Recent content by xman1

Anyone who has been into aircraft for long know that a microburst can happen at any time. It crashes real aircraft as large as jetliners, so something so light as a MM will not be able to deal with it, especially over a wide open area like water. A clue to see if this happened is to see if the...

I will respectively agree to disagree then with your definition. We are arguing about semantics at the moment. Edit: I think this will take the law going into effect to come to a conclusion. You must think from the position of the FAA I think on this one. I also don't see how one could add...

Not quite. There is a distinction between RC and UAS in almost all government sites. UAS always refers to a drone from my understanding, or unmanned aireal system, and RC generally does not fall under this term. Example from a government website: UAS and RC Aircraft Information...

Not from what i read. It is specifically calling out only drones. Did you see something different?

There is legal standing I think on this if it does not apply to all model aircraft. That is grounds for its removal alone.

Model rockets? RC helicopters? Why is this just applying to drones? This is the point. It is anti-drone only.

I disagree. Might as well put one on all cars too with that logic. For someone just looking for a little recreational photo taking it makes absolutely no sense. I am not in the flight line. I can see the consequences already of mass violations. Following the current rules is fine but these...

I hear ya. I guess this is the time to speak up about it for the good of all. The FAA is looking for comments at this time.

A law is a law. The manufacturer has no control over it and must comply. However, you can always make your drone ignore those fence boxes if you know how to do it so it is not like you don't have any options.

I'd say you can sue for anything, just not neccesarily you would win or have standing for that matter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the FAA part of the DOT? Edit: Found it: In 1967, a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) combined major federal responsibilities for air and surface transport. The Federal Aviation Agency's name changed to the Federal Aviation Administration as it...

Move to earlier firmware would also solve that problem. My drone on its old 1.04 firmware has no restriction for any portion of the USA.

FAA Recognized identification area is going to be most places I would assume. You would however never be given authorization to enter within 5 miles of a major airport is what I think they are saying. At least I hope this is what they are saying. If it is not, I see mass violations of this...

You would have to have one of the first few updates to not already have these feature installed, or an old Phantom or something. As I said above, after .04, I am pretty sure this was added to the Mavic Pro. Somewhere around .05 or .06 firmwares. It is around this time that the DJI whitepaper...

Not too big a deal for older drones. ID rules specifically say that drones made prior to the rules are not subject to them. . UAS without Remote Identification Equipment Under the proposed rule, the vast majority of UAS would be required to have remoteidentification capability, however as...