Altitude of Drone to Aircraft

[mgrennan]

Forgive my bluntness, but who gives a sh** which was in the air "first?" One is for fun/games, and for a single-digit percentage of the community, a commercial enterprise. The other carries people or things from place to place as almost exclusively a commercial enterprise. One is significantly more deadly than the other.
Re-read what you said and tell me you're serious after doing so.
Pilots have to worry about birds. Birds aren't smart/stupid enough to chase or intentionally get in front of an aircraft. Only drone operators are dumb enough to do so.
Birds aren't arrogant enough to think they own any part of the airspace. When the US Airspace system was determined back in the 40's the concept of anything but aircraft overhead never came into thought. It took 15 years to develop the airspace system we now have, and drones haven't been plentiful for 15 months. It'll take a while to get the airspace re-sorted.
Prior to the Phantom, drone/uav/RC people were predominantly very dedicated hobbyist geeks that understood the fragility of the legal aspects of flying a device in classified airspace. The people I know were conservative, careful, and conscious. Never once did I hear the BS of "we were here first" or "Pilots need to be trained."
Pilots of a real airplane have enough to worry about when as low as 500.' It's dangerous enough to be that low. There are a lot of instruments to pay attention too, let alone other traffic in some areas/on approach, without having to worry about the microdot that can barely be seen amongst ground clutter, that may kill him/her vs some fu**wad that at worst, loses a $2000.00 piece of "gear."

It is *our* responsibility to learn the rules of the sky, NOT the pilot's, who has at least one hundred of hours of training, passed standardized tests, been check-rided, and given a license, to "learn about us." That pilot has more hours in the training than the vast majority of drone operators have in actual airtime.

I'll stand by ehat I said. I'll stop flying RC if it will make the skys safer. Man-ed planes have the rightaway. But dont you think it would be better if the maned planes knew where rc planes fly (where rc fields are) and stayed away?
Im saying rc fields should be on fight charts/maps and maned planes should keep some distence.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I'll stand by ehat I said. I'll stop flying RC if it will make the skys safer. Man-ed planes have the rightaway. But dont you think it would be better if the maned planes knew where rc planes fly (where rc fields are) and stayed away?
Im saying rc fields should be on fight charts/maps and maned planes should keep some distence.

It's a no-brainer that if any of us stopped flying RC, the skies would be more safe. If skydivers quit jumping from aircraft, the skies would be more safe. If Google and Amazon would keep their UAV out of the skies, if people would stop using aerosols, and if old mother hubbard had a bone in her cupboard, the skies would be safer.
None of those things will happen.
Perhaps you're not aware of the massive, monumental (and likely unachievable) effort that would be required to overhaul the entire aviation system for drones. The system actually works pretty darn well; it's people who don't know the rules and standard practices that screw it up and have everyone panicking.

Maybe this analogy will help; When you learned to drive, you either had an adult who spent quite a bit of time teaching you to drive, or you attended a school that taught you. It may have been in your own high school. You spend many miles and hours on backroads or parking lots learning to manage that heavy machine, all the while under adult supervision. Eventually, you went on to pass tests both written and practical, demonstrating your knowledge and depending on when/where you were, you were issued either a license or learners permit, and you learned to drive "like everyone else."

Imagine were this not the case, that you were able to walk onto a car lot and purchase a vehicle at age 12, and put the keys in, start it up, and begin driving with zero background, zero training. You *maybe* understand what a stop sign looks like. You might even be savvy enough to read a RandMcNally road map. But you don't understand solid, dotted, or absent lines in the road, you don't know what a shoulder is, you aren't aware of a four-way stop, and stoplights merely vex you.

This is EXACTLY what's happening in aviation with regards to drones. A bunch of 12 year olds with no basic understanding of the rules, flight paths, routes/lanes, nor why they exist in an XYZ space. Speed, altitude, vector all are part of this learning experience. Rather than narcissistically expecting the world to conform to our needs, it is likely more reasonable to expect the new drivers of the sky to learn the rules of the air, no?

 

[EyeWingsuit]

It's a no-brainer that if any of us stopped flying RC, the skies would be more safe. If skydivers quit jumping from aircraft, the skies would be more safe. If Google and Amazon would keep their UAV out of the skies, if people would stop using aerosols, and if old mother hubbard had a bone in her cupboard, the skies would be safer.
None of those things will happen.
Perhaps you're not aware of the massive, monumental (and likely unachievable) effort that would be required to overhaul the entire aviation system for drones. The system actually works pretty darn well; it's people who don't know the rules and standard practices that screw it up and have everyone panicking.

Maybe this analogy will help; When you learned to drive, you either had an adult who spent quite a bit of time teaching you to drive, or you attended a school that taught you. It may have been in your own high school. You spend many miles and hours on backroads or parking lots learning to manage that heavy machine, all the while under adult supervision. Eventually, you went on to pass tests both written and practical, demonstrating your knowledge and depending on when/where you were, you were issued either a license or learners permit, and you learned to drive "like everyone else."

Imagine were this not the case, that you were able to walk onto a car lot and purchase a vehicle at age 12, and put the keys in, start it up, and begin driving with zero background, zero training. You *maybe* understand what a stop sign looks like. You might even be savvy enough to read a RandMcNally road map. But you don't understand solid, dotted, or absent lines in the road, you don't know what a shoulder is, you aren't aware of a four-way stop, and stoplights merely vex you.

This is EXACTLY what's happening in aviation with regards to drones. A bunch of 12 year olds with no basic understanding of the rules, flight paths, routes/lanes, nor why they exist in an XYZ space. Speed, altitude, vector all are part of this learning experience. Rather than narcissistically expecting the world to conform to our needs, it is likely more reasonable to expect the new drivers of the sky to learn the rules of the air, no?

A recent case in point. I hope they fine him the full $27K. I wish they'd publicize the hell out of it. Maybe, with media help, UAV owners would begin to realize that they are our own worse enemies.

 

[Chuck]

According to the news, he was flying at 600 ft. and said he lost control of the UAV. The fact that he was flying above 400 ft. and he had no FAA registration number, yet was not cited makes you wonder who is going to enforce the FAA guidelines. Hopefully we will find out the outcome after the FAA gets the report.

 

[Jubalr]

According to the news, he was flying at 600 ft. and said he lost control of the UAV. The fact that he was flying above 400 ft. and he had no FAA registration number, yet was not cited makes you wonder who is going to enforce the FAA guidelines. Hopefully we will find out the outcome after the FAA gets the report.

Local LEOs couldn't cite unless they had an applicable local ordinance. Otherwise, it is up to the FAA to follow up and fine accordingly.

 

[Chuck]

I thought the Fresno area had a local ordinance, but maybe I am mistaken. It will be interesting to see how the FAA responds to this. Thanks, Jubalr.

 

[Jubalr]

I thought the Fresno area had a local ordinance, but maybe I am mistaken. It will be interesting to see how the FAA responds to this. Thanks, Jubalr.

No problem Chuck. How long have you lived there? I was in Bakersfield flying RC Helis when we lived there from about 84-88. Had a beautiful flying area at a huge soccer park. Can't remember the name of it, but it was beautiful and must have had about a dozen fields at it.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I thought the Fresno area had a local ordinance, but maybe I am mistaken. It will be interesting to see how the FAA responds to this. Thanks, Jubalr.

I just searched the Fresno ordinances, and although bills were proposed last August, neither was passed. I recalled seeing the bills in the news, and also was under the impression they were in place. Learned somethin' new.

 

[Chuck]

I have been here since about '72. You may have flown at the Cal State Bakersfield soccer field. I believe it was the largest at that time. Now most of it is buildings due the expansion of the university. There are several large soccer fields in the area now. With the popularity of the sport, sometimes it is hard to fly at them, but I have several places close by to spread my wings...

 

[Jubalr]

I have been here since about '72. You may have flown at the Cal State Bakersfield soccer field. I believe it was the largest at that time. Now most of it is buildings due the expansion of the university. There are several large soccer fields in the area now. With the popularity of the sport, sometimes it is hard to fly at them, but I have several places close by to spread my wings...

I believe it was here..Facility Map We had agreement with them at the time to be able to use it when there were no organized events there. Had a tournament there every year for awhile.
Fly Safe,,
Jubal

 

[Chuck]

Yeah, that is a large soccer complex outside of town. I have not flown there, but I fly in several areas nearby. It is right next to the Kern River and the foothills. I might try out there sometime. Thanks, Jubal.

 

[mgrennan]

It's a no-brainer that if any of us stopped flying RC, the skies would be more safe. If skydivers quit jumping from aircraft, the skies would be more safe. If Google and Amazon would keep their UAV out of the skies, if people would stop using aerosols, and if old mother hubbard had a bone in her cupboard, the skies would be safer.
None of those things will happen.
Perhaps you're not aware of the massive, monumental (and likely unachievable) effort that would be required to overhaul the entire aviation system for drones. The system actually works pretty darn well; it's people who don't know the rules and standard practices that screw it up and have everyone panicking.

Maybe this analogy will help; When you learned to drive, you either had an adult who spent quite a bit of time teaching you to drive, or you attended a school that taught you. It may have been in your own high school. You spend many miles and hours on backroads or parking lots learning to manage that heavy machine, all the while under adult supervision. Eventually, you went on to pass tests both written and practical, demonstrating your knowledge and depending on when/where you were, you were issued either a license or learners permit, and you learned to drive "like everyone else."

Imagine were this not the case, that you were able to walk onto a car lot and purchase a vehicle at age 12, and put the keys in, start it up, and begin driving with zero background, zero training. You *maybe* understand what a stop sign looks like. You might even be savvy enough to read a RandMcNally road map. But you don't understand solid, dotted, or absent lines in the road, you don't know what a shoulder is, you aren't aware of a four-way stop, and stoplights merely vex you.

This is EXACTLY what's happening in aviation with regards to drones. A bunch of 12 year olds with no basic understanding of the rules, flight paths, routes/lanes, nor why they exist in an XYZ space. Speed, altitude, vector all are part of this learning experience. Rather than narcissistically expecting the world to conform to our needs, it is likely more reasonable to expect the new drivers of the sky to learn the rules of the air, no?

I like and agree with your analogy. I an a AMA trainer for my RC club. Rules and training do exist for people how fly RC. RC pilots know a lot about generel avation because thay love aircraft. GA knows less about RC. But thay should.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

I like and agree with your analogy. I an a AMA trainer for my RC club. Rules and training do exist for people how fly RC. RC pilots know a lot about generel avation because thay love aircraft. GA knows less about RC. But thay should.

I'd challenge that "RC pilots know a lot about general aviation." I've met darn few that know what a sectional is, let alone how to read one. Further, GA doesn't need to know much about RC, any more than typical drivers need to know about BMX rules on BMX courses.
Go get your pilot's license, then we'll have this discussion again.

Were you a pilot, you might understand the risks and challenges of being able to respond to a very large frisbee-sized object in an airspace it doesn't belong, while you're traveling at 150 mph. Whether it's passenger, cargo, or airframe, pilots are limited in what they can do in such situations, situations they should not have to deal with.

A baseball is traveling towards your van window at 25mph as you close on it at 150 mph. You have a load of precious cargo. There are cars on both sides of you. What do you do in the perhaps 2 seconds you have to respond?

Perfect example of RC owners not knowing much about laws; the dork that only today, flew his Phantom into the side of the Empire State building.

 

[mgrennan]

About RC pilots and general avation... Im not a pilot but I did pass grount school and I have 11 hours in the righr set. Other members of the club are retired B1 bomber crew and a lot of them work for the FAA.
In my 30 years flying that seems normal.
I know we have an influx of new people that need training. But where is the respect for thoses of us how have shared the skies without insident.

 

[EyeWingsuit]

About RC pilots and general avation... Im not a pilot but I did pass grount school and I have 11 hours in the righr set. Other members of the club are retired B1 bomber crew and a lot of them work for the FAA.
In my 30 years flying that seems normal.
I know we have an influx of new people that need training. But where is the respect for thoses of us how have shared the skies without insident.

If you perceive a lack of respect, that's unfortunate. The bottom line is that what is happening now, in this moment, is what matters. There is no point in respecting past behaviors, as they clearly have not been enough to inspire people to want to learn.
Regarding your particular question, it's difficult to respect a demand that pilots learn more about, and be alert to avoid model aircraft. They shouldn't have to. 11 hours in the right seat of a Cessna 152 or a Cub isn't remotely the same as flying commercial/cargo, where the challenges are greater. It's a bit of a shock that you'd expect Gen Av to be wary or alert to your presence with your UAV. You're barely visible, cannot be communicated with, and your life isn't at risk in the event of a collision.

When I was a kid, I was able to earn a Farm License that allowed me to drive tractors and farm trucks on the highway, within certain boundaries, at age 12. This is no longer possible.
Why?
Because either parents or their kids didn't respect the reasons for the Farm License, and abused it. I've never had a serious accident, only received a couple speeding tickets in 5 decades, but my insurance premiums (discounted though they are) still reflect the bad drivers. Ergo, where is the respect for me, a long-time, incident-free driver? It's a conversation of statistics. Statistics of late show that UAV drivers for the most part, are moronic, Dunning-Kruger fools.