RunRyder RC
WATCH
 1 page 1309 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › ...
10-26-2014 11:46 PM  3 years agoPost 1
Stephen Born

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

...

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-26-2014 11:55 PM  3 years agoPost 2
TMoore

rrMaster

Cookeville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

https://rc.runryder.com/t771721p5/?p=6384163#RR

Delayed Response Operator Not Engaged
AMA SECTION 336 = Good
Drones = EVIL

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 09:34 AM  3 years agoPost 3
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If anyone has information regarding this act, please contact your local FAA office.
What is the FAA going to do since it happened in London, England.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 01:17 PM  3 years agoPost 4
Stephen Born

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

...

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 02:38 PM  3 years agoPost 5
raholek

rrVeteran

Zachary, Louisiana

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Speed limits
I would want more info to draw a conclusion.

What is the top speed of a quad? 70 mph? If you are flying a 100 knots, the quad 30 mph, the time you would see it from and aircraft would be ~ 1 to 2 seconds. Not much time to determine if craft is being flown in malice.

But stupidity knows no bounds.

The guys that flew a quad near a police helicopter were real geniuses.

Hope this bad press will wake up the public. Fly responsibly or get regulated.

www.redstickrc.net ama#: 968515

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 03:00 PM  3 years agoPost 6
FireNWater

rrApprentice

Collierville, TN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

.
As long as the manufacturers are selling these things to the general public you're going to get this type of behavior. The same things happen with laser pointers. The only thing that has stopped the public before this is that R/C aircraft required skills to fly. But now with the stabilized platforms that any ham-fist can operate and purchase at Barnes and Noble you're dealing with the General Public (morons).
.
The government needs to make a few public examples of people to (possibly) get them to stop.
.

Buy Cheap, Buy Twice . . .

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 03:07 PM  3 years agoPost 7
don s

rrElite Veteran

Chesapeake, VA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

+1

E820, Raptor G4N, X50F/E, E620, Forza 450, and some planks.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 03:57 PM  3 years agoPost 8
Ronald Thomas

rrMaster

Gainesville, Fl, USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What is the FAA going to do since it happened in London, England.
Freak out….

Team MikadoUSA 480XXTreme, 550SX, 600SX, 700XXTreme, 800XXTreme!!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 05:16 PM  3 years agoPost 9
Heli_Splatter

rrElite Veteran

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It is going to be pretty hard to catch someone.

It amazes me to believe that a pilot or co-pilot of an aircraft traveling at 150knots could even see something that small and then detect a direction change into the flight path on final when the cockpit is pretty busy. It is almost impossible to see an approaching aircraft if you are not expecting it and all I have flown is the putt putts not a turboprop.

I think that a Naza equipped MR would not even takeoff near a London airport, unless it was hand flown without a GPS. A 3-5lb Phantom would probably not down a commercial plane, but it could cause a lot of damage.

I sincerely hope that the person(s) responsible are caught and dealt with harshly.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 07:13 PM  3 years agoPost 10
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

A 3-5lb Phantom would probably not down a commercial plane, but it could cause a lot of damage.
3-5 lbs. waterfowl have downed commercial aircraft.
The government needs to make a few public examples of people to (possibly) get them to stop.
FireNWater, the only way I see to minimize (can never completely stop) this type of dangerous behavior is through a certification program similar to SCUBA.

Sadly, while in St. Martin, Caribbean earlier this year, I was on a dive boat where the operators allowed uncertified divers to don SCUBA gear and dive. They called it the "experience dive" to expose uncertified people to SCUBA in hopes they would get certified. I found it to be disturbing an irresponsible since we were in 50 feet of water. It is easy to be killed at a depth below 25 feet if untrained - just hold breath and ascend quickly.

Training works when everyone abides by the program. Laws are the same way. Although laws can have repercussions when broken. I'm not a big fan of government regulations for everything we do, but perhaps requiring certification/licensing before purchasing RC aircraft above a certain size/mass is inevitable.

The RTF, stabilized equipment available nowadays has taken the learning of RC etiquette out of the equation for many buyers. For others, they will just never follow rules with or without potential punishment for breaking them.

Interesting story - a few years ago, while driving down the dirt road to the RC field, I came across a guy in the field adjacent to our club's field trying to fly a home rigged foamy aircraft that he had setup for FPV. I stopped and invited him to come to our field. He did and subsequently joined the club. After about 1.5-2 years we ended up kicking him out for violating AMA FPV rules several times. He once crashed within 5 feet of folks attending a Peewee football game in the aforementioned adjacent field!

This guy was a medical student at FSU at the time, so he was not stupid. He eventually got in trouble with the FBI for flying his FPV models in unsafe places. Presumably because things got too hot for him in the Tallahassee area, he transferred to FSU's satellite med. school in Orlando. About a year after his moving, there was a TV news report of some guy getting in trouble in Orlando for flying a "drone" in a dangerous manner over Interstate 4 and crashing. The guy said that his equipment failed and the aircraft got away from him. Can anyone guess who the guy was? Yep, it was the same guy we booted from our club!

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/lo...lorida/20611692

So, no matter how intelligent someone is, they can still do things that are unsafe and possibly illegal. It's not just morons who do stupid things with "drones." Although, you all know the saying from Forrest Gump, " stupid is as stupid does." BTW, the guy is now a doctor!

In summary, all we can do as a society and RC community is educate and train people in the safe usage of RC aircraft. No law or rule will stop people like Guimy Alexis.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 09:59 PM  3 years agoPost 11
Andy from Sandy

rrElite Veteran

Bedfordshire, UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

quote from a UK paper

An airliner came within just 80ft of colliding with a quadcopter drone after it was 'deliberately flown' at the passenger plane as it flew over Essex, an official report reveals.
The 74-seater aeroplane was travelling over Southend when the pilot spotted the remote-controlled quadcopter 'very close' to the right wing-tip.
An investigation launched into the incident recorded the risk of collision as 'high', in what is believed to be the first ever near-miss between a passenger plane and a drone in the UK.

The UK Airprox Board report into the incident, which emerged this week, revealed how the ATR72 twin-engine turboprop airliner was travelling at 1,500ft as it came in to land at Southend Airport when the pilot noticed the drone.

The report revealed how the pilot informed the control tower at Southend Airport over the sighting and told the operator how the object was 'too close' to the plane.
He told the tower that he thought he had seen a 'remote-control helicopter with a very small engine' before confirming it was a black and red quadcopter.

The tower responded by informing the pilot there had been 'a couple' of quadcopters reported in the area at the time of the incident in May.
The co-pilot told the UK Airprox Board investigation that his impression was that the quadcopter had been flown deliberately close to the plane.
The report revealed that it had not been possible to trace the drone nor its operators since the incident and concluded that it was disappointing that no one had come forward to take responsibility of the quadcopter.

Concluding its investigation, the UK Airprox Board said: 'The board were content that the AT72 pilot had clearly seen the quadcopter but, unfortunately, there was too little information available to make a meaningful analysis of the occurrence or to accurately assess the risk.

'Members were disappointed that someone would fly a quadcopter so high on the extended approach path to an airport, and that no had come forward to help with the analysis.
'It was unanimously agreed by the Board that the cause of the Airprox was that the quadcopter was flown close enough to the ATR72 to cause its pilot concern; because there was too little information to assess the degree of risk accurately, it was graded as D.'

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-27-2014 11:23 PM  3 years agoPost 12
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

He told the tower that he thought he had seen a 'remote-control helicopter with a very small engine' before confirming it was a black and red quadcopter.
Which was it a helicopter or quad? They certainly don't look the same. Makes the whole thing seem dubious. We had another implausible situation in Tallahassee a few months ago. The facts just didn't add up. Too high to be with RC range, closing speed would have made it impossible to get any ID, report didn't correlate with facts of known RC aircraft models, changing report, etcetera. But then, many pilots swear they see UFO's. These often end up being optical illusions and/or simple misidentification of known aircraft.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2014 08:25 PM  3 years agoPost 13
MattJen

rrElite Veteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Too high to be with RC range

When I helped out a friend who was doing Aerial photography, the range when he did a range check on the first 2.4 setup was 3.2miles, he got his mate to ride a bike with his TX and keep waddling the sticks..
As said it was 3.2 miles before it went into failsafe, so 1500 feet is nothing, I have been with skilled scale pilots who regularly pushed 1200 feet with their 1/4 scale models and that was on 35meg.

I must of missed this event as I live under the flight path of Southend, they descend over where I live and then swing in over the Thames into southend.

Trouble is there is a lot of these morons now, a friend of mine bought one and thought it was great fun to go up and down the street taking pictures, when I explained to him about trouble he could be in he could not understand why someone would get upset with a toy, I mentioned about BMFA (uk AMA Equivalent) and he looked at me as if I was mad, he knew nothing about the BMFA, nothing about flight safety range checks, all things we learn by being at a club or being part of BMFA, it was then I thought how many others go into a toy shop or get one of these for Christmas or birthday and have no idea of rules and regulations because they are sold as toys with cameras.

I am also surprised ATC did not warn the approaching aircraft, at 1500 feet I would suspect it was on final, now I flew at flying fish which was an RC training school which was opposite RAF Northolt 3miles, and before the we could start flying, the instructor would have to ring the control tower at Northolt at the beginning and end of each day to let them know flying had started or finished for the day, as our 30size helicopters showed up on their radar..

Matt

All The Best

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2014 09:03 PM  3 years agoPost 14
rexxigpilot

rrProfessor

Florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

When I helped out a friend who was doing Aerial photography, the range when he did a range check on the first 2.4 setup was 3.2miles, he got his mate to ride a bike with his TX and keep waddling the sticks..
As said it was 3.2 miles before it went into failsafe, so 1500 feet is nothing, I have been with skilled scale pilots who regularly pushed 1200 feet with their 1/4 scale models and that was on 35meg.
I don't disagree with the 3.2 mile range, but at that range the RC system is having severe drop-outs. Check with a Spektrum Flight Log and it is almost solid antenna fades. We did some testing of both Futaba and Spektrum at my RC field a fews years ago with a glider. At about 1500 feet AGL, the signal would usually break and the glider would be uncontrollable. The glider was barely visible in a clear bright sky at that height. The results were also the same no matter which brand.

It seems suspicious that almost all these "close calls" happen at or near that magic 1500 foot mark. Makes me believe even more that these "events" are fabricated.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
10-28-2014 09:58 PM  3 years agoPost 15
MattJen

rrElite Veteran

UK

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

interesting info...

Also interesting to see if any more of these incidents occur, this is the first I personally have heard within the UK, I have seen some stupid footage on youtube of people following full size aircraft on final although admittedly the footage could have been enhanced.

All The Best

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 1309 views POST REPLY
HomeAircraftHelicopterMain Discussion › ...
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 2  Topic Subscribe

Tuesday, August 14 - 10:17 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online