Doug G. Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Never, in 30+ years of using the internet, and 25+ years of ham radio have I been annoyed enough with a person to have to cut them off...And this will be the second time for he-who-shall-not-be-named! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Never, in 30+ years of using the internet, and 25+ years of ham radio have I been annoyed enough with a person to have to cut them off...And this will be the second time for he-who-shall-not-be-named! The problem is . . . the dude (he-who-shall-not-be-named) pops up with another handle (alter ego). It's kinda' like playing "whack a mole." . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Yes, and the admin does not help in that regard. He has had six name changes on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Time to block the IP address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 Yes, and the admin does not help in that regard. He has had six name changes on this forum.I put him on my twit list a name change or two ago and the filter followed his name changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 I put him on my twit list a name change or two ago and the filter followed his name changes.The block filter does indeed follow name changes. So I don't even know what you guys are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 The block filter does indeed follow name changes. So I don't even know what you guys are talking about. Trust me . . . you haven't missed a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 The block filter does indeed follow name changes. So I don't even know what you guys are talking about. It can probably only follow changes where he changes names inside the forum site. If he just logs out and registers as a brand new user using a new e-mail address, that probably can't be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Welsch Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 I suspect ADSB out will be required everywhere to facilitate UAV intergration. PRW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Some pretty interesting stories from Flying and AOPA about the DOT's opinion of where the FAA is with Next Gen. Although another person wrote an opinion piece saying that this has happened before (specifically citing WAAS) and he expects it will be in place by 2020 and the mandate will remain. I don't know how they will get a handle on UAS. The national sites that were specified before have had no guidance as to what is legit or what they are supposed to be testing. They are now going to allow a few filmmakers the right to commercial use which will open the floodgates to court cases by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 The EAA put out an interesting comment to the FAA on the RC interpretation rule. One notes that the FAA requires the movie industry UAS operator to have a private pilot's license. One of the EAA concerns is that if the FAA violates a UAS operator, for example for 91.13 Careless and Reckless, that the penalties will be taken against the entire certificate. A UAS incursion could result in you being illegal to fly your LSA. Few countries permit the extent of GA we see in the U.S. Separation is an issue. There will likely be an incident or accident between a UAS and an airplane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 I suspect ADSB out will be required everywhere to facilitate UAV intergration. PRW I don't know...Mode C transponders are not required everywhere, nor are even radios! In reality, you can do pretty well getting traffic just from a Mode S transponder; that will give you all traffic that has a Mode C device operating in your vicinity. Equip your UAV with Mode S, monitor the traffic indications from either the ground or using some kind of automation, and you are are getting the same traffic picture you get with ADS-B, at least within 10-15 miles. The only difference with ADS-B is you have the ground stations as middle men relaying the traffic back to you. If they mandate ADS-B everywhere, it will be for aircraft tracking and surveillance (e.g. BIG BROTHER) rather than drone navigation, IMO. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 The EAA put out an interesting comment to the FAA on the RC interpretation rule. One notes that the FAA requires the movie industry UAS operator to have a private pilot's license. One of the EAA concerns is that if the FAA violates a UAS operator, for example for 91.13 Careless and Reckless, that the penalties will be taken against the entire certificate. A UAS incursion could result in you being illegal to fly your LSA. Few countries permit the extent of GA we see in the U.S. Separation is an issue. There will likely be an incident or accident between a UAS and an airplane The silliness is the FAA thinks their rules on commercial drone use will make people safer, yet there are are NO such restrictions on amateur and recreational RC flyers. There is an RC field a mile or two from my home airport, and I see them up in pattern altitude regularly. Commercial operations are generally more responsible than weekend RC pilots, so I think the FAA is missing the boat on where the real danger lies.* * Not that I really want weekend RC pilots put under the FAA's thumb. I just think these kinds of small scale use of RC critters are not that big a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Andy, the FAA is charged with keeping airspace safe. We've all seen the picture of the bird that came through windshield of the GA single. We know that geese brought down a passenger liner. The glider and GA jet that collided over Reno are in our minds. I fly my Champ and sometimes my CT off my farm strip and we have crop dusters working the fields each summer. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that an object without the innate instinct to fly away from me is in the airspace I legally fly in is not reassuring. Given that some people will not obey any laws, that does raise the question of whether any law is worth implementing. Sounds like the question of gun control. One can see you are being a bit disingenuous in saying that the AC can not be applied in cases of determining if a person was careless and reckless, so the idea that there are, from the FAA perspective, no limitations on RC use is not quite on point. Oh, that is what the RC community says. That may be what one judge says. But the FAA has not stepped away from that, as we see in the recent FAA interpretation of RC. The guys at pattern altitude with their RC are the ones getting the RC community in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Andy, the FAA is charged with keeping airspace safe. We've all seen the picture of the bird that came through windshield of the GA single. We know that geese brought down a passenger liner. The glider and GA jet that collided over Reno are in our minds. I fly my Champ and sometimes my CT off my farm strip and we have crop dusters working the fields each summer. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that an object without the innate instinct to fly away from me is in the airspace I legally fly in is not reassuring. Given that some people will not obey any laws, that does raise the question of whether any law is worth implementing. Sounds like the question of gun control. One can see you are being a bit disingenuous in saying that the AC can not be applied in cases of determining if a person was careless and reckless, so the idea that there are, from the FAA perspective, no limitations on RC use is not quite on point. Oh, that is what the RC community says. That may be what one judge says. But the FAA has not stepped away from that, as we see in the recent FAA interpretation of RC. The guys at pattern altitude with their RC are the ones getting the RC community in trouble. I never said the AC could not be applied to determine careless or reckless operation; in fact, I never mentioned the AC at all! I agree the RC guys running their little planes up out of class G airspace are the guys causing problems. My only point was that commercial drones operated within the law at legal altitudes pose no more risk than those operated by recreational RC pilots. The proper approach IMO is to treat both groups the same, add no more regulation, and aggressively pursue violators, recreational or commercial, that operate in a hazardous manner. There will always be people ignoring the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Well, I fundamentally disagree with you but I'm not going to hijack this thread to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 26, 2014 Report Share Posted September 26, 2014 Well, I fundamentally disagree with you but I'm not going to hijack this thread to talk about it. Okay, but just to be clear, you think uncontrolled airspace (class G) should become regulated airspace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 RC is limited to 400' AGL, line of sight, and you must notify an airport if flying within 5 miles. The FAA is trying to force everyone to join an organization do they don't have too license everyone. You are right though Andy, there will always be those who ignore the rules, but once an accident occurs the FAA will be under serious pressure to regulate with teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.