Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[Lon Denard]

Tell it to Sully.

Wow, someone dusted this old chestnut off huh?

Did you read that this turned out to be a hoax?

Sully? So one incident out of hundreds, maybe thousands of bird strikes makes it inevitable?

I don't think anyone has ever stated that it's impossible for a drone to take down a plane, I argue on probability. The numbers are vastly against it.

 

[787steve]

I agree with this but where's the rest of the evidence? It's just seems like a situation where there's a narrative without proof and they'll latch onto any shread to push it forward. That video I posted is a perfect example. That was widely reported as happening. The London airport situation. Even the New York helicopter incident might be a little flakey because I've heard that the pilot in question has been reprimanded for "fly bys" before and might have been under 400' over a residential neighborhood.

"Because I've heard that the pilot in question has been reprimanded for "fly bys" before"??? And you don'

Wow, someone dusted this old chestnut off huh?

Did you read that this turned out to be a hoax?

Sully? So one incident out of hundreds, maybe thousands of bird strikes makes it inevitable?

I don't think anyone has ever stated that it's impossible for a drone to take down a plane, I argue on probability. The numbers are vastly against it.

No, I didn't see that it was a hoax. Can you direct me to that info? But I wasn't addressing the validity of the post. I was addressing how many here are spring loaded to the "fake news" position, yet accept vague "I heard..." comments as valid.
Have you seen the video of the idiot flying near the airport in Tel Aviv?

. Was he safe flying when he was out of VLOS and 300' off final approach and on glide slope . I do not know the laws is Israel, but that is why the US rules are in place. The BBC reports that he was arrested. They also published this statement from DJI:

DJI - the Chinese-maker of the Mavic Pro - has also condemned the filming.

"We stand ready to assist national aviation authorities as they investigate a recent wave of photos and videos showing clear and intentional lawbreaking in ways that pose real danger to manned air traffic," it said in a statement.

Do you not realize that we have a problem? The hobby has a problem.


Sully? What happened to him, both engines killed by birds, was not 1 in 100, or 1,000. It was probably more like 1 in a million, even lower. My comment was an attempt to make people realize that extremely unlikely things DO happen. You probably don't worry when you fly in an airliner. I suspect you know that is by far the safest way to travel. One of the reasons that is true is because every professional in the industry, as well as the FAA do all they can do make the extremely unlikely even more unlikely. And still, things happen.

I'm not going to search the site for "it's impossible for a drone to take down an airplane", but I am sure we have both seen lots of people say ridiculous things like " can't penetrate the windscreen" and hitting an airplane at 100 wouldn't do anything. The only logical reason to go there is that they think drones are not a threat. The problem is, you don't have to go through the windscreen to take down an airplane. And all airplanes are not going 100 mph. In my, over 3 years of flight time, I have never been under 100 kts at altitudes where drones operate.

A drone could take down an airplane in or out of VLOS. But keeping mine in sight helps me reduce those low odds even more. As an aviator, I will continue to do that in respect for my fellow pilots. If the fact that "the numbers are vastly against it" is sufficient for you. Well, so be it. But that attitude is why the FAA makes regs. Acccident reports involving people who thought the regs were silly, and that the odds of a problem were vastly in their favor, are easy to find.

Fly safe, have fun.

 

[Lon Denard]

"Because I've heard that the pilot in question has been reprimanded for "fly bys" before"??? And you don'




No, I didn't see that it was a hoax. Can you direct me to that info? But I wasn't addressing the validity of the post. I was addressing how many here are spring loaded to the "fake news" position, yet accept vague "I heard..." comments as valid.
Have you seen the video of the idiot flying near the airport in Tel Aviv?

. Was he safe flying when he was out of VLOS and 300' off final approach and on glide slope . I do not know the laws is Israel, but that is why the US rules are in place. The BBC reports that he was arrested. They also published this statement from DJI:

DJI - the Chinese-maker of the Mavic Pro - has also condemned the filming.

"We stand ready to assist national aviation authorities as they investigate a recent wave of photos and videos showing clear and intentional lawbreaking in ways that pose real danger to manned air traffic," it said in a statement.

Do you not realize that we have a problem? The hobby has a problem.


Sully? What happened to him, both engines killed by birds, was not 1 in 100, or 1,000. It was probably more like 1 in a million, even lower. My comment was an attempt to make people realize that extremely unlikely things DO happen. You probably don't worry when you fly in an airliner. I suspect you know that is by far the safest way to travel. One of the reasons that is true is because every professional in the industry, as well as the FAA do all they can do make the extremely unlikely even more unlikely. And still, things happen.

I'm not going to search the site for "it's impossible for a drone to take down an airplane", but I am sure we have both seen lots of people say ridiculous things like " can't penetrate the windscreen" and hitting an airplane at 100 wouldn't do anything. The only logical reason to go there is that they think drones are not a threat. The problem is, you don't have to go through the windscreen to take down an airplane. And all airplanes are not going 100 mph. In my, over 3 years of flight time, I have never been under 100 kts at altitudes where drones operate.

A drone could take down an airplane in or out of VLOS. But keeping mine in sight helps me reduce those low odds even more. As an aviator, I will continue to do that in respect for my fellow pilots. If the fact that "the numbers are vastly against it" is sufficient for you. Well, so be it. But that attitude is why the FAA makes regs. Acccident reports involving people who thought the regs were silly, and that the odds of a problem were vastly in their favor, are easy to find.

Fly safe, have fun.

Dude, why are you attacking me? You don't need to search the site, just read this stupid thread. I haven't said that "it's impossible for a drone to take out a plane". I don't speak for anyone else but myself. If someone else said it, GO BOTHER THEM!

I only take responsibility for what I do and I don't fly over 400' AGL, for the most part and have rarely gone more than 1000' away. I definitely don't fly near airports except when I've gotten permission.

As far as that guy in Tel Aviv goes, you already said it. HE WAS ARRESTED! People that break the law are subject to the consequences. Apparently that crap is illegal in Israel. I didn't do it so why are you trying to beat me with his switch? What does that have to do with me? People do stupid things with every apparatus EVER INVENTED! What's your point?

I personally am honest enough to acknowledge that I lose site of my Mavic constantly. Most of you that swear that you never lose site of your Mavic are liars! Plain and simple. Holier than thou liars.

There are guidelines not laws, not regulations, guidelines. Show me the punishments attached to these "regulations" or "laws"? All of you pilots or wanna be pilots want everyone to be subject to the rules that you have to follow. Sorry but we aren't.

Again, you don't have to search the entire site for anything. My views on this subject are laid out IN THIS THREAD! This battle has been fought already. You showed up to Pearl Harbor on Dec 8 and you've declared war on Korea. You're making me miss sar104!

 

[ac0j]

Looks like moderator is removing my posts again. Alas, I do not give a fat horses butt

its just their way of telling you to take it down a notch. Dont take it personally, it has happened to me at LEAST once. After they get comfortable with you they will give up a little more leash!

 

[sar104]

Dude, why are you attacking me? You don't need to search the site, just read this stupid thread. I haven't said that "it's impossible for a drone to take out a plane". I don't speak for anyone else but myself. If someone else said it, GO BOTHER THEM!

I only take responsibility for what I do and I don't fly over 400' AGL, for the most part and have rarely gone more than 1000' away. I definitely don't fly near airports except when I've gotten permission.

As far as that guy in Tel Aviv goes, you already said it. HE WAS ARRESTED! People that break the law are subject to the consequences. Apparently that crap is illegal in Israel. I didn't do it so why are you trying to beat me with his switch? What does that have to do with me? People do stupid things with every apparatus EVER INVENTED! What's your point?

I personally am honest enough to acknowledge that I lose site of my Mavic constantly. Most of you that swear that you never lose site of your Mavic are liars! Plain and simple. Holier than thou liars.

There are guidelines not laws, not regulations, guidelines. Show me the punishments attached to these "regulations" or "laws"? All of you pilots or wanna be pilots want everyone to be subject to the rules that you have to follow. Sorry but we aren't.

Again, you don't have to search the entire site for anything. My views on this subject are laid out IN THIS THREAD! This battle has been fought already. You showed up to Pearl Harbor on Dec 8 and you've declared war on Korea. You're making me miss sar104!

I'm still here. What can I do to help?

 

[Lon Denard]

I'm still here. What can I do to help?

Aww it's all good! I'm just trying to learn how to do a better job editing... And failing!!! Geez, he actually brought up the guy in Tel Aviv like I've somehow endorsed his actions or something! Yeesh.

 

[sar104]

Aww it's all good! I'm just trying to learn how to do a better job editing... And failing!!! Geez, he actually brought up the guy in Tel Aviv like I've somehow endorsed his actions or something! Yeesh.

I don't think that was the point he was making. I think it was more the same issue that I had, which is that whether or not this incident was real, which we now are fairly convinced that it wasn't, we know that people are doing this kind of stuff. There have been knee-jerk reactions in both directions, and neither of those kinds of reaction is helpful.

 

[Lon Denard]

I don't think that was the point he was making. I think it was more the same issue that I had, which is that whether or not this incident was real, which we now are fairly convinced that it wasn't, we know that people are doing this kind of stuff. There have been knee-jerk reactions in both directions, and neither of those kinds of reaction is helpful.

I agree with that! In fact, that was the main gist of my comments to begin with. I didn't agree with everyone immediately dog piling this supposed drone pilot until all the facts were in. I've happy conceded that the world is full of idiots and idiots do idiotic things with everything and anything. I drive an Audi, I don't feel obligated to publicly condemn anyone that does something "irresponsible" with their A6. I ride a GSXR1000 and I don't feel obligated to publicly condemn everyone that does a wheelie on theirs.

Anyway, I'm giving up for tonight! I honestly have almost 3T of video, if I include the stuff from my other drones that I haven't edited or even, in many cases, looked at. I have 2T of Mavic video alone.... Sigh. I'm thinking about just deleting it and starting over.

 

[Hollow Dog]

I called this BS on the first day on the first page I can't believe this is still going on.
What if what if what if?
If I had Wheels I'd be a wagon.

 

[787steve]

Dude, why are you attacking me? You don't need to search the site, just read this stupid thread. I haven't said that "it's impossible for a drone to take out a plane". I don't speak for anyone else but myself. If someone else said it, GO BOTHER THEM!

I only take responsibility for what I do and I don't fly over 400' AGL, for the most part and have rarely gone more than 1000' away. I definitely don't fly near airports except when I've gotten permission.

As far as that guy in Tel Aviv goes, you already said it. HE WAS ARRESTED! People that break the law are subject to the consequences. Apparently that crap is illegal in Israel. I didn't do it so why are you trying to beat me with his switch? What does that have to do with me? People do stupid things with every apparatus EVER INVENTED! What's your point?

I personally am honest enough to acknowledge that I lose site of my Mavic constantly. Most of you that swear that you never lose site of your Mavic are liars! Plain and simple. Holier than thou liars.

There are guidelines not laws, not regulations, guidelines. Show me the punishments attached to these "regulations" or "laws"? All of you pilots or wanna be pilots want everyone to be subject to the rules that you have to follow. Sorry but we aren't.

Again, you don't have to search the entire site for anything. My views on this subject are laid out IN THIS THREAD! This battle has been fought already. You showed up to Pearl Harbor on Dec 8 and you've declared war on Korea. You're making me miss sar104!

Woah. First of all, when I post here, it is not personal to you. It is an attempt to add to the public discourse. Seondly, NO, you didn not say that it was impossible to bring down an aircraft. Nor did I accuse you of saying that. What you did say was "I don't think anyone has ever stated that it's impossible for a drone to take down a plane," My point was that I have seen posts that imply that they believe just that.

You did say "Most of you that swear that you never lose site of your Mavic are liars!? I have never seen a post that said someone had never lost site of their drone. Unless you count the day 1 or 2 posts about operating in Beginner mode. I see lots of posts saying they operate in VLOS. VLOS is defined as being where the operator "is able" to see the drone. It doesn't say he you cannot look away.

We have all seen umpteen posts here implying that we do not have a problem. That it is just hysteria. I have seen totally unqualified arguments about what a drone could or could not do. A drone couldn't take down a B747. That is probably true. But, unless all airplanes are 747's, irrelevant. I have seen comments about lamination processes. There is even one video of a guy with a sledge hammer trying to break a sheet of laminated material. I know that Dustin Johnson can swing a golf club over 130 mph, but I don't think the guy in the vid can quite match him with his hammer. And even if he could, unless airplanes are made entirely of that material, irrelevant. I have seen comments about flying in the middle of nowhere beyond VLOS with a what are the chances attitude. Guess where fighter pilots do their high speed low level flying? That is pretty well limited to those middle of nowhere places. And how many drone pilots bother, or even know how to find where those routes are?

While people throw out all sorts of opinions about probabilities, and materials, and "I read this on the blog" .......They are missing the point. Major aircraft accidents are headline events. No one writes about the millions of flights that operate safely, when one of these make the headlines. IF a drone ever even bounces off an airline's windscreen, or worse, takes out an engine, or worse than that, the news media will go crazy. We have seen how they go nuts with even the fact that someone in an airliner says saw one out the window.

What we have here is a math problem.. Not a physics problem, simple math. You don't need to talk about material properties, mass x velocity, or any physics at all. Members of Congress run for reelection every two years. They really like their jobs, and the privileges that go with it. I am assuming that in most congressional districts, there are dozens, perhaps even hundreds of drone operators. (pure guess on my point, but you get the idea.) When the newspapers , in their post accident feeding frenzy, pull up videos posted by the irresponsible drone operators all over the net, and "What law? We don't need no stinking laws"type comments, what do you think the public will want? Licensing for all? A total ban? And how do you think the members of Congress will vote? With the hundreds of drone operators who have now all been vilified, due to the actions of a few, or with the tens of thousands clamoring for their heads? Their jobs, or our hobby? Hmmmm. It comes down to a pretty simple problem to solve.

I do not mean to attack you, or any person here. The manner in which you say you fly implies that you are one of the responsible pilots. But I will attack erroneous statements and flawed arguments. I'm sorry I got to Pearl Harbor late, but you might notice that a lot of us just got our drones, and what may be old to you is new to us. The fact that I was born after Pearl Harbor, does not mean I can not, or should not comment on it. Like you, I will express my opinion. I suspect that if you had as much flight experience as I do, you would feel obligated to add some informed opinion to the process.
Fly safe, and have fun.

 

[HapK]

Apparently someone else was flying their Phantom near LAX, close enough to a commercial plane for a passenger to get a picture of it...

Man's Photo Shows DJI Drone Near His Plane While Landing in LA

Don't worry, the people who fly in those places will screw it up for the rest of us.

 

[787steve]

yeah very tragic story that one

Interesting that I keep seeing this discussed as highly reported. It is obviously fake. But the only news outlet I could find reporting it on google was The Daily Mirror, which is basically the Nation Inquirer of the UK. Not exactly widely reported. Or do you consider Youtube a news source?

 

[787steve]

I wish he was legal, but he wasn't on two other fronts:

He was flying outside of VLOS (he was 2.5 miles from his Phantom)
and
There were 2 TFR's in effect where the collision took place that "banned" model aircraft flight. (Interesting that where he took off was not in one of the TFR's, but the collision site was in it. It doesn't matter because his entire flight was in the other TFR.)

The report makes those two infractions very clear.

I'm not an airspace attorney, but I feel that the helicopter was too low (including when it flew over the beach before the collision). I am disheartened that wasn't indicated in the report. If there was a security reason for him flying below 500' at the beach I don't need the specifics in the report, I just need the report to say "The helicopter pilot was below 500' at the beach because of a confidential security/military concern." If there wasn't a reason for him to be below 500' I felt that should have been indicated. The report had no problem pointing out that the Phantom pilot flew over 400' earlier in the day (which was irrelevant to the collision IMHO), yet no mention of low helicopter flight over occupied space.

I REALLY wanted this to be solely a case of a helicopter being too low, as that would take some of the heat off of UAS operations, but it simply wasn't the case. the Phantom operator wasn't even close to having situational awareness of his craft and a collision resulted from this. I'm no drone hater, but I just can't defend this situation.

As an ex fighter jock, I might have some pertinent info here. When we fly ops involving "Fast Movers, and helos, the helos are restricted to low altitude, for separation with us. And we go pretty low ourselves. Even if Fast Movers weren't involved many military ops take place at low altitude for other tactical reasons. In many military ops I have worked, the helos have been cleared down to "the deck". It is extremely likely that they were operating entirely as cleared.

 

[787steve]

Does visual line of sight mean that you have to be able to see it or that there's nothing between you and the drone? You guys keep saying that we occasionally lose sight of our drones, bs. I lose sight of my drone every time I fly. The dang thing is so small! Geez, how about Spark owners? I'd lose that thing withing seconds of take off.

I don't know who you're kidding but anyone that says that they can see their Mavic at 400' agl and 1000' away is full of crap! I mean seriously, so many of you point fingers and act so lofty and legal but there's no way you don't lose sight of your Mavic routinely, not occasionally, not once in awhile, ROUTINELY! Don't you have to look at your screen to get the footage you want? Check your controller to make sure everything is good? As soon as I take my eyes off the Mavic, that's it for VLOS baby! Hahaha! The occasional part is that I find it in the sky again!

If I wanted to watch my drone fly, I could have stuck with my AR Drone, Bebop, 3DR Solo, or GoPro Karma. What's the point of buying a drone that had a 4.3 mile range and then keeping it within a few hundred feet? Well, I for one am not going to worry about the letter of the law and just fly within my comfort zone.

From Volume 16, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Chapter 1.

QQ. Visual Line of Sight (VLOS). Means that any flightcrew member (i.e., remote PIC, the person manipulating the controls, and visual observer, if used) is capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, spectacles or contact lenses

 

[787steve]

Oh I'm not arguing that manned aircraft are the problem. I fully admit that the drone pilot was at fault AND I would have been right there with him! I don't typically fly that far away but I lose VLOS every flight. I'm not sure how you would know that it was a TFR AND worst of all, I would have also believed that staying under 400' would all but guarantee "safety". Forget where this guy is from, I believe there was an island? I could easily see myself on the island, taking some pictures oblivious to any potential danger. Keeping it well under 400' but again losing VLOS. I'm waiting for my beat down and to be told that I should do extensive flight path research before I fly my drone anywhere...

What you just addressed is one of the big problems I see with this sport. Obvious to even a noob like me. There are things people should know, which are not readily apparent, or at all intuitive. I have seen you and others talking about flying out in the middle of nowhere, assuming it is safe. Seems logical. How would you know that there are "VR" routes established all over the US. These are routes established for military pilots to practice high speed, low level, VFR navigation. When I flew them, we generally operated at 200' AGL and speeds at a minimum of 420Kts GS. If I busted by at treetop level on one of these routes and you had your drone at a nice safe 200' altitude, I would be on you before you heard me coming. And where do you think they put these routes? In the middle of nowhere! The powers that be really don't want us busting through high density areas this way. But how many drone pilots even know they exist, much less that they could be near one. ( They are depicted on Sectional charts, for the few that have one.)

There is a lot of ignorance out here in drone land. I am not talking about stupidity, I am talking about people not knowing what they don't know. That is why I posted a threat titled Rules. I kept seeing people argue what was and was not binding on us as hobbyists. I wanted to know what the rules were for myself. It was way too hard for me to find all the items I needed to get what I thought was a reasonable understanding. It turns out, the rules are pretty simple, but finding that simple info was anything but simple. I think FLYBOY posted the contents of Sec 336 back a bit in this thread, and that about covers it for us. And to your dismay, the AMA safety code isn't a guideline for us. It is the law. Because congress defines hobbyist drones as doing certain things. Remember the line of the nationwide community based organization. Well, it turns out they are the only one. So if you don't fly by their code, you have to be part 107 certified. And the reason they have code about control line flying isn't because the regs are out of date. It is because there are still people who do that. I know. I was shocked, too.

Fly safe, have fun, and.....relax.

 

[Lon Denard]

From Volume 16, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Chapter 1.

QQ. Visual Line of Sight (VLOS). Means that any flightcrew member (i.e., remote PIC, the person manipulating the controls, and visual observer, if used) is capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, spectacles or contact lenses

Do you own a Mavic? How far away can you go at 400' AGL before you can no longer see it? AND if you look away for even a moment, are you capable of relocating it in the sky? I was 2 decades airborne with an air defense secondary mos and was b4 certified and I hereby admit that if my drone is 400' AGL and more than 500' away I will almost definitely lose VLOS and not be able to recover it if I look away. That's what I mean. I have over 100 hours on my Mavic and there's no way I could guarantee VLOS unless I kept it within 300' at 400' AGL. Those that claim they ALWAYS have VLOS with their Mavics are either very cautious fliers, like old guys that buy vettes but never break the speed limit or liars. Period.

 

[Lon Denard]

What you just addressed is one of the big problems I see with this sport. Obvious to even a noob like me. There are things people should know, which are not readily apparent, or at all intuitive. I have seen you and others talking about flying out in the middle of nowhere, assuming it is safe. Seems logical. How would you know that there are "VR" routes established all over the US. These are routes established for military pilots to practice high speed, low level, VFR navigation. When I flew them, we generally operated at 200' AGL and speeds at a minimum of 420Kts GS. If I busted by at treetop level on one of these routes and you had your drone at a nice safe 200' altitude, I would be on you before you heard me coming. And where do you think they put these routes? In the middle of nowhere! The powers that be really don't want us busting through high density areas this way. But how many drone pilots even know they exist, much less that they could be near one. ( They are depicted on Sectional charts, for the few that have one.)

There is a lot of ignorance out here in drone land. I am not talking about stupidity, I am talking about people not knowing what they don't know. That is why I posted a threat titled Rules. I kept seeing people argue what was and was not binding on us as hobbyists. I wanted to know what the rules were for myself. It was way too hard for me to find all the items I needed to get what I thought was a reasonable understanding. It turns out, the rules are pretty simple, but finding that simple info was anything but simple. I think FLYBOY posted the contents of Sec 336 back a bit in this thread, and that about covers it for us. And to your dismay, the AMA safety code isn't a guideline for us. It is the law. Because congress defines hobbyist drones as doing certain things. Remember the line of the nationwide community based organization. Well, it turns out they are the only one. So if you don't fly by their code, you have to be part 107 certified. And the reason they have code about control line flying isn't because the regs are out of date. It is because there are still people who do that. I know. I was shocked, too.

Fly safe, have fun, and.....relax.

So I'm flying at the local park and I should be worried that an F18 will crash into my drone at 200' AGL? What? Again, I'm not saying that it's absolutely impossible that an Apache or Blackhawk won't swoop down while I'm taking some pics of a hawk's nest out behind my aunt's house. Considering that I've never even seen a fighter jet or combat chopper since I've been out so I tend to very much doubt it. If I lived close to an AFB I might take that into consideration. You may as well tell me that I should be concerned about crashing into dragons, Griffins or UFOs. This is exactly why I stopped hanging out with Air Force guys. Yeesh.

 

[Lon Denard]

Oh and to address these "laws" you keep talking about. What is the punishment if I'm caught flying at 500 AGL? Who is enforcing these laws? Who's adjudicating them? Is it a federal crime to have two beers and fly your drone? How about three? Laws are clearly laid out with punishments. If the speed limit is 35 and I get caught doing 40, there are specific fines involved. There can't be a "law" that states "you are required to follow some club's rules that you don't even belong to". Technically, they could change their rules anytime they wish.. For all I know, the rules are written by a group of 5 old guys that witnessed the Wright Brothers flight at Kittyhawk in person.

In fact according to the president of the AMA, if you're not a member of his organization your are automatically violating part 107!!! Hmm sounds like the typical money grab to me. He wants the FAA to mandate that all drone operators must either have part 107 licenses or join his stupid group.

Punish rogue recreational drone pilots — not the rule followers | AMA Government Relations Blog

I agree that if something happens it'll be a crap show but considering that guns, smoking, alcohol, sport bikes, energy drinks, sex, etc are still legal. That 60,000 people die a year from opiod overdoses and they still prescribe them like aspirin....

I've actually said that I wouldn't be opposed to some actual laws or a licensing system. Vauge legal situations like these breed problems. I like things being black or white. If drone pilots were smart they'd form their own group and set their own "regulations". 1500' AGL, an fpv camera, autonomous RTH for loss of signal, low battery, etc. You know, the stuff we already have.

I'm not a pilot so situations have to be at least "likely" before I start paying attention to them. "Slightly possible" doesn't really cut it for me. If it did, I couldn't ride my motorcycle, do my somewhat dangerous job, go deer hunting, etc. Heck, I wouldn't be able to leave my house for fear of being struck by a meteor or mauled by a polar bear.

 

[787steve]

WOW! You are a combative ol' cuss, aren't you? Three rather in your face responses. And I was posting in support of some of what you said! I was pointing out that it is not easy for drone pilots to know what they need to know.
This may take a while, but I will answer every one of your questions. But first, you have stated many times that you have two decades airborne, and like myself, you are getting up in age. Firstly, thank you for your service. Who, in our generation hasn't wished that they could save their kids some pain by transferring your knowledge to their brains? I see kids doing stunts with a skateboard on the library steps, without even a helmet, and I want to stop and tell them, for their own good that they are being stupid. You and I both know how that would end. At best, they would dismiss us as a stupid old man. Frustrating. Well like you, I am ex military. I flew single seat fighters in the USMC for twenty years. I might have had you try to track me with in your air defense roll, or provided you with CAS. I then flew all over the world for a major airline. I stopped counting flight hours some years ago, but I know it is over 25,000, and probably approaching 30,000 hours. I have credibility in operating in the NAS and in flying safely. Perhaps those thousands of hours are why I am what you refer to as "a very cautious flyer." Now, in pilot years, I am the experienced old man talking to the inexperienced kid. And you just think I'm an old codger who doesn't have any nerve.

Answers to your questions:
1. Yes, I own a Mavic Pro.
2. I do not know how far away at 400' AGL it has to be to not be able to see it. I haven't flown it farther than I can see it. I am a "very cautious pilot". I have had it far enough away that it took me a bit to find it when looking up from the controller, but not so far away that I couldn't find it. VLOS.
3. You should NOT worry that an F-18 will hit you at 200' over your local park. When you don't like things it seems your replies often twist what was said. I talked in my post about VFR routes and specifically mentioned that they tended to be "in the middle of nowhere". I have flown many hundreds of such missions, but I never went over a "local park". But I am pretty sure that you know my point was that there are published routes where fast movers operate right in our envelope, and most drone pilots don't where to find info on them, or even that they exist. I suspect you would know if a low level route is near your home. The evidence is hard to miss. But I have seen videos where people who say they live in cities, drive out to some remote area, and then try to set distance records. I suspect they went on Google Earth and mapped out what looks like a nice benign area to operate. But, due to lack of knowledge, I bet none of them ever even thought of VR routes.
4. Not asked, but I don't hang out with Air Force guys, either. Yeesh.
5. There were about five questions about the "laws" we keep referring to. Remember when you were getting all upset about the NY helo incident. Then someone posted the link to the accident report? And I think you then got mad at them for not having supplied you with it earlier.

The "LAW" we have been talking about has been discussed, explained, and copied and pasted here for you. Your reply above questioning its validity included this `quote "There can't be a "law" that states "you are required to follow some club's rules that you don't even belong to". It took me less than 2 minutes on Google to find this link:
H.R.658 - 112th Congress (2011-2012): FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
Here is the pertinent portion:
"H.R.658 - FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012112th Congress (2011-2012)
LAW
Hide Overview icon-hide
Sponsor: Rep. Mica, John L. [R-FL-7] (Introduced 02/11/2011)
Committees: House - Transportation and Infrastructure; Science, Space, and Technology; Judiciary
Committee Reports: H. Rept. 112-29,Part 1; H. Rept. 112-29,Part 2; H. Rept. 112-381 (Conference Report)
Latest Action: 02/14/2012 Became Public Law No: 112-95. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes: There have been 15 roll call votes
Tracker:
This bill has the status Became Law

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:"

Perhaps you shouldn't be spring loaded to the attack position when someone says something you don't like. Perhaps you could keep an open mind and do a little research. Might save you some apologies. Just sayin'.

I just have one question for you, please. Did you have a reserve with you when you jumped out of those airplanes?

 

[Lon Denard]

WOW! You are a combative ol' cuss, aren't you? Three rather in your face responses. And I was posting in support of some of what you said! I was pointing out that it is not easy for drone pilots to know what they need to know.
This may take a while, but I will answer every one of your questions. But first, you have stated many times that you have two decades airborne, and like myself, you are getting up in age. Firstly, thank you for your service. Who, in our generation hasn't wished that they could save their kids some pain by transferring your knowledge to their brains? I see kids doing stunts with a skateboard on the library steps, without even a helmet, and I want to stop and tell them, for their own good that they are being stupid. You and I both know how that would end. At best, they would dismiss us as a stupid old man. Frustrating. Well like you, I am ex military. I flew single seat fighters in the USMC for twenty years. I might have had you try to track me with in your air defense roll, or provided you with CAS. I then flew all over the world for a major airline. I stopped counting flight hours some years ago, but I know it is over 25,000, and probably approaching 30,000 hours. I have credibility in operating in the NAS and in flying safely. Perhaps those thousands of hours are why I am what you refer to as "a very cautious flyer." Now, in pilot years, I am the experienced old man talking to the inexperienced kid. And you just think I'm an old codger who doesn't have any nerve.

Answers to your questions:
1. Yes, I own a Mavic Pro.
2. I do not know how far away at 400' AGL it has to be to not be able to see it. I haven't flown it farther than I can see it. I am a "very cautious pilot". I have had it far enough away that it took me a bit to find it when looking up from the controller, but not so far away that I couldn't find it. VLOS.
3. You should NOT worry that an F-18 will hit you at 200' over your local park. When you don't like things it seems your replies often twist what was said. I talked in my post about VFR routes and specifically mentioned that they tended to be "in the middle of nowhere". I have flown many hundreds of such missions, but I never went over a "local park". But I am pretty sure that you know my point was that there are published routes where fast movers operate right in our envelope, and most drone pilots don't where to find info on them, or even that they exist. I suspect you would know if a low level route is near your home. The evidence is hard to miss. But I have seen videos where people who say they live in cities, drive out to some remote area, and then try to set distance records. I suspect they went on Google Earth and mapped out what looks like a nice benign area to operate. But, due to lack of knowledge, I bet none of them ever even thought of VR routes.
4. Not asked, but I don't hang out with Air Force guys, either. Yeesh.
5. There were about five questions about the "laws" we keep referring to. Remember when you were getting all upset about the NY helo incident. Then someone posted the link to the accident report? And I think you then got mad at them for not having supplied you with it earlier.

The "LAW" we have been talking about has been discussed, explained, and copied and pasted here for you. Your reply above questioning its validity included this `quote "There can't be a "law" that states "you are required to follow some club's rules that you don't even belong to". It took me less than 2 minutes on Google to find this link:
H.R.658 - 112th Congress (2011-2012): FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
Here is the pertinent portion:
"H.R.658 - FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012112th Congress (2011-2012)
LAW
Hide Overview icon-hide
Sponsor: Rep. Mica, John L. [R-FL-7] (Introduced 02/11/2011)
Committees: House - Transportation and Infrastructure; Science, Space, and Technology; Judiciary
Committee Reports: H. Rept. 112-29,Part 1; H. Rept. 112-29,Part 2; H. Rept. 112-381 (Conference Report)
Latest Action: 02/14/2012 Became Public Law No: 112-95. (TXT | PDF) (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes: There have been 15 roll call votes
Tracker:
This bill has the status Became Law

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:"

Perhaps you shouldn't be spring loaded to the attack position when someone says something you don't like. Perhaps you could keep an open mind and do a little research. Might save you some apologies. Just sayin'.

I just have one question for you, please. Did you have a reserve with you when you jumped out of those airplanes?

Okay, I know everyone ASSumes that I haven't read the text or that I'm too stupid to understand it. What 336 outlines is the restriction or limits of the FAA's power to regulate the activities of hobby pilots. Savvy? It defines what a hobby pilot is, rather vaugely in my opinion, and promotes the referencing of community groups as the basic structure for safe operation. I get that.

What I'm saying and what I've said is that it's too vauge to be actionable in a court of law. I could start a "community based hobby pilots group" that advocates 1000' AGL as safe and that would be the "law" in my area. That would be like if there were no speed limits and the federal government said that car drivers should operate within the auspices of community based organizations like AAA or whatever. So the speed limit would be what AAA decided it is and you'd have to follow it regardless if you were a member it not? The AMA is a business, like NASCAR that puts on events and sells insurance/ membership. They are not the Lions club or whatever.

Yes I had a backup and I packed/inspected my own. I didn't need a community based organization or some clowns that have never touched a chute or dodged a bullet telling me how to do it. For me this is the equivalent of having the meerkats regulate the lions...