Do You Believe This!

S

s7nthson

Guest
QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Last week the FAA announced that it would soon require all drones in the US to be registered. It’s still only half a story, though, because the agency is undecided where they’ll draw lines in terms of size, weight and type of use. The DoT did, however, invite several industry leaders, 3DR included, to advise them as they develop registration requirements.

We’re generally in favor of registration. It will, among other things, solve the problem of how to trace a rogue drone back to the user. But we don’t want registration to be a burden on our customers. We also believe there may exist acceptable technological alternatives to federal registration.

But the kicker: They only have one month to figure this out.

And the consequences for you? Apparently it will be up to a $27,000 civil fine and, if warranted, a criminal fine of up to $250,000 and/or three years in jail.

And for a short time, you too can speak up. The FAA has opened a fifteen-day window for public comments. That window now has about a week before it closes. So please make your voice heard, not in the comments section this time, but to the FAA through the portal you can access here.

Thanks in advance for your support. And now, the stories that mattered this week.
 
DUI Penalties: 21 or Older
First Offense

  • Immediate license suspension per the state's Admin Per Se policy for at least 4 months.
  • Up to 6 months in jail.
  • Up to $1,000 in fines. Keep in mind additional penalty fines and legal fees.
  • $125 fee for license reissue.
  • Installation of an ignition interlock device.
  • DUI program. The length varies depending on factors like your BAC at the time of arrest.
  • SR-22 filing.
 
I have no problem with hefty fines for people who fly their drones into the flight paths of airliners, get in the way of emergency services, firefighters, etc. or who are otherwise reprehensibly irresponsible (thinking of the guy who flew his Solo into a sports stadium recently). It's because of these people why we're in this mess.

Now for the glitch initiated fly-away, harmless flyover of someone's yard or the unforeseeable mechanical failure, I'd certainly argue that crippling fines and jail time are unjustifiable.

We should probably put our efforts into commenting on the proposals through the government provided channels more than spamming a forum with post after alarmist post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
I have no problem with hefty fines for people who fly their drones into the flight paths of airliners, get in the way of emergency services, firefighters, etc. or who are otherwise reprehensibly irresponsible (thinking of the guy who flew his Solo into a sports stadium recently). It's because of these people why we're in this mess.

Now for the glitch initiated fly-away, harmless flyover of someone's yard or the unforeseeable mechanical failure, I'd certainly argue that crippling fines and jail time are unjustifiable.

We should probably put our efforts into commenting on the proposals through the government provided channels more than spamming a forum with post after alarmist post.

@User Name are you saying this section of the form is not for reporting to fellow Dronies the news relating to DRONES?
 
@User Name are you saying this section of the form is not for reporting to fellow Dronies the news relating to DRONES?

I'm not an alarmist, I'm a realist, we are getting pimped like a 16 year old runaway! I was showing a comparison between the disproportion in fine amounts! Have you not read the AMA report on the so called drone sightings! It would have to be the most perfect storm and intentional planning in order for one of these toy multi-copter drones to bring down an airliner.

I was an aircraft mechanic for 10 year in United States Air Force, I've seen the nose cone of a Boeing 707 (modified KC-135 series) and the trailing floodlights cone a top of the vertical stabilizer get blown of by a lighting strike. But what I did not see or heard of is a flock of 3DR Solos or DJI Phantoms or Inspire 1s bringing down any aircraft.

Do you know of any documented incidents?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not an alarmist

It's the rapid-fire series of posts within minutes of each other. This, the post about the insurance, with the video from Audi or whatever car company it was, and then the post with just that video, which we've all probably seen already considering it's months old, if not a year or more.

As to the fines, what, exactly are you comparing? You've listed the penalties and fines for a specific offense (DUI) and the penalties and fines for.... ummm... what? You didn't list anything specific, so it's impossible to draw any conclusion.

As for potential danger, the nosecone and floodlight cones on an airline-type plane are non critical parts. What happens when a Solo or Phantom size drone gets chewed up by an engine, smashes through a windscreen or takes the pitot tubes off a plane as it tumbles down the fuselage? What about the distraction to the pilot? And what about smaller aircraft?

My father had a small Cessna, and we flew through a flock of birds on takeoff one time. The sound of the impact of just one little sparrow or blue jay or whatever it was (it was largely unidentifiable what was left wedged between the strut and the wing) was shocking. And we're talking a bird that probably weighed a few ounces. An impact with a 3+ lb drone could at minimum do 10's of thousands of dollars in damage, and depending on where it impacted, could likely take a small plane out of the sky. Loose part of a propeller blade and the engine can quickly tear itself from the plane.

No, there hasn't been any incidents yet... but that doesn't mean there won't be or that they're impossible or that if/when they do, no damage will result.

I don't like this whole thing anymore than you do, but it's happening because of the actions of a small number of seriously irresponsible people. I have no problem with the book being thrown at people who fly into the path of airplanes, disrupt firefighters and fly into buildings, stadiums or other crowded places.

And my point remains - it's a better use of our time commenting on the legislation under review. I've done so, have you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
This is typical of our current tyrannical administration. Throw it together as fast as you can, shove it down people's throats, Then fine the hell out of them.
They know what the fines are but what is the crime? What a bunch of friggin buttheads in the Beltway!!!
 
They know what the fines are but what is the crime? What a bunch of friggin buttheads in the Beltway!!!

I think it highlights a deeper issue in society - a total lack of basic common sense. The same society that has produced people who will buy a complex, 2-3lb flying contraption and with zero experience or training, will go out and fly it through crowded city streets, in front of airliners on approach, and into sports stadiums, has also produced politicians who think up fines and punishments before even determining the crimes.

Perhaps our education system needs to literally add "common sense" to the curriculum. Unfortunately, it would take an entire generation for it's benefits to become apparent. What's apparent right now is that the lack of common sense, on all sides, is seriously impacting society.
 
It's the rapid-fire series of posts within minutes of each other. This, the post about the insurance, with the video from Audi or whatever car company it was, and then the post with just that video, which we've all probably seen already considering it's months old, if not a year or more.

As to the fines, what, exactly are you comparing? You've listed the penalties and fines for a specific offense (DUI) and the penalties and fines for.... ummm... what? You didn't list anything specific, so it's impossible to draw any conclusion.

As for potential danger, the nosecone and floodlight cones on an airline-type plane are non critical parts. What happens when a Solo or Phantom size drone gets chewed up by an engine, smashes through a windscreen or takes the pitot tubes off a plane as it tumbles down the fuselage? What about the distraction to the pilot? And what about smaller aircraft?

My father had a small Cessna, and we flew through a flock of birds on takeoff one time. The sound of the impact of just one little sparrow or blue jay or whatever it was (it was largely unidentifiable what was left wedged between the strut and the wing) was shocking. And we're talking a bird that probably weighed a few ounces. An impact with a 3+ lb drone could at minimum do 10's of thousands of dollars in damage, and depending on where it impacted, could likely take a small plane out of the sky. Loose part of a propeller blade and the engine can quickly tear itself from the plane.

No, there hasn't been any incidents yet... but that doesn't mean there won't be or that they're impossible or that if/when they do, no damage will result.

I don't like this whole thing anymore than you do, but it's happening because of the actions of a small number of seriously irresponsible people. I have no problem with the book being thrown at people who fly into the path of airplanes, disrupt firefighters and fly into buildings, stadiums or other crowded places.

And my point remains - it's a better use of our time commenting on the legislation under review. I've done so, have you?

@User Name is there a site rule stating a limit on time and quantity of post your can enter per minute. If I offended you User Name my apologies, you deserve better. If you don't understand my post, you're welcome to inquire. Top of the morning to you!
 
@User Name is there a site rule stating a limit on time and quantity of post your can enter per minute. If I offended you User Name my apologies, you deserve better. If you don't understand my post, you're welcome to inquire. Top of the morning to you!

Nope, no rule, and I don't think I suggested there was. I cited your rapid-fire series of posts as an indication of alarmism.

I'll ask again, have you submitted comments on the government web site regarding legislation, or are you just posting here? My point is that a comment on the provided channels to the very people creating legislation will do more good than 3 posts here on the same subject, 3 minutes apart.

And I'm sincerely sorry if I jumped on you. I took the multiple posts and the dubious comparison to DUI penalties (since we still don't know what specific crimes the "drone" penalties are for) as somewhat alarmist. If this was presumptuous on my part, again, my apologies.

In all seriousness and sincerity, please submit comments and suggestions here: Regulations.gov

This is where our attention should be focused. I'm pretty darn sure the people about to legislate our hobby aren't reading 3DRPilots forums!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
...
Perhaps our education system needs to literally add "common sense" to the curriculum. Unfortunately, it would take an entire generation for it's benefits to become apparent. What's apparent right now is that the lack of common sense, on all sides, is seriously impacting society.

Don't look to the education system for "common sense' - the new "common core" programs have eliminated any of that...

Last week my Granddaughter was instructed by her teacher on her homework that 1 + 2 + 1 = 5 not 4 as she had answered.
 
Nope, no rule, and I don't think I suggested there was. I cited your rapid-fire series of posts as an indication of alarmism.

I'll ask again, have you submitted comments on the government web site regarding legislation, or are you just posting here? My point is that a comment on the provided channels to the very people creating legislation will do more good than 3 posts here on the same subject, 3 minutes apart.

And I'm sincerely sorry if I jumped on you. I took the multiple posts and the dubious comparison to DUI penalties (since we still don't know what specific crimes the "drone" penalties are for) as somewhat alarmist. If this was presumptuous on my part, again, my apologies.

In all seriousness and sincerity, please submit comments and suggestions here: Regulations.gov

This is where our attention should be focused. I'm pretty darn sure the people about to legislate our hobby aren't reading 3DRPilots forums!

@User Name, I gave you permission to inquire about my post, nothing else! I don't answer you, am I clear! I posted the comments in the correct area of the form. Thank you!
 
I'm not an alarmist, I'm a realist, we are getting pimped like a 16 year old runaway! I was showing a comparison between the disproportion in fine amounts! Have you not read the AMA report on the so called drone sightings! It would have to be the most perfect storm and intentional planning in order for one of these toy multi-copter drones to bring down an airliner.

I was an aircraft mechanic for 10 year in United States Air Force, I've seen the nose cone of a Boeing 707 (modified KC-135 series) and the trailing floodlights cone a top of the vertical stabilizer get blown of by a lighting strike. But what I did not see or heard of is a flock of 3DR Solos or DJI Phantoms or Inspire 1s bringing down any aircraft.

Do you know of any documented incidents?
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

This is a seagull hitting a small plane's window.
Googling the weight of a seagull, I'm told the average weight is 3.8 lbs.
The same weight as a Solo, an ounce or so heavier than a Phantom 3, and an ounce lighter than a Yuneec Q500. A DJI Inspire weighs in at 6.5 lbs with a battery. There are many larger and heavier drones flying the skies as well. I believe my buddy's new Lockheed Martin drone (for mapping) weighs about 12 lbs.

Don't know of any incidents where a drone has hit a plane yet.
 
This is a seagull hitting a small plane's window.

Holy hell that would be scary. Also consider the density of the bird compared to that of the typical quadcopter of the same weight. The bird's body (squishy, hollow bones, etc) will absorb and dissipate some of the impact, where as our solid plastic drones and dense batteries will not, or not to as great an extent. The result is that a quadcopter of the same weight will likely do more damage than a bird.

My fear as a pilot would be the drone hitting the prop, coming through the window, striking a tail surface or a wing strut.
 
Real Flight video Boeing Industries Engine Test GE
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I worked as a mechanic and flew on the KC-135 A, Q, and R model aircraft for 10 years in the United States Air Force. I passed all three exams for the Airframe & Powerplant certification, I ran out money prior to going before the certification board. So do have relevant knowledge of the subject.

CFM56-2 Turbofan Engine

The CFM56-2 engine is the "granddaddy" of the CFM family of engines. It flew first on re-engined Boeing 707 aircraft in 1982 and was soon chosen to re-engine KC-135 tankers for the USAF.

CFM56-2 Turbofan Engine
 

Attachments

  • Engine-1.jpg
    Engine-1.jpg
    307 KB · Views: 4
Last edited by a moderator:
Real Flight video Boeing Industries Engine Test GE
http://www.hottail.nl/basevisits/2005/0705-Volkel/Ohio/images/Engine-1.jpg

View attachment 1727
I worked as a mechanic and flew on the KC-135 A, Q, and R model aircraft for 10 years in the United States Air Force. I passed all three exams for the Airframe & Powerplant certification, I ran out money prior to going before the certification board. So do have relevant knowledge of the subject.

CFM56-2 Turbofan Engine

The CFM56-2 engine is the "granddaddy" of the CFM family of engines. It flew first on re-engined Boeing 707 aircraft in 1982 and was soon chosen to re-engine KC-135 tankers for the USAF.

CFM56-2 Turbofan Engine
Was the link supposed to take me to a test video or test results? The link just shows the same photo you included in your post?
 
@GoodnNuff, my apologies, I corrected the link.
Thanks for fixing the link. Interesting video. So from that test we know a 5 lb bird sucked into a Boeing 777's engine will not damage the engine.
I'm not an engineer so I don't know if the test results would vary if the 5 lbs consisted of material that is substantially more dense and rigid than a goose, and inlcudes an explosive battery. Or if it is a larger drone with a 20lb payload? I simply don't know.

So I google, and I find a lot "experts" from the aviation world talking about the very real danger of drones, and I defer to their expertise.

Here is what Captain "Sully" had to say:
The pilot who landed a jetliner safely on the Hudson River in New York City in 2011 is predicting that nonmilitary drones will cause plane crashes as they become more prevalent in commercial airspace.

"We have seen what a six-pound or an eight-pound bird can do to bring down an airplane. Imagine what a device containing hard parts like batteries and motors can do that might weigh 25 or possibly up to 55 pounds to bring down an airplane," former U.S. Airways pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger said during an appearance on Sunday on CBS's "Face The Nation."

"It is not a matter of if it will happen," continued Sullenberger, who is now a CBS News contributor. "It is a matter of when it will happen.


Since I don't know, I error on the side of caution and don't fly near airports. I don't think anyone should. I think we all have a responsibility to try and mitigate and prevent damage.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

A few points:

-Our drones are substantially more dense than a bird, so that a bird may be ingested without damage doesn't guarantee a drone could.

-Even if the drone didn't disable an engine, it's not at all hard to imagine that one would cause at least some damage to the compressor blades, again, taking density and materials into account (birds don't include metal parts).

-If a drone was ingested, at absolute minimum, the engine would need to be removed and thoroughly inspected to ensure no damage was sustained. This alone would be highly expensive, and if damage was sustained, even more so to repair.

-Even if an engine could ingest a drone without damage (which I highly doubt) this still doesn't consider other damage that an airplane could sustain by an impact in another location, nor does it consider the impact on smaller airplanes.

-GoodnNuff's video shows pretty clearly that the same mass object can easily penetrate the windscreen of an airplane.

My point, from the beginning of this thread, has been that large fines for idiots flying into the path of oncoming aircraft are perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned, as doing so demonstrates a total, willful disregard for the pilots, passengers and the damage that an aircraft may sustain in an impact.

You keep suggesting nothing will happen simply because a large engine has been designed to ingest a bird. Despite being shown that birds can and do cause other damage, I'm at a loss to understand how one could continue to suggest that an object of equal mass and significantly higher density would pose no threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,093
Messages
147,741
Members
16,048
Latest member
ihatethatihavetomakeanacc