like to talk about the changes that are going on in the industry 

how it can be a big road block to business and innovation. seems like the general 

public do not understand the technology, there is still little or no practical safety being 

practiced by new owners! I agree with 90% of what they are saying here but licencing and ban if

your a law barker is also a bit right wing in my opinion ! there is no real reason for this harsh treatment 

towards this technology. 

Views: 1152

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sorry I disagree ! When you buy a gun do the sales person or manufacturers tell you it can kill some one ? This is the issue manufacturers are irisopnsible in not clearly defining safty practices for there products ! As RC hobby we do not need these bureaucratic people making up dum rules when we do not endanger public safty! Rules have changed every year in the past 8 years get more redundant some county's out right ban, Balloon camera drones like DJI ph stated the dum DJI pilot thing. But think that is over now this stuff is affecting the market in a big way.What you may think are rules are only advisory!

I do not think you see my point , guns kill it is a tool made for this per pus! you do not need a license to own or carry a gun! if you wish to follow the law then Yes may be depending on where you live in the world you do. We have this stupid assumption that laws have some effect on human behavior !!! it does not! you say it your self , you can not stop stupid people from doing stupid things. Criminals form doing crime! So then this is Communist attitude that law abiding citizens should be inconvenience by unreasonable laws ! Yes common cence some of these laws were reasonable but not any more!!a sub 50lb drone is not a threat to a aircraft any more of a threat than a flock birds! what is the FAA doing about birds? 

don not fly above 500ft  don't fly above people over between large  building or over traffic reasonable safety! Now it is don't fly in the city at ALL!! line of sight rule is stupid as well....

The other issue is that pilots do not follow the rules, helicopter pilots , plane pilots fly under 500ft 

some times this is a violation of the rules as well what the FAA doing about it ? 

I love your optimism but your wrong dead wrong !  You must be very Old ! We do not live in a democracy, we live in a fashist, republic!  "CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY" do not apply because CONSTITUTION do not matter any more?

Pleas look at what establishment is trying to promote and how the treat that tech verses what they trying to suppress IE self driving cars!  telling me my car can drive it self but my drone can not  the technology is already here there 0 drone crashes last year?

your statement is wrong because the community did not make the laws or have any input a independent body did FAA or is trying to! this is a problem ! 

"The purpose of the law is a friendly reminder what is known to be bad for the community vs."    

Asim said:

a) ADS-B mandatory on all drones. Do you know what ADS-B- is ? I am assuming no.

If someone wants to fly over 500 ft, get a license, get trained, have drones built in ADS-B, provide flight plan like real plane pilots do. Your local airport in your community has a phone number. You call them, you give them your flight plan, and they give you a green flag. Why we all can be responsible adults?

1. ADS-B is not for 'drones' - First is the cost >$1500 for the unit and then another $800 for the FAA Approved GPS unit and that GPS will not fit on a drone! UAT's might be more cost effective when somebody starts building them but they still require a FAA Certified GPS.  

2. Second is the 500 foot ceiling - In my area I will receive no transmissions on ADB-R, I am behind mountains so I'd need to receive both 1090 and 978mhz to have a chance at getting current air traffic.

3. Power: ADS-B transmits at 7~18 watts LOW 20nm / 16~40 watts medium 40nm / 100 watts high 120nm where are you getting the power from?

4. FAA approval: The cost of my ADS-B transponder and GPS in my aircraft was ~$3200, installation and FAA certification was another ~$2800 not counting my lost time and aircraft cost getting the aircraft into the shop.

In this day and age you can see the influence of the Old Boys Network at work, you can purchase a ham radio or cell phone that has two hundred times the technology as a transponder for pennies on the dollar compared to any aircraft instrumentation.

Another HUGE hitch is L5 for GPS's - We have paid billions of taxpayer dollars for the L5 'Safety of Life' 12 satellites with the last one being launched in 2016. WHY ARE THEY NOT WORKING? Where are the receivers? Why aren't there any manufactures building L5 GPS receivers?

  

And here we are 2017, billions over budget still trying to implement obsolete technology meanwhile planes go missing since they can not install SPOT since the FAA didn't invent it.

I rarely file a flight plan on local hops, only when going cross country with multiple stops.

FYI: I have GPS units that can produce 1cm reading for surveys but since the vendor doesn't see the market to invest a million dollars for certification his GPS's can not be used.

Uavionix ADS-B for drones $125 on Amazon, ordered one! I have the Raspberry PI creation working but it has its issues.

I looked at the first post and figured a pilot would want to see the position of anything is the air that threaten them hence the full blown ADS-B. Besides, if the FAA wanted (they tried) to kill drones forcing ADS-B transponders would do it.

@ iSkyMaster  Let me know what your building!

 

Exactly the industry is in a lot of pain already on the consumer side of things! We do not need unnecessary transponder for below 50lb drone that can not damage a passenger air craft any way! & has never done so in the past! classified as (Stupid)  I never intend to offend any one Sorry if you feel I did !  

Who made and owns the sky anyway and who may claim ownership of it and exclude others from it?
It reminds me of the days of European monarchs when monarchs and various royalty claimed ownership (and even traded) whole countries while the peasants were just annoying pests who were restricted to living in their poor little villages and having no choice but to work on that land or fight for those monarchs in order to barely make a living. Luckily this abusive status-quo was eventually broken.

Today, the cartel of the commercial aviation sector (and to a lesser extent the existing non-commercial airspace users) and aviation authorities claim ownership of the skies while new 'drone' users and those who merely fly model aircraft are seen as the modern day annoying peasants of no value who have to be kept out or severely restricted.
Well as far as I'm concerned, it's time for sky reform: the sky belongs to everyone, and it is up to existing users and organisations to adapt to new users and allow fair use. Anything else is an abuse of power.

So I believe that model aircraft should be allowed in uncontrolled (G class) airspace just as sailplanes, ultralights, small powered aircraft, para-gliders, etc. currently are all allowed to share the same uncontrolled airspace. I've flown sailplanes, powered planes, and of course 'drones', and I can safely say that sailplanes with their sleek profile and near 300km/h top speeds crossing from 1 cloud base to another, pose much more of a risk to each other and other GA aircraft than drones ever will. The thing is: sailplanes were airspace users since before WW2 already and all the regulations that came later adapted to accommodate them as existing users. Had they been invented today, they'll surely be deemed too dangerous and illegal to operate, and have the same problem as us trying to break their way into being accepted by the 'cartel'.

Great points and I agree, G class belongs to everyone, however it is regulated to some degree. Off course some check and balances needs to be in place for safe flying experience for everyone (commercial drones can cost up to $20,000 now a days). 

I personally love Long rage flying but for that I have to travel to far away places to have some cool fun which sucks!

You wrote an article on March 30, 2016 (Great article)

http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/current-architecture-of-drone-aut...


Where you acknowledge yourself that the current free technology/concepts adopted  are just not there yet for safe flights for everyone and there is no governing body that is defining technology standards for the RC industry (Specifically Autonomous and FPV market segment). We can't allow Giants like DJI to monopolize standards else it will kill the open free market concept.


So what are you proposing as a solution for Drone and RC flyers at this point from technology perspective?

My thoughts are:

1. I think comparing RC flying from the safety of human standing on the ground, while a pilot sitting him or herself inside the plane are not comparable to some degree and I think this is the main concern raised by the old boys club.

2. I agree with you that current technology requires certain standards that everyone must follow just like commercial planes have to have X, Y, Z to qualify to fly in different air spaces.

3. What is your take on a cheap ADS-B avoidance solution? (as compared to Uavionix ADS-B costs $175 today) if it can produced for a cost under $75.00 dollars. Do you think the RC community will adopt such solution and make it a standard on all Drones? 

I know argument raised previously by RC community is RC planes and Drones don't cause any damage but the question remains once we have thousands of drones flying in a city (Like cars) you need traffic lights to control the traffic. So should we wait till get to that situation or should we think about it in advance.


Your thoughts..



turdsurfer said:

Who made and owns the sky anyway and who may claim ownership of it and exclude others from it?
It reminds me of the days of European monarchs when monarchs and various royalty claimed ownership (and even traded) whole countries while the peasants were just annoying pests who were restricted to living in their poor little villages and having no choice but to work on that land or fight for those monarchs in order to barely make a living. Luckily this abusive status-quo was eventually broken.

Today, the cartel of the commercial aviation sector (and to a lesser extent the existing non-commercial airspace users) and aviation authorities claim ownership of the skies while new 'drone' users and those who merely fly model aircraft are seen as the modern day annoying peasants of no value who have to be kept out or severely restricted.
Well as far as I'm concerned, it's time for sky reform: the sky belongs to everyone, and it is up to existing users and organisations to adapt to new users and allow fair use. Anything else is an abuse of power.

So I believe that model aircraft should be allowed in uncontrolled (G class) airspace just as sailplanes, ultralights, small powered aircraft, para-gliders, etc. currently are all allowed to share the same uncontrolled airspace. I've flown sailplanes, powered planes, and of course 'drones', and I can safely say that sailplanes with their sleek profile and near 300km/h top speeds crossing from 1 cloud base to another, pose much more of a risk to each other and other GA aircraft than drones ever will. The thing is: sailplanes were airspace users since before WW2 already and all the regulations that came later adapted to accommodate them as existing users. Had they been invented today, they'll surely be deemed too dangerous and illegal to operate, and have the same problem as us trying to break their way into being accepted by the 'cartel'.

AA Registration Requirement Struck Down

On Friday, May 19 the federal appeals court struck down the FAA’s registration requirement for recreational model aircraft. You can read the opinion here.

The Court ruling is effective immediately. As such, if you have not registered with the FAA, you are no longer required under the law to do so. For those of you who have already registered with the FAA, you may be wondering what this means for you. We are currently working to obtain answers from the FAA and will share more information as it becomes available.

Please keep in mind that this is a fluid situation and there is always the possibility of a renewed push in Congress to compel federal registration for model aircraft. If that happens, rest assured that AMA will continue to advocate for your interests and keep you well informed every step of the way. We have repeatedly argued that federal registration for our community is duplicative and unnecessary, as our members already register their model aircraft with AMA. In addition, our 80-year history of safe and responsible flying demonstrates that we’re not the problem. We shouldn’t be burdened by overly broad regulations.

The ruling also bodes well for our pending court challenge to the FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (also known as the Interpretative Rule). That petition, which AMA filed in 2014, is currently before the same Court that today rejected the FAA’s registration rule and affirmed the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336. This gives us hope for our continued fight against the Interpretive Rule.

We understand that these policy and legal developments are sometimes dizzying and complicated, and they are rarely resolved quickly. We’re nearly three years into our challenge to the Interpretive Rule, for example. We truly appreciate your sticking with us while we press on in the fight to protect your right to fly, free from unnecessary and burdensome restrictions.

Sincerely,
AMA Government Affairs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJq8jAQQKdg&feature=youtu.be

Just for laugh... :) Old but still makes me smile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zCLwmsvUU

@iSkyMaster 
Any technology that adds to safety such as ADS-B is fine as long as it's not overly restrictive in terms of cost, power, or dependencies on other equipment. Using ADS-B on a light RC glider, Mini Skywalker, or mini-quad would be ridiculous for example and offer little to no added value in terms of safety. Also such technology should cause more harm than good if it saturates the radar operator's screen with too many uninteresting blips (unless they can be filtered out by A/C type etc).
P.S. I didn't write that article, I only commented on it.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Groups

Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest 
A list of all T3 contests is here. The current round, the Vertical Horizontal one, is here

© 2017   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service