• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
Pumpkin drop event

My friend is bad...

nhk750

Aviation Enthusiast
#1
A friend sent me this picture from his FPV setup after flying way over the limit in the Tacoma area. I think he was in restricted airspace too... Anyway he wanted me to post it up as he did not want to get into troubles...
He said it started to break up after that and he had to come down as he was using a 200mw tx.
 

Attachments

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#3
I'm going to ask, please don't post this stuff for your friend. It's just promoting bad behavior. This is what we are trying to avoid having in our hobby; it makes the responsible ones of us who fly safely, not in restricted airspace, look bad. If he's doing something illegal, you need to tell him not to be doing this, because by association, whether you do it or not, the general public could think of you doing it. I'd hate to see that happen to you, nhk...I don't want to get tagged by that either. It's bad enough that someone in Washington nearly hit some workers on the Space Needle last year with a DJI Phantom that got out of range...
 

nhk750

Aviation Enthusiast
#4
Ya, I know...I think he wanted to pose the question of range as it started to breakup after 1,000 ft. He doesn't use the internet and he actually didn't know about all the laws. I gave him an education. He's 75 and pretty much does what he wants these days. He always says, "in my day we did this and that...and nobody cared..." I always tell him, "America isn't what it used to be"

I guess it's partly my fault as I helped him build his system...I created a monster...
 

kilroy07

Well-known member
#5
Back in his day they didn't have tiny cameras that you could strap to your RC plane and fly it a thousand feet away either.... :sneaky:
(I already have to register and get a permit with the local park district because of the "drone scare", sure it's mostly media hype, but stuff like this doesn't do the hobby any good.)

Thanks for educating your friend! (y)
Ignorance of the laws is NOT a creditable defense in court.
 

nhk750

Aviation Enthusiast
#6
He flew with film cameras and fm tx back in the day. He is blown away by todays tech, its funny, like he has been on an island all these days.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#7
Ya, I know...I think he wanted to pose the question of range as it started to breakup after 1,000 ft. He doesn't use the internet and he actually didn't know about all the laws. I gave him an education. He's 75 and pretty much does what he wants these days. He always says, "in my day we did this and that...and nobody cared..." I always tell him, "America isn't what it used to be"

I guess it's partly my fault as I helped him build his system...I created a monster...
Unfortunately, that's part of the issue with the "drones", whether it's FPV quadcopters, helis, or even just your basic fixed wing trainers - laws have changed in recent years (even over the past year, we've had a "You have to register - oh wait, no you don't - oh, never mind, you need to register again" bit, which just adds to the confusion), and it falls on us hobbyists to kind of police our own, or at least give ample warning. Otherwise, it looks like EVERYONE who participates in the hobby is a bunch of outlaws just doing whatever we want. Personally, I think that some of the requirements are a little goofy (The AMA says, for example, that you need to have a spotter pilot who can take over if there's a loss of control when flying under FPV - if you're flying a racing drone which is screaming around at 60 mph, and you lose control? Split second, it's down/gone. No way you're going to be able to recover from it that quickly in a handoff. But, I'll still fly with a spotter because of other reasons that make sense), but I'll follow them because of the current volatile environment in the public eye.

It's up to us to provide a good education - I had a guy who told me he wanted to build a drone that he could autonomously follow and set down on a building to record police action, or fly over a fire. I had to tell him that was illegal, and could net him fines or potential jail time, and he said, "But it's in the public interest!"

Yes, but it's also in the public interest to keep us safe, and providing an obstruction to vehicles dropping water on a fire (like happened with planes trying to drop fire retardant in December, over the Lilac Fire here in San Diego) or getting in the way of ASTREA helicopters while they're performing a search and rescue for a missing child...there's good reason not to interfere. I don't agree with all of it, but I see both sides, and I agree with some of it.
 

nhk750

Aviation Enthusiast
#8
I just reviewed the vfr charts and he was not in restricted airspace. Also, for all you guys flying fast airplanes, check out this excerpt from the law.



Maximum groundspeed of 100 mph (87 knots).
I see everyone on this website breaking this law, so I guess we are all lawbreakers?

• Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.
• Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station
 

PsyBorg

Wake up! Time to fly!
Mentor
#9
The rules are made by guys in really bad off the rack suits who have ZERO clue what the RC hobby is. That is why there are so many conflicting and confusing rules. Which btw are not rules anyway but as stated "Community based guidelines". Only the money aspect of it is actual laws. Go figure huh.....

The rules you quoted above are a perfect example.. you cant't fly over 400 feet but you need to SEE 3 miles ( not sure about you but I can't see 3 miles to begin with)

AS for the 100 mph. Tech and the advent of organized racing throws that all out the window realistically. I am willing to abide by common sense rules / laws and do what I do in the safest manor possible where I do not put any ones health or property on the line. Other then that the monkeys running the country can make all the rules they want and I will still do what I do. I will follow the ones that make sense but not going to pay to play in a hobby that big business wants to take over to profiteer from which is all these laws boil down to.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#10
I just reviewed the vfr charts and he was not in restricted airspace. Also, for all you guys flying fast airplanes, check out this excerpt from the law.



Maximum groundspeed of 100 mph (87 knots).
I see everyone on this website breaking this law, so I guess we are all lawbreakers?

• Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.
• Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station
Can you please do me a favor and post the source where you found that? I've been scouring the FAA website to no avail to find it. I don't doubt it being law, but at the same time, I'm curious as to what other restrictions are part of that.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#11
Full scale manned aircraft cannot fly under 500 feet. This gives 100 foot vertical separation between manned and unmanned aircraft...theoretically anyway. 3 miles is standard VFR visibility (fly by sight).
And even that's open to interpretation - otherwise, how do you land the plane? LOL

I think there's some leeway for some of this. I can tell you right now, if I look outside my work window, I'd be lucky to have a mile visibility due to some cloud cover. But, that's not stopping the aircraft from landing and taking off from Palomar Airport - and the tower for said airport is probably...500 feet from my office building, as the crow flies? Clearly, that's due to instrumentation, knowing the altitude of the runway, things like GPS to help identify location, etc., so I think some of it is open to conditions/interpretation, if you will.

I think there's so much frakking confusion on this, and I think that, honestly, we need to have a sit down/powwow with the FAA to just get it hashed out in simple, clear terms WHERE we can fly, how high we can fly, and that we learn to fly SMARTLY.

And for those idiots who are going to fly where they shouldn't ("Hey, let's fly over the White House and see if they really have Secret Service armed with rocket launchers on top!" or "Do you think we can buzz the tower at Chicago O'Hare?"), we need to have the AMA standing up there next to the government shaming these people and saying, "This is not acceptable. We have clear, marked areas for people to fly, we have clubs where thousands fly safely on a daily basis, we have rules to prevent this kind of thing, and these people have no regard for that."

Argh. I just realized I'm up on my soapbox...I've got to get down before I start ranting, raving, and foaming at the mouth. LOL
 

PsyBorg

Wake up! Time to fly!
Mentor
#12
Its the must see three miles thing.. If I was in my remote controlled air plane I would say yes its easy to see three miles. Not so much if you are on the ground piloting and RC plane where trees and buildings and other objects seriously hinder that VFR 3 mile thing EVER being possible unless you are in an open field in bumblesville Iowa or similar.

Just for general information.. full scale has its share of idiots too.. I see MANY small planes fly overhead here below 500 feet some barely above 100ft IF that high. I have had military helicopters (blackhawks) fly over that field behind my complex just over the treeline several times a year. Close enough to see the faces of the guys in the door and wave to them as they go by and see them nod back.

Anyway this is digressing past the original post that was not about debating flight rules or AMA or FAA so I am gonna shut up now and go charge some batteries!!!
 

nhk750

Aviation Enthusiast
#13
Can you please do me a favor and post the source where you found that? I've been scouring the FAA website to no avail to find it. I don't doubt it being law, but at the same time, I'm curious as to what other restrictions are part of that.
Got it off the FAA website RULES
 

nhk750

Aviation Enthusiast
#14
Btw, the old guy said he didn't like flying that high as its funner to fly close to the ground. He was just experimenting with range. I guess he used to fly real F4'S at 50feet AGL, yikes!
 

PsyBorg

Wake up! Time to fly!
Mentor
#15
Those are nice rules... what does it have to do with the thread though?

This thread was showing a high altitude RC flight. There was a statement that it is against the rules for model aviation and that it probably wasn't a good idea posting it as it could promote bad behavior.. Nothing in the OP about full scale aviation.

Stating full scale aviation rules takes the topic even further off course which is why I bowed out to begin with.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#16
NHK - I just found something interesting which may mean more research...The FAA rules that you cited are for Part 107, which, for the most part, cover Commercial pilots not falling under Community Based Organization Guidelines (like those of the AMA) and section 336.

Model Aircraft

• Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95.
• The rule codifies the FAA’s enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from endangering the safety of the NAS.

As there have been recent changes to Part 336 in the past few months, and they are not covered in these rules from 2016, I wonder if there's a different set of rules that are more strict for hobbyists. It could potentially be interpreted (as I have not read all of Section 336 or its changes) that the 100 mph limit is not enforceable on a hobbyist level aircraft, because they are to follow the guidelines of the community based organization, which, in theory, should be as strict as, if not more so, than the Part 107 rules.

Also, I can see people interpreting and arguing Part 107 to allow them to fly really high. For example:

• Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.

So, if I were flying within 400' of the Empire State Building, I could fly all the way to the top of it, which is 1,250 feet high...if we ignore that it's within restricted airspace, as I believe most of New York City is now that President Trump and his family have restrictions around their homes at Trump Tower (unless those were just Temporary Flight Restrictions; this is where there's so much of a mess and it's just easier for me to say, "You probably shouldn't try flying a drone in New York City unless you're indoors.")
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#18
According to the latest update from the HILL from AMA the regulations effecting 336 have been reaffirmed and new rules have been added that " there are also some provisions in the bill that concern us " It is now on its way to the Senate for their scrutiny and what ever money grubbing they can think to add to it.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2018/05/17/government-affairs-update-may-17-2018/
I'm probably overstepping on this topic, but I put out a proposed set of "rules" for us all to fly by. I think all of us already do these things, with the occasional "Nah, I don't do that...but, y'know, your reasons are pretty sound, so I can see why it's a good thing" attitude. I don't want to start arguments with my proposed rules, as, really, they're COMMON SENSE, but we all know that some people were sick the day common sense was taught. :)

If you want to disagree or add to it, they're over in Flight School...I just wrote them up because I've been thinking of things we need at our new drone field, and safety rules that we need posted, most of which are "Don't do these things so you don't get a face full of flying blender", but I'm also thinking of things like "Please check what channel you're flying FPV on BEFORE you power up your drone. Power up your goggles first; odds are the last channel it was on is the last one you were flying on. If in doubt, DON'T POWER ON YOUR VTX SYSTEM UNTIL NOBODY IS FLYING!" (been the recipient of an errant signal wiping me out, not fun)