(Image: Wikipedia)
Dear Jamie, Adam, Tori, Kari, Grant and production crew,
I'm a huge fan and watch your show since the first episode!
I'm sure you have by now noticed the dire situation in which not only us "drone"-hobbyists but in fact all R/C-hobbyists are in!
Fearmongers and your US FAA are painting horrible pictures of airliners going down in flames after colliding with a 2kg foam R/C plane or a comparable multicopter almost on a daily basis.
My dad having been CFO of a major German airline and thus me having run around in maintenance halls a lot when I was little, I believe that is a myth and many of us hobbyists believe it's propaganda.
There is no doubt that we hobbyists have an obligation to be safe at all times and nobody is advising unsafe behavior! But there is a difference between advising safety in a reasonable way and fearmongering!
Therefore, I would like to ask you to do a "drone dangers" episode! You already have shot chickens, frozen and not, into aircraft windows. Please now shoot R/C airplanes and multicopters into aircraft and aircraft engines, so everybody knows once and for all, what is going to happen and what isn't.
Please bust the drone myths!
-Stefan
Comments
First order of business may be to just get opinions from the folks at Rolls Royce or GE. They could at least offer a best guess.
But I have little doubt that a 2kg lipo could do some great harm to an aircraft. It wouldn't be too hard to work out the physics of it for those who are so inclined. I had a stone which weighed about 3 oz (guess) hit my car windshield at less than 60mph and it busted the windshield.
Those who downplay the danger are not thinking straight.
Mythbusters was not even able to totally bust the theory that a bullet (tiny amt of mass) fired up into the air could not injure or kill upon falling.
No myth to be busted here. People should not be flying these things anywhere there is a chance of collision with aircraft or fast moving vehicles....or even where they are very likely to hit people when falling. It's only a matter of time before we have the first hobbyist-caused deaths. One or two may be bad luck, but when more start happening, government will be forced to respond.
I GUESS THEY WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY TO STOP YOU FLY
http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/3drobotics-stops-its-shipements-t...
Did everyone miss the really important things he said, this jet was of interest to the main media. What is of interest to this community is teh introduction of section 333 permissions for some operations in the NAS ahead of the NPRM fast forward to about 3 hours on this Hangout from our show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cti42eoRGi0&list=PLS2ntMaPm2ZUhX... or give us a little while and wait for the presenter by presenter videos that we will put up on our channel https://www.youtube.com/user/sUASNews
top*
I was thinking possibly GPS integration? However on that note, why not port over the free GPS files used on Garmin and multiple other full scale live GPS and Sectional maps.
Im 100% an advocate for safety. If we even want a glimmer of hope from the FAA we need to be concerned about safety and proper integration 110% of the time. Personally, I am all for a licensing system. It does not need to be as in depth as a PP certificate, but simply a UAV ground school. It can teach basic aerodynamic principles, reading sectionals, understanding airspace, and that would just about cover it. No need for anything over the tope, just straight forward information.
Or, missionplanner should be equipped with sectional charts. IMO ALL airspace (anything other than G and E) should be displayed in yellow. As in operate with extreme caution.
Sectional charts are available for free now of days, and it blows my mind that they are not at least in APM planner or mission planner, let alone having them overlayed.
I am with Stefan on this. Let a third party like Mythbusters do some destructive testing to find out what "really" could happen. The more actual information that the law is based on the better. Especially since most of us here are both UAV pilots and commercial airline passengers.
Of course a Mythbusters test would not be official but at least they are not a government agency or corporation with a stake in the results. And I think they have proven themselves to be unbiased in their reporting of facts, no matter how perfectly or otherwise, the testing goes.
We lost track of what the letter was about, proving or disproving that its a threat to aircraft and of course went on to Phantom bashing.
Anyhow my feelings are that if Mythbusters did the show it would at least be plausible so I would not ask them to do it, it would just give the FAA one more thing to side its case.
Just like green lasers, they would love to take them away from everyone even tho most use it for astronomy or other valid reasons. Most phantom users (I have an APM and a NAZA so don't bash me) are people that are excited about the technology. Yet this guy they are talking about on CNN was not a phantom flyer, he was a plane flyer
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel/unmanned-drone-danger/index.ht...
Most likely a guy with a dragon link uhf fpv and just an RC flyer
What is actually interesting is in their recent presentation, just how far the FAA had to go afield To illustrate the HUGE danger presented by Civilian Drones.
In fact given how many Phantoms and bird brains flying them there are around now what is surprising is how few actual significant incidents there have been.
These things are dangerous and it goes without really saying that keeping them away from manned aircraft is a really smart thing to do.
I do not want to be flying in that 777 when it ingests any kind of multicopter (or fixed wing for that matter).
Even if it doesn't blow up or immediately catastrophically damage the engine, I'll bet it needs an immediate tear down and rebuild, and if the copters owner gets caught, he's going to spend the rest of his life paying the bill.
None the less, I also believe the FAA is totally fear mongering in order to make its case is that what we need are really draconian rules that will prevent the 99% from flying at all.
Sure it has risks and just because it's new doesn't also mean there needs to be a measure of "Acceptable Risk".
There also needs to be good rules to follow and a clear understanding of what can happen to you if you fail to follow them and any sort of catastrophe results.
This is how all the other rules an laws work, so you know, I'll bet that could work here too.
Safety issues are primarily already covered in bot civil and criminal law.
If I do something that damages you or your property, I am civilly lible.
If it can be shown I did so by operating in a careless, reckless or intentional manner I am also already completely criminally liable (even with absolutely no involvement from the FAA).
And as for the Privacy thing that also is already covered by civil law, the concept of making special laws for the FAA to impose is nonsense, if privacy laws need to be reinforced, let the same authorities as do now undertake to do so.
And the AMA getting involved in the whole privacy issue is equally nonsense, they are a club to serve us, it's members, not make unilateral decisions about what is good for us and then order us to abide by them.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next