D flying
the FPV modification was done by you the owner of the r/c model aircraft & you can call it whatever you wish [r/c-heli, uav, drone, or any combination of them together]

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 07:14 PM  3 years agoPost 252
BobOD

rrElite Veteran

New York- USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

uncleane, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you. I understand your plight and am more on your side than you probably think. I am giving you the perception, and although I know little about FPV and autonomous flight, I probably know more than most people in the world. I see things that are concerning and you have not returned a very convincing argument. I agree there are plenty of safe practices going on. That does not change the fact that there is an abundance of activity I deem unsafe. Increasing the amount of "safe" activity does not cut down on what is currently being done in an unsafe manner. Concentrate on solving the problem rather than trying to protect what you like about it.
And, saying there are unsafe things about LOS activity is not very convincing either. Just a diversion. With most LOS operation, a control loss should result in powering the model down. And, it should be over an unpopulated area at that time. The result is most likely a plop to the ground. I see much different behavior with FPV and it seems to have a higher frequency and higher potential for loss.

Team POP Secret

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 07:17 PM  3 years agoPost 253
carzan

rrVeteran

Lone Star State

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Not meaning to just answer your question with a question, but why are you asking me?
I'm asking you because of this statement
Nah, I think it's just a Phantom multirotor with a camera on it.. I'd even feel confident calling my S800 FPV machine a hexacopter FPV machine and not a "drone". It definitely looks like the public portrayal of a "drone" when I fly it LOS.. but when folks do come and see me flying it and ask questions, etc., I'm very emphatic with them that, no, it's a multirotor model aircraft and not a "drone"...
Do you really want a precise definition?
Yes I would like a precise definition. However it seems by your previous statement that I quoted you want a definition which does not include your machines as you define them however you wish to depending upon your own personal needs at the time.
or do you just want to pick a fight with big ol bad ol UJ or what?
WOW! Get over yourself! I certainly don't think you are big and bad.You are simply one of us nerds who love this hobby and are fighting to protect your niche. I do however feel that it is FPV and SOME of the people who are flying them recklessly that has brought this recent attention to our hobby.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 07:41 PM  3 years agoPost 254
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yes I would like a precise definition.
It looks like there isn't one, which I think is the entire point. I think there are cases where it's definitely not a drone (such as your typical heli flown LOS) but then it gets murkier with different a/c types, intended uses and equipment.
However it seems by your previous statement that I quoted you want a definition which does not include your machines as you define them however you wish to depending upon your own personal needs at the time.
Not at all. If/when a precise definition of "drone" is settled on, I'd be perfectly ok with that label on any of my machines if they happen to fit into that definition. I don't care either way.
I do however feel that it is FPV and SOME of the people who are flying them recklessly that has brought this recent attention to our hobby.
I don't agree that FPV itself is at fault; other than that proviso, I agree with the rest of your statement. It is true, and it's always been true, that there are nutcases out there that do bad things with the same equipment we use to enjoy ourselves in this hobby.

Where I personally draw the line is when the technology itself gets blamed as the problem. It's the same debate you have in gun control, where the weapons get the blame for gun violence instead of the person(s) wielding the weapon.

I attribute that to ignorance of the technology where it occurs (and ignorance is definitely the culprit with a select one or two in this thread as I've stated before), and not a problem with the technology itself.

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 07:52 PM  3 years agoPost 255
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I agree there are plenty of safe practices going on. That does not change the fact that there is an abundance of activity I deem unsafe. Increasing the amount of "safe" activity does not cut down on what is currently being done in an unsafe manner. Concentrate on solving the problem rather than trying to protect what you like about it.
We're about 97% on the same page here. I think the amount of safe FPV activity is being significantly underestimated and underreported within the hobby. That would be my only addition to what you said. In principle, tho, I think we agree otherwise.
And, saying there are unsafe things about LOS activity is not very convincing either. Just a diversion. With most LOS operation, a control loss should result in powering the model down. And, it should be over an unpopulated area at that time. The result is most likely a plop to the ground. I see much different behavior with FPV and it seems to have a higher frequency and higher potential for loss.
Here we don't agree. My disagreement is both principled and practical.

In practice, the FPV video downlink does not suffer a reliability problem significantly worse than the r/c link. I can even prove that with my own equipment. If I can suffer no losses of my video or r/c links in a year of operation, anyone can. And I'm not using any unusual or wierd equipment, it's all off-the-shelf stuff you can get at ReadyMadeRC or GetFPV or etc.

In principle, we're still talking about radio for both the video and r/c links. They're both radio. The emission types vary slightly (mostly spread-spectrum freq. hopping on r/c, and fast-scan TV on the video) but we're still dealing with radio. Traditional transmitters, receivers and antennas. In fact, diversity receivers are now as readily available for FPV video as they are in r/c - I have one and I use it regularly - it makes even my 5.8ghz video transmissions significantly less prone to interference, like multipath distortion etc.

PS: It also looks like the benefits of spread-spectrum will come to the video downlinks as we move to HD. DJI already has an entry there with the LightBridge. It has too much latency to be useable for FPV, but it's a radio HD that's not using traditional FSTV.
Also there's the Paralinx Arrow which is a low-latency (uncompressed) HD wireless video link. I don't think it uses FSTV for reliability (and legal) reasons. Not intended for FPV, but I'm highly tempted to try it on one of my S800 frames...

So I see evidence to the contrary against the claim that FPV is inherently unsafe because of the reliance on a video downlink. Like I said, I can even prove it with my own stuff: the video has been as reliable as the r/c and, knock on wood, it will continue to be this afternoon when I go fly my S800....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 08:08 PM  3 years agoPost 256
revmix

rrKey Veteran

NJ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

intended uses and equipment
multirotor primarily advertised as flying-camera, the r/c-uav-drone is to carry a device

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 08:27 PM  3 years agoPost 257
BobOD

rrElite Veteran

New York- USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well, I think flying los without autonomy over unpopulated areas is inherently safer. Both arenas have good and bad equipment and that is too bad but reality. The result of questionable equipment flying fpv and autonomously over populated areas is worse than flying questionable equipment los over unpopulated areas.
Now, you also get questionable equipment flying los over populated areas. I think this should be prohibited...even if that takes regulation.

As for if the blame is on the provider of the equipment, sorry but I think it is irresponsible to provide a gun to a nutcase. The nutcase is the problem but the provider has responsibility. Here's an example for you.
I want a bazooka. I think having one would be the coolest thing. But that does not mean I think I should be able to buy one on ebay and have it show up via China Express Mail. I'm disappointed that I can't...but I understand.
A real shame though...because it sure would be cool.

Team POP Secret

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 09:32 PM  3 years agoPost 258
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Well, I think flying los without autonomy over unpopulated areas is inherently safer. Both arenas have good and bad equipment and that is too bad but reality. The result of questionable equipment flying fpv and autonomously over populated areas is worse than flying questionable equipment los over unpopulated areas.
Now, you also get questionable equipment flying los over populated areas. I think this should be prohibited...even if that takes regulation.
I don't see any area of disagreement now, we're pretty much on the same page here.
As for if the blame is on the provider of the equipment, sorry but I think it is irresponsible to provide a gun to a nutcase. The nutcase is the problem but the provider has responsibility. Here's an example for you.
I want a bazooka. I think having one would be the coolest thing. But that does not mean I think I should be able to buy one on ebay and have it show up via China Express Mail. I'm disappointed that I can't...but I understand.
A real shame though...because it sure would be cool.
The tree-hugger Liberal in me makes it hard to argue against you here. Over the years, even tho I'm a Clinton Democrat, I've become persuaded by the Conservative gun control argument for the most part. But I don't quite go all the way and have difficulty disagreeing with you here.

I'm not convinced either, tho, that Phantoms are inherently dangerous or that an FPV conversion like that done on my helis makes them inherently dangerous. I have too much personal experience with both of these to make that stretch. So I don't think it's irresponsible to sell Phantoms without a background check. Or FPV equipment similarly. Bazookas? sure... Phantoms and F550's?.... er.... nah....

But here I think we agree more than we disagree at this point...

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 09:47 PM  3 years agoPost 259
unclejane

rrElite Veteran

santa fe, NM, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

multirotor primarily advertised as flying-camera, the r/c-uav-drone is to carry a device
Ok... hrm.. so if it's a multi and it carries a camera (whether by intent or not) it's a "drone" then? I kind of wonder out loud if everyone in the r/c community would agree with that definition....

Actually, MW goes even further with it:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drone

look at #3. To them, if it's unmanned and remotely controlled it's a "drone". That's every r/c aircraft period.

Not sure if we're moving towards a consensus or not....

LS

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-24-2014 09:55 PM  3 years agoPost 260
Stephen Born

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

...

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 31 pages [ <<    <     11      12     ( 13 )     14      15     NEXT    >> ] 27153 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › Lawsuits filed challenging stricter FAA Rules
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 27  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, August 21 - 2:43 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online