Clear and Present Danger to Warbird Aircraft..All Aircraft

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Unmanned Radio Control aircraft during a 16 mile flight at altitudes above 1,000 ft. This is a real danger and the sport is in it's infancy. The cost is coming down, the electronics are becoming more and more sophisticated and we will eventually see thousands of these in the air all over the country. It is the ultimate model aircraft. I doubt anyone is going to be able to stop it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPnAe-v ... e=youtu.be

WIXerGreg · **Posted:** Sat May 16, 2015 11:03 am

As an R/C pilot (planes only) I cringe every time I see idiots in the news doing stuff they shouldn't be with their helicopters. A few days ago I saw another headline that somebody had flown a multirotor helicopter onto the White House property and the White House was on lockdown. Idiots like that or that present danger to full scale aircraft are going to destroy our hobby. Most of us are safety minded and considerate but I see bad things on the horizon.

APG85 · **Posted:** Sat May 16, 2015 11:36 am

Sick of hearing the word "Drone" on the news...

WacoOne · **Posted:** Sat May 16, 2015 12:17 pm

You're right , Greg. However, the FAA has been working on this problem for some time now, attempting to control the use of these multi-rotor craft. I am a long time R/C hobbyist (planes only, also) and I abhor these things and what damage they can do both to people/property and the R/C sport. Traditional R/C flying is obviously line of sight by the pilot and in most cases limited to 400ft altitude. The AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics, the governing body of model aviation) is working with the FAA trying to separate the R/C sport from those multi-rotor lunkheads and their dangerous practices.

Bill

ArtATP · **Joined:** Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:44 am **Posts:** 23

There is certainly no stopping the coming of UAV's. The FAA (responsible for our airspace) will issue rules (Laws) for their operation.

This will no doubt have to include FAA Certification for unmanned Aircraft and requirements for their continuing Airworthiness, meaning Calendar and possibly hourly requirements.

Operators will also need FAA Certification including testing for knowledge of Airspace and demonstration of Aircraft Control along with recurrent training requirements.

Operating rules will be established for when, where and how.

Hopefully this will include waivers or exemptions for the existing Hobby of RC Aircraft, which has a long history of responsible and safe operation.

Current rules allow operations more than five miles from an airport, within eyesight of the operator and below 400' AGL.
Art

K5DH · **Posted:** Sat May 16, 2015 10:27 pm

DISCLAIMER: I don't know how true this is, so please take it as a "rumour" (unless it can be substantiated, and please do so if you can!). You guys all know me, and you know I'm not the type to go around spreading gossip if it doesn't sound plausible.

A co-worker of mine said he saw a story on a Dallas-area TV news broadcast a couple of weeks ago in which the crew of a Virgin Airlines Airbus was landing at Dallas Love Field and encountered a "drone" (probably a big quad-copter) directly in their flight path, very close to the airport. The "drone" apparently got out of the jet's way and no harm came to anyone. The Virgin crew reported the incident and the FAA was going to investigate.

Again, this is a "rumour" that I got from a co-worker. I haven't bothered to research it (probably because finding out it was true will make my blood pressure go even higher than it usually is). I was on a cruise ship in the Caribbean at the time, and I had no access to Dallas-area TV broadcasts. Our TV on the ship only got Miami broadcasts via satellite, and they were totally consumed with the terrible goings-on in Baltimore that week.

If this incident didn't really happen, well, it's probably just a matter of time. I shudder at the possibilities.

GregP · **Joined:** Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:13 pm **Posts:** 67

I see people flyng them around our airport, but almost entirely within hangars. It's usually very small light foam airplanes, not multirotor copters. No harm in their own hangar as I see it, but FPV flying by people who don't know the regulations, flying outside of line of sight, above 400' and with cameras will wind up killing a great hobby for people who are law-abiding recreational RC fliers.

When idiots get into the act, the laws usually change to address the lowest common denominator, and not for the better.

Dave Smith · **Posted:** Sun May 17, 2015 7:40 am

Dean, I'm afraid it wasn't just a rumour. Here's a link:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Drone- ... 64531.html

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

7,000 feet above an airport, a pair of two larger RC aircraft in and out of the clouds....chilling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DjPiCd ... e=youtu.be

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

GregP wrote:

I see people flyng them around our airport, but almost entirely within hangars. It's usually very small light foam airplanes, not multirotor copters. No harm in their own hangar as I see it, but FPV flying by people who don't know the regulations, flying outside of line of sight, above 400' and with cameras will wind up killing a great hobby for people who are law-abiding recreational RC fliers.

When idiots get into the act, the laws usually change to address the lowest common denominator, and not for the better.

Not small anymore, there are also jets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5SLm59 ... e=youtu.be

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

IFR climb thru a low cloud layer to on top. After seeing these videos it makes me wonder how many have come near me while flying that I never saw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhQ0NsbxtGQ

Punisher05 · **Posted:** Sun May 17, 2015 4:10 pm

As someone who builds and flies FPV, as well as briefing Law Enforcement and CT groups, on top of being an aviation safety professional, I guess I'd better jump in.

Others have previously noted that the costs of the technology are coming down, and the number of people getting into UAVs are growing quite rapidly. With that, come some problems. Big ones. Those with more money or time than sense.

By and large, those who violate rules and act in a way that endangers others are not only ostracized but also treated very poorly for doing something that threatens both lives and our hobby. I've helped track down people using their aircaft in an unsafe manner, and reported them to the proper authorities (LEO and FAA). I would, and will, do it again.

With that being said, there are two main issues in the UAV interaction with the FAA:

1) Safety. This is fairly straightforward--airframes operating outside the 400' AGL and line-of-sight rules established by the FAA, or those operating over congested areas, do pose a clear and present danger to the flying public. Naturally a multirotor strike would be more serious than a styrofoam model, but the presence of these machines in flight paths should be eliminated as much as possible. Technology, and procedures, for coordinating them with manned craft using transponders and radios, are coming along but until then they should stay out entirely.

2) Regulatory. This is one that a lot of people do not think about. Simply put, the FAA says that you are not allowed to make money with your model airplane. If I decide to film my daughter's soccer game with my quadcopter, and charge each set of parents $5 for a copy, then the position of the FAA is that I need to have a commercial pilots license to do so.

A number of people see the regulatory response by the FAA as silly--and I agree--but where I disagree is where they say the safety concern is equally silly. Which could not be more asinine.

-Brandon

L-4Pilot · **Joined:** Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:35 pm **Posts:** 616

Good points Brandon. FPV is in it's infancy and will continue to grow and evolve. My thoughts are that it should be embraced as a useful extension of Aviation and treated as such.

I have been building and flying radio control models since 1976 in addition to being a FAA licensed pilot and believe that RC line of sight and under 400 feet should be treated differently than FPV and those aircraft flown out of sight, and above 400 ft.

Anyone flying a FPV in US airspace should be a licensed UAV/FPV pilot and the aircraft should be subject to the same rules, regulations and conditions that manned aircraft are. They should also be required to carry the same minimum equipment which will be ADS-B by 2020.

FPV/UAV aircraft will eventually replace manned aircraft for pipeline and power line patrol, aerial photography, search and rescue ETC. The size and weight of these FPV/UAV aircraft will continue to grow based on mission and required payload.

There are two reasons for my opinion, one is airspace safety and the second is Homeland Security.

The FVP/UAV aircraft have very little in common with traditional RC aircraft and should be welcomed in to the Aviation sector the same as the military UAVs have been.

I don't mind sharing airspace with a properly trained pilot flying a properly equipped aircraft. I am however very uncomfortable with the Wild West any thing goes attitude that is present right now. If someone wants to share airspace with me let them study, train, equip and pay the cost the same as us.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sun May 17, 2015 4:38 pm

K5DH wrote:

DISCLAIMER: I don't know how true this is, so please take it as a "rumour" (unless it can be substantiated, and please do so if you can!). You guys all know me, and you know I'm not the type to go around spreading gossip if it doesn't sound plausible.

A co-worker of mine said he saw a story on a Dallas-area TV news broadcast a couple of weeks ago in which the crew of a Virgin Airlines Airbus was landing at Dallas Love Field and encountered a "drone" (probably a big quad-copter) directly in their flight path, very close to the airport. The "drone" apparently got out of the jet's way and no harm came to anyone. The Virgin crew reported the incident and the FAA was going to investigate.

Again, this is a "rumour" that I got from a co-worker. I haven't bothered to research it (probably because finding out it was true will make my blood pressure go even higher than it usually is). I was on a cruise ship in the Caribbean at the time, and I had no access to Dallas-area TV broadcasts. Our TV on the ship only got Miami broadcasts via satellite, and they were totally consumed with the terrible goings-on in Baltimore that week.

If this incident didn't really happen, well, it's probably just a matter of time. I shudder at the possibilities.

I was IN that very airspace that day doing aerial photography. I have told ATC once in the last three months about a possible drone sighting, but couldn't swing my camera fast enough to take a picture of it. They are VERY hard to spot and blend in a lot better than a bird does with an industrial background.

People need to realize that this a very real threat and someone IS going to get hurt. I think the real key is people need to realize that the drone guys are trying very hard to justify their "rights" while endangering other people, and honestly, there isn't much a drone can do that actually can be done efficiently - sometimes more efficiently by a manned aircraft that can see and avoid other manned aircraft and carries a transponder and other collision avoidance equipment. Some of our "drone" friends / competitors are telling customers how much cheaper their photos are when in reality we can shoot more in a day than a drone can, can stay aloft longer, and can give better quality pictures for the same price or less. The drones are the darlings right now, but they really aren't what their operators are making them out to be.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sun May 17, 2015 4:42 pm

L-4Pilot wrote:

FPV/UAV aircraft will eventually replace manned aircraft for pipeline and power line patrol, aerial photography, search and rescue ETC. The size and weight of these FPV/UAV aircraft will continue to grow based on mission and required payload.

The only real need for this stuff is war zones where people can get killed or in tight spaces like mountainous terrain. Most of the time these missions are just as easily, cheaply, and safely done with manned, existing aircraft. FPV still requires an operator, still requires ground crew, still requires monitoring and will cost just as much and has the additional points of concern of datalinks, hackers, and the fact that with no skin on board, risks can be taken that shouldn't be. What this is really about is big companies that are producing the drones trying to drive their very expensive costs down by forcing the market to adapt them for more missions. For a lot of domestic missions, you could loft several Cessna 182s for the cost of a Predator derivative.

Warbird Information Exchange

Clear and Present Danger to Warbird Aircraft..All Aircraft

Who is online