|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 27, 2015 23:59:38 GMT -8
hhr, Those are some cogent comments on drones and the potential for disaster without some thought on the part of the operator. It's certainly easy enough to say drone operators should take responsibility and there would be no problems. True enough, except for the irresponsible drone operator, of course. I think that's why it's tempting to some railfans and worrisome to others. Given the fact that almost everyone has a story about dumb, stupid or just plain unsafe railfan behavior near the tracks, mix in a drone... And pointing the finger can be difficult. The drone I cited above as tempting me, except for a empty wallet, is something like 10" long -- basically the airborne version of those wireless layout minicams. The thing isn't big enough for a license plate, which cars are required to have in part to discourage bad behavior, let alone to paint a tail number on it big enough to read. I suspect the Secret Service would've come up with the midnight operator soon enough. Those things have serial numbers, hard drive ESNs, or other identifying marks/info aboard. Plus the average hobby drone is covered in the owners fingerprints, something to keep in mind before you do something stupid with it. Given the op works for an intel agency (NGA), he's got a clearance with prints on file. But this wasn't your average scary drone incident for several reasons and it's certainly the case that the news periodically coughs up some irritating new development in the use and misuse of drones. The NY Times mentioned drone jammers the Chinese sell, although illegal for civilian use in the US. This sorta made me wonder if that's why the drone went down in the first place. It would be interesting if this turned out to be, behind the scenes at least, a successful test of such a system's effectiveness -- but they're just not talking about that...  |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbrodie67281 on Jan 28, 2015 0:44:59 GMT -8
All this 'droning on ' is making my head 'buzz'.
Jim Brodie 67281.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary P on Jan 28, 2015 4:14:32 GMT -8
....The NY Times mentioned drone jammers the Chinese sell, although illegal for civilian use in the US. This sorta made me wonder if that's why the drone went down in the first place. It would be interesting if this turned out to be, behind the scenes at least, a successful test of such a system's effectiveness -- but they're just not talking about that... Hmmmm, very interesting. Never thought of that possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Jan 28, 2015 7:41:12 GMT -8
SNIP... Hmmmm, very interesting. Never thought of that possibility. Gary, I have no confirmation if this is the case or not. However, since I work with declassified secrets in my profession (Cold War historian), it would not surprise me if this was the case. Secrets are often the most surprisingly mundane things, simple common sense once you think about them and why they happened to be secret. The government simply wants to avoid confirming something is the case, because ambiguity shields a whole lot of stuff simply by obscuring the facts. If there's one place in the US where the gov't would be using such jammers, it would be the White House. Certainly if you ever hear confirmation they're in use elsewhere (nuke plants, sensitive military sites like Edwards AFB/Area 51, World Trade Center, etc), it can just about be guaranteed they're in use at the White House...but they won't be talking about it. But railroads are a different matter. Too spread out and probably far down the probability scale for any specific site to attract such defenses from a national security point of view. I rather doubt civilian operators will ever be given permission to use such means, so you're unlikely to see your drone fall from the skies when that train you're wanting to get action shots of with the drone (from a safe distance) goes past. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jan 28, 2015 18:12:41 GMT -8
Guy in DC was drunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary P on Jan 29, 2015 8:35:37 GMT -8
Yeah, I heard that too. Sometimes the simplest reason/excuse is best, but I still wonder about what Mike said. It's certainly a possibility! |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Jan 29, 2015 9:26:26 GMT -8
Allow me to weigh in on this as a professional pilot, drones and quadcopters have revolutionized railfanning, news gathering, surveillance, and aerial photography in general. But, they need to be used with great care and intelligence. And there lies the salient issue here. There have been countless incidents demonstrating that too many yay-hoo's are running around using their new toys without intelligence and forcing the promulgation of new regulations. As you put, a text book example of how little Johnny ruined the classroom for the rest of the students. I think most wise people would side with the pilots, after all, many of us ride in the airplanes they fly and are threatened by the lack of safety these drones impose. The laughable enforcement will no longer be a joke when a plane full of passengers crashes and the cause is found to be an illegal use of a drone in a regulated air space. It isn't just a matter of, "oops, I'm a noob at this, so sorry"! Hammer time. I don't know why human nature is such that we have to have a "Titanic" go down to get sufficient life boats on a ship, or too many fatalities at a dangerous intersection to get traffic lights put in, or what have you, but be sure that the regulators will be all over this like a rash as soon as a major incident occurs. |
|
hhr
New Member
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 34 
|
Post by hhr on Jan 31, 2015 1:05:39 GMT -8
I know that some folks might be thinking "there's no way a 10-15 pound drone can take out an aircraft". But let me give you an example, my usual flight assignments see me as the Captain of a Cessna Citation XLS+ executive jet or a King Air 350 Turboprop.
Our approach speed in a Citation is 150 kts(172.7 mph), and that is a speed where the XLS+ is at its most vulnerable, an impact with a drone at that speed would produce considerable damage to the aircraft. In the worst case scenario, a direct hit on the leading edge of the wing, tail, or elevators could result in a loss of control or a stall without sufficient altitude to affect a recovery.
Drones have become a daily nuisance, and while there are many responsible drone operators, all it will take is one drone in the wrong place at the worst time.
And please don't get me started on those individuals from the shallow end of the Gene Pool who have "fun" aiming high powered laser pointers at aircraft. I've been "lit up" a half dozen times, and the one brain doner who was apprehended and prosecuted, plead out to 90 days of house arrest and an $1,800 fine.
Luckily the damage to my eyes was not severe, my copilot had to take an early medical retirement due to the damage incurred by his retinas.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigb6flyer on Feb 1, 2015 5:30:22 GMT -8
Here here hhr, as a fellow pilot, I agree with you. While I'm sure most drone/hobbyist drone operators will be responsible, the FAA has to "dumb it down" to the lowest common denominator bc there are some idiots out there that choose to fly their drones irresponsibly. Therefore regs will be written to prevent these idiots from harming the innocent.
As a pilot for a scheduled carrier, I've had my share of TCAS RAs and even had a laser pointed my way. Still await my first drone encounter, but I know it's just a matter of time.
Brad
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Feb 4, 2015 12:35:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Feb 5, 2015 11:22:21 GMT -8
Drinking, droning, 3am, near the White House. About the same as drinking, 3am, let me get on my racer motorcycle with no helmet and race down the highway at 100 mph. Pretty darn stupid. Let's ban motorcyles. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Mar 18, 2015 14:59:46 GMT -8
An update on the recent drunken drone operator incident at the White House. The fed prosecutor chose not to file charges. This seemed premised on the fact that forensic analysis showed that the operator was not in control when the drone ended up inside the White House fence. The FAA is still considering a fine, so this and attorney's fees will likely mean it was still a costly lesson in making sure you and your drone are fit to fly.
There was some discussion that current law may not have permitted charges to be filed anyway in the case of a drone flight, say vs a light plane, etc, with a human operator on board. That will likely change, if indeed it is the case.
Obviously, in most cases, the operator is in control, including in railfan situations. If you do have an inadvertent incident, remember that your flight logs may set you free...or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Mar 18, 2015 18:15:37 GMT -8
An update on the recent drunken drone operator incident at the White House. The fed prosecutor chose not to file charges. This seemed premised on the fact that forensic analysis showed that the operator was not in control when the drone ended up inside the White House fence. The FAA is still considering a fine, so this and attorney's fees will likely mean it was still a costly lesson in making sure you and your drone are fit to fly. There was some discussion that current law may not have permitted charges to be filed anyway in the case of a drone flight, say vs a light plane, etc, with a human operator on board. That will likely change, if indeed it is the case. Obviously, in most cases, the operator is in control, including in railfan situations. If you do have an inadvertent incident, remember that your flight logs may set you free...or not. I was using a heliocamera last week with lots of fun. Like most t hings if you don't do anything dumb, there are no problems. |
|
|
|
Post by bigb6flyer on Mar 19, 2015 12:08:34 GMT -8
Here is the proposed ruling by the FAA: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-02-23/pdf/2015-03544.pdfPage 4 has the summary and the exemptions that the law doesn't apply to models as long as you operate it as a model per Public Law 112-95 section 336 which says on page 67: SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if— (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis- tered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)). (b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. (c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes. Most hobbyists will have little problem adhering to these rules. Keep it below 500' and don't be a moron with it and you should be ok. However, (a)5 could be problematic for some. It says if you operate within 5 miles of a controlled airport you should notify ATC about how you using your hobby drone. And in case you fail to notify the faa/atc of operating your model drone within 5 miles of a controlled airport, they deserve the ability to bring civil enforcement against you which would probably be a fine aka use 5(b) above to bust you. Be careful busting out the drone on a whim to railfan or fly if you are anywhere near an airport that may be controlled. For anyone that has a hobby drone and lives within 5 miles of a controlled/large airport, I'd contact your local/nearest Flight Standard District Office (FAA FSDO) before flying out of your yard. Brad |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Mar 19, 2015 17:12:16 GMT -8
Brad, Yes, in a sense, not really too far from what's been applied in the interim. But reading between the lines does bring up some potential issues to be aware of. You mentioned staying below 500 feet. I didn't see that in your quote of the FAA rules, but maybe that's on another page. I know the interim rule was 400 feet. My understanding was that was to keep them separated from lowflying aircraft starting at 500 feet. I suppose some drones have altimeter readings derived from GPS to feed back to the pilot, because it's kinda hard to tell altitude from the ground. Presuming it's either 400 or 500 and that # now appears to be adopted by the FAA at the end of this process, users may start seeing altimeter displays as a standard feature. Speaking of GPS, that seems to have been at the root of the issue in the White House drone incident. It was set to return home at the wrong GPS setting or maybe the starting location was entered incorrectly. Perhaps the issue was it was flown with the roommate's original flight location still in the system, rather than the DC apartment where they lived. Of course, considering the cost of drones, it's probably worthwhile to verify the correct settings are entered in the GPS during preflight. Having GPS onboard does lead to a certain kind of temptation -- flying the drone beyond your line of sight, which seems to be pretty clearly ruled out for this class of UAVs. One of the charms of having a drone is being able to go places where you couldn't really get to. Finally, there's a number of references to nation wide community-based guidelines. I presume that the intent of this is to let groups of likeminded individuals to have a crack at policing themselves, either through existing groups or new ones specifically for this purpose. Depending on who is involved, this could work well or very little. |
|
|
|
Post by bigb6flyer on Mar 20, 2015 8:15:05 GMT -8
The fall back FAR the FAA used to violate a pilot or operator is FAR 91.13, which is careless and reckless operation that endangers persons or property. They will usually persue enforcement action on a pilot or operator if they don't become familiar with all pertinent information regarding the flight, which is required under the FARs. That means if screw up the slightest thing and have an incident or accident, they can invoke a violation of this regulation. Pretty easy to both make a minor mistake and pretty easy to invoke. This covers everything from violating airspace to running out of fuel. Granted these two examples are not minor but just saying. Certainly would cover operating a hobby drone in an unauthorized area.
Brad
|
|
|
|
Post by santafe49 on Mar 20, 2015 18:14:01 GMT -8
Bring on the drones. Always need shooting practice between dove season and duck season.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Mar 20, 2015 20:32:28 GMT -8
Bring on the drones. Always need shooting practice between dove season and duck season. James, Better have the Drone Tag on your Hunting License. The FAA has rules against shooting at flying objects, unidentified or otherwise. And if it's carrying a camera, better hope it's not transmitting live video, as even some of the cheap one's do now. Someone could be on the 911 with a full description while you're reloading...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Ferro Kid on Mar 21, 2015 3:02:55 GMT -8
The civil liability aspect has been only lightly touched on in a few places in this thread. I can already see a new law firm specialty: "Have you or a loved one been injured, had your property damaged, or been harassed by a drone? Call THE EXTERMINATOR and spray for drones today!"
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Mar 21, 2015 5:51:29 GMT -8
... spray for drones today!" Actually, if a drone is close enough to irritate you, then using a hose on it might be a reasonable reaction, less likely to get the authorities involved, and probably pretty darn effective considering the light weight and exposed electronics on many drones. I could definitely see this as the first line of defense for steam loco crews harassed by a drone pacing them at an unreasonably close distance. Diesel don't usually have this capability at close hand... |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Mar 21, 2015 6:02:54 GMT -8
... spray for drones today!" Actually, if a drone is close enough to irritate you, then using a hose on it might be a reasonable reaction, less likely to get the authorities involved, and probably pretty darn effective considering the light weight and exposed electronics on many drones. I could definitely see this as the first line of defense for steam loco crews harassed by a drone pacing them at an unreasonably close distance. Diesel don't usually have this capability at close hand... Some skilled steam crew that is, to be able to see and track and then spray water at and hit a small heliocamera while moving at 30mph bouncing along..... |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Mar 21, 2015 6:04:02 GMT -8
Bring on the drones. Always need shooting practice between dove season and duck season. Good luck with the reckless discharge case. Hopefully it will be misdemeanor or your hunting days are over. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jul 29, 2015 5:49:14 GMT -8
Actually fr8kar and Frank, I guess you failed to recognize that I was being humorous when speaking of shooting them down in my target practice comment... Although I did hear about one person shooting one down and since it was over his land he was not charged with anything (after all, in most of the US a land owner has the rights to shoot a firearm on their property). Just be aware that probably within 2-3 years drones are probably going to be outlawed in many areas... Especially after DHS realizes their potentially uses for terrorist activities. After that I suspect drone operators will be seen as potential terrorists. So,go ahead Curt, just break out the shot gun and fire away. |
|
