Would you shoot one down for invading your privacy ?

BruceK said:

An overhead camera known as "spidercam" is in use at cricket matches in Australia. It is suspended and positioned on overhead wires, not free, but operates much like a drone. At one point it was low enough and close enough to distract a player in the process of taking a catch. Result: fieldsman distracted, ball dropped, no catch, batsman survived. Lots of press coverage, debate, rule rewriting, followed
My understanding is, in Australia the drone is regarded as an aircraft, but there is zero practical prospect of regulating their operation and flightpath. They have been operated, probably by news gatherers, at forest fires sites, when they are water bombing aircraft pilots are reluctant to operate for fear of collision. Cricket is taken seriously here (well above watching paint dry or grass grow). The cricket incident points up the risk and danger of distraction, which could affect a boat operator. I`d be equally concerned by operator error and being hit by one,many operators will not be the sharpest tool in the shed.

Click to expand...

Cricket fighting! That cruelty to insects.

roguewave said:

wow, step outa the room for a few days and things get busy

Click to expand...

Roguewave, is your avatar upside down or is it my computer?

BlueYonder said:

I never pull out the newspaper until the gear handle is up.

Click to expand...

Copilot, huh?

Some people fly without copilots.

psneeld said:

Some people fly without copilots.

Click to expand...

Roger that, single-seat community all the way. No self-loading baggage . . . who can think with all that noise in the back seat?

cappy208 said:

My son returned from an electronic design symposium in Taiping. He gave me a 'cell phone jammer' about the size of a pack of cigarettes. It works like a charm. BUT it is illegal in the US. But boy is it nice to shut up the loudmouths who insist on talking so loud every one near them knows what they and how important they are doing whatever it is they are doing. I try to keep it holstered, since I don't want to danger anyones pacemaker or anything. It only has about a 30' range so wouldn't work on drones. But the idea is a pretty good way to go for

Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-florida-resident-drove-around-with-a-cellphone-jammer-84369099229.html

Capt.Bill11 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-florida-resident-drove-around-with-a-cellphone-jammer-84369099229.html

Click to expand...

That's something's else entirely. This gadget I have it about as big as a pack of cigarettes and has a 30' range. Oh yeah. It has an on/off button also. The battery only lasts about an hour too.

This topic reminds me of the guy in the Midwest who was always late for work because of the traffic lights. He installed a dwell tach timing light on the dashboard of his truck to trigger the lights in succession. After a year the cops noticed the irregular traffic light pattern. The installed a trigger camera when it happened. Lo and behold there was always one certain vehicle in every pic. They tracked the guy down. And there was the timing light.

Just what we need, more laws and more government employees to enforce them.

If you have no need to be why is everybody so concerned about privacy?

I was a pioneer in the ultralight movement and this drone thing smacks of The early days of the UL movement. The first FAR on the UL restricted them to 55lbs as well .. interesting. I had a biplane hang glider that weighed 55lbs w no engine or landing gear. The eventual law allowed 253lbs but no UL's have flown onto the Whitehouse lawn or into a jet airplane. Assuming that happens (how could it not) there will probably be a very different outcome FAR wise than there was for UL's.

Unless a drone is shooting at you talk about "shooting them down" is early teenage boy talk.

Eric, I was thinking that eventual drone regulations will look a lot like part 103 ultralight regulations. I remember when we were hoping the government wouldn't ground ground ultralights and part 103 turned out to be pretty reasonable. This was despite hearing people say that ultralights presented the same problems that we are hearing about drones.

Like ultralights there will be size limits and restrictions where they can't fly without prior permission. Bigger ones will require some sort of license.

Can we build one that weighs less than 253 pounds that will lift me?

The ultralight community did an admirable job of policing itself. This was helped by the fact that "operator error" or irresponsible behavior among ultralight flyers was self critiquing. Drones are different, an accident with a drone is more likely to injure or maim some innocent bystander than the drone "pilot".

Yep, if you are dumb enough to take off in an UL without any training you probably wouldn't do anything that would make you soil the underoos. Drones on the other hand are like an arcade game in that when you die, you just keep pumping in the quarters...or in this case a rather healthy credit card...

Skinny I don't consider myself "dumb" and I was a self taught pilot. Had three years hang gliding experience when I took up powered flight. Self taught there too on the Oregon beach sand dunes. In our state there were only 5 or 6 guys flying under power and they weren't really ultralights. They were all powered hang gliders w wheels attached. My first was a dope and fabric bi-plane that weighed a little over 100lbs dry.

Parks,
I remember hop'in and pray'in the Feds would allow us 180lbs and expecting 150 to 160. And then we were all in shock when the 253lb FAR 103 became law.

"self critiquing" I like it, very clever understatement. I think the drone folks will also self critique. They will form an organization and come up with best operating practices.
They realize that they could lose their flight privileges if they piss off enough people.
The government may formalize those rules if not enough drone drivers follow them.

I think there is a big difference between something you strap yourself into as an adult and something a clueless adult can buy online and give to their kid for a gift.

Almost the magnitude difference between an RC controlled toy boat and a jet ski.

One someone might obey a regulation...even think there might be some and the other group thinking it is just a toy.

The ones that may see a regulatory issue are the pro photographers or other serious users.

Someone is going to build a cheap black box that is capable of hijacking (not jamming) the flight control system. It will sell very well and there will be many of these toys mysteriously disappearing (preferably into the drink or the dirt).

They might be a little more tricky to shoot down than one would think.

Greetings,
Harumph! Amateurs...

manyboats said:

I remember hop'in and pray'in the Feds would allow us 180lbs and expecting 150 to 160. And then we were all in shock when the 253lb FAR 103 became law.

Click to expand...

The FAA regulatory process is very public with full disclosure. That number did not appear without a great deal of open and documented debate. Shouldn't have been a shock to anyone. The same is true for the current machinations over the unpiloted toys.

Skidgear, it actually was a big surprise. Everyone involved was expecting 150 pounds. To this day I don't know how they came up with 253 pounds. Might have been a typo and just went with it!

Skid,
I was very connected to the UL community and we were all extremely supprised ... actually shocked was a good word.
There was the usual comments and everyone was encouraged to tell the FAA what they thought. A lot of time was involved too. Waiting for the rule to come down seemed to take forever. In the end there was only one UL that was (as produced (a kit)) not within the limits of FAR 103. And it was heavier and faster than the 63 knot speed limit. So it looked like the FAA gave us a huge amount of slack. And in a short period of time 25 to 35% of the "ultralights" were outlaws .. as in over the 103 rule. And many flew 2 place ultralights that were supposed to be for training only by an instructor (with and without a passenger and I never saw anyone get sent up the river nor did I even hear of the FAA coming out w scales to check anybody.

For that matter how often do you see a ramp check in general aviation. There's many "private pilots" out there w nothing more than a driver's license. Not being close to general aviation that could be wrong but I don't think so.

But Skid I do agree in that I'm sure the FAA spent a lot of time on FAR 103 and gave it their best shot. I talked to FAA people at fly-ins and air shows and the comment period was extensive.

manyboats said:

Skid,
I was very connected to the UL community and we were all extremely supprised ... actually shocked was a good word.
There was the usual comments and everyone was encouraged to tell the FAA what they thought. A lot of time was involved too. Waiting for the rule to come down seemed to take forever. In the end there was only one UL that was (as produced (a kit)) not within the limits of FAR 103. And it was heavier and faster than the 63 knot speed limit. So it looked like the FAA gave us a huge amount of slack. And in a short period of time 25 to 35% of the "ultralights" were outlaws .. as in over the 103 rule. And many flew 2 place ultralights that were supposed to be for training only by an instructor (with and without a passenger and I never saw anyone get sent up the river nor did I even hear of the FAA coming out w scales to check anybody.



For that matter how often do you see a ramp check in general aviation. There's many "private pilots" out there w nothing more than a driver's license. Not being close to general aviation that could be wrong but I don't think so.

But Skid I do agree in that I'm sure the FAA spent a lot of time on FAR 103 and gave it their best shot. I talked to FAA people at fly-ins and air shows and the comment period was extensive.

Click to expand...

A friend of a friend of mine has a 1974 Cessna-180 that he has owned for over 25 years and has over 4500 hours flying it on wheels, ski's and floats. He has rebuilt the engine in his hanger and has performed all the work on the AC including all the annual inspections, well he inspects the AC when working on it.

He has no A&P license, no pilots license never had a medical and never had a formal lesson. He files and fly's IFR in IMC to include landings and takeoff's. He has no insurance.

I will say he is a great pilot (from reports) and oh did I mention he is one of many and lives in AK.

Not very impressive. No insurance, no physical, no ratings, no evaluations. At least in Alaska the "big sky theory" works better than other places.

Many people go to Alaska for "freedom".

HopCar said:

Skidgear, it actually was a big surprise. Everyone involved was expecting 150 pounds. To this day I don't know how they came up with 253 pounds. Might have been a typo and just went with it!

Click to expand...

I spent 20 years in the rule making process from the FAA side. There is always a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at least six months before the Final Rule hits the street. The content of the final rule is always coordinated with industry...in the case of ultralights it would have been EAA and the manufacturers, and some user groups for the most part. It might have been a surprise to folks on the street who tend to not follow the process very closely...but the final rule was no surprise to anyone who was plugged in. No chance whatever for a typo.


It's very easy to look up the public record and take a look at exactly what happened and how that number was selected.

skidgear said:

EAA . No chance whatever for a typo.

Click to expand...

The irony....

BandB said:

The irony....

Click to expand...

EAA = Experimental Aircraft Association.


The irony....

Skidgear, I think what Eric and I are saying is that we were surprised at how generous the FAA was when they issued the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. We were also surprised that the EAA and AOPA didn't manage to kill it. We were not loved by either organization at that time. The only organization we had at the time was the USHGA (U.S. Hang Glider Assoc.). They didn't have much political pull as they were just a bunch of crazy hippies jumping off mountains, at least to the FAA.
As I recall there was one guy in the FAA who went to bat for us but we didn't know it at the time.


"It's very easy to look up the public record and take a look at exactly what happened and how that number was selected. "


How? I'd really like to know.

skidgear said:

EAA = Experimental Aircraft Association.


The irony....

Click to expand...

Had no idea....the stupidity on my part....I understand now...feel adequately dumb. But then I know nothing about flying such contraptions around.

HopCar said:

Skidgear, I think what Eric and I are saying is that we were surprised at how generous the FAA was when they issued the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. We were also surprised that the EAA and AOPA didn't manage to kill it. We were not loved by either organization at that time. The only organization we had at the time was the USHGA (U.S. Hang Glider Assoc.). They didn't have much political pull as they were just a bunch of crazy hippies jumping off mountains, at least to the FAA.
As I recall there was one guy in the FAA who went to bat for us but we didn't know it at the time.


"It's very easy to look up the public record and take a look at exactly what happened and how that number was selected. "


How? I'd really like to know.

Click to expand...

Go to the FAA web site. There's a section for regulations. Select Historical FARs (or CARs). Start digging.

By the way, the airworthiness (engineering) side of the FAA, where I was employed, was not wild about these contraptions. That reg had a Flight Standards (operations) lead....they had to do something to gain some sort of control over what was becoming a dangerous operation. As it turned out I believe the EAA eventually got involved with the field inspector side and developed some guidelines to provide at least a modicum of construction integrity. Big difference between such a guide and a formal certification to a comprehensive airworthiness standard. To this day there is virtually no oversight from the aspect of handling characteristics and performance (as is required for an aircraft in one of the normal categories). But then it's experimental and very limited in the damage it can do to the unsuspecting public on the ground as they have specified operating areas, or the numbers of people in/on the aircraft. And rest assured body counts are part of the safety equation.


I'm all for the experimental community as it's the last grass roots aviation left in this country. That said, the airworthiness side of the FAA had no interest in attempting to regulate the vehicle designs (develop an airworthiness standard). First of all it would have killed the category from the cost perspective, and secondly we would have had to double or triple our staff to keep up with proliferation of designs, and accident investigations. Just go away, get your kit inspected from the construction/assembly perspective, fly safe and leave us alone.

These toy un-peopled gizmos on the other hand, are something altogether different as has been explained quite well by another poster.

BlueYonder said:

Not very impressive. No insurance, no physical, no ratings, no evaluations. At least in Alaska the "big sky theory" works better than other places.

Click to expand...

Agreed

OK, I understand that the "dumb" terminology I used may be abrasive and rather direct. I also understand there are many excellent untrained pilots in the world, probably just a natural born talent. I'm sorry if my term offended anyone on here.

But...

I'm completely lost in why I should be arguing or advocating the idea of formal training, following regs, trusting in protocols, etc. being a good idea

I'm sure there is a healthy dose of people that write the check, fill up the tanks, and head out only to be rescued by the coast guard because training was unnecessary.