Another irresponsible UAS Pilot

[sar104]

"Ignorance"? Who was the sucker that believed this hair ball story in the first place? Now that the story has been basically debunked, you're on to the normal back up tactic of "but if this story was true..." to forward the agenda. Like I said before, some of you are so quick to jump on these stories because you want it to be true.

If you look back through the thread, you will notice that I was one of the very few to make any reasoned attempt to establish that the report was not credible, so you, as you often do, are talking nonsense. If anyone debunked it, I did. And my "if it were true" point was in response to another poster's question based on that scenario.

You're just waiting for proof of your narrative. I'm expecting a huge fist pumping/ I told you so party if a drone ever does take out a jet liner.

That is one of the most stupid, ignorant comments that I've read in a long time. Well done.

 

[sar104]

Well, I'm not a member so I don't care about their guidelines. I'm looking at this from a legal stand point. Unless you can cite me a CONCRETE law that prohibits this behavior, I don't have to "defend" anything. I've read the FAA guidelines. I've also read gov't guidelines on nutrition and I don't expect to be arrested for eating a Snickers anytime soon.

Have you ever read 14 CFR 101 and 107? Sorry - dumb question - of course you haven't. It doesn't matter whether you are an AMA member. To have the protection of Part 101 you have to follow AMA guidelines since no other organization meets the Part 101 criterion. So, you either follow them or you fall under Part 107, where there are no guidelines, just Federal law that you can have fun breaking.

 

[Lon Denard]

Have you ever read 14 CFR 101 and 107? Sorry - dumb question - of course you haven't. It doesn't matter whether you are an AMA member. To have the protection of Part 101 you have to follow AMA guidelines since no other organization meets the Part 101 criterion. So, you either follow them or you fall under Part 107, where there are no guidelines, just Federal law that you can have fun breaking.

Yes because everyone but you is "ignorant". This is directly from the FAA website.

To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft you must:

• Fly for hobby or recreation ONLY
• Register your model aircraft
• Fly within visual line-of-sight
• Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization
• Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
• Never fly near other aircraft
• Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport*
• Never fly near emergency response efforts

Show me where it says "under the AMA's guidelines"? Hmmm? No where. That's your pet organization and I'm sure that it's your wish that everyone has to join but it's not the reality yet.

BTW I don't think I've seen your basis for the amazing facts that you have on the NY drone incident. I haven't seen any of that and I'm still in contact with people from that unit, former 101st Air Assault\ 82nd Airborne here. They were the guys that transported us to do or repel training\certification out of Ft Bragg.

In any case, I go back to the fact that the drone was over a
city park, in a residential neighborhood. Why in the heck were US military helicopters flying at 500' over a park? I also feel the need to remind you that 400' is a guideline, not a law. The AMA does not make laws.

 

[Lon Denard]

If you look back through the thread, you will notice that I was one of the very few to make any reasoned attempt to establish that the report was not credible, so you, as you often do, are talking nonsense. If anyone debunked it, I did. And my "if it were true" point was in response to another poster's question based on that scenario.



That is one of the most stupid, ignorant comments that I've read in a long time. Well done.

Thank you, I do try. You may have helped debunk it once it was already patently obvious it was crap. You're also consistently one of the first to jump on the condemnation without proof bandwagon as well.

 

[Dabrain]

Yes - a fine selection of comments, as usual, a good many of which start with the usual erroneous assumption that mass is the only important parameter in impact dynamics. It's become obvious that this particular field of physics is way too far beyond most of them to have any hope that they will ever understand, no matter how many studies are published.

I don't know about the only factor, but mass times velocity is really important. If the velocity is the same I want the most mass.

 

[Lon Denard]

So I read the AMA guidelines... Talk about outdated! They are still talking about safety line aircraft, I'm 52 and had one of those when I was little. 55 lbs? Who in the heck makes a drone that weighs anything close to that? Man, I'm with you on regulations if we're talking about 55lb drones flying 10, 000' high! See but we're not, were talking about drones that weigh well under 5 lbs with ours coming in at 1.6 lbs. There's a huge difference between Grandpa flying his 50lb Cessna model and me flying a Mavic! Now I get it, you guys are stuck in the past! You're acting as if we're all flying 50lb bricks with poor radios, weak fpv, buggy control systems, and failure prone motors. That's where all this line of sight stuff comes from. All these chicken little rantings. Sheesh.

 

[Lon Denard]

I don't know about the only factor, but mass times velocity is really important. If the velocity is the same I want the most mass.

No we will not discuss force equations. I'm sorry but we are just not erudite enough to comprehend such complicated mathematics. Duh....

 

[sar104]

Yes because everyone but you is "ignorant". This is directly from the FAA website.

To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft you must:

• Fly for hobby or recreation ONLY
• Register your model aircraft
• Fly within visual line-of-sight
• Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization
• Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
• Never fly near other aircraft
• Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport*
• Never fly near emergency response efforts

Show me where it says "under the AMA's guidelines"? Hmmm? No where. That's your pet organization and I'm sure that it's your wish that everyone has to join but it's not the reality yet.

Firstly, that's guidance on the FAA website, not the law. There's a difference. The law is much more specific. You should try reading it. But anyway, which nationwide, community-based organization guideline do you follow? I have no allegiance to AMA. I'm not a member and I don't fly recreationally - Part 107 only.

BTW I don't think I've seen your basis for the amazing facts that you have on the NY drone incident. I haven't seen any of that and I'm still in contact with people from that unit, former 101st Air Assault\ 82nd Airborne here. They were the guys that transported us to do or repel training\certification out of Ft Bragg.

My basis for "amazing facts"? "Repel training"? What on earth are you blathering on about now?

In any case, I go back to the fact that the drone was over a
city park, in a residential neighborhood. Why in the heck were US military helicopters flying at 500' over a park? I also feel the need to remind you that 400' is a guideline, not a law. The AMA does not make laws.

If you are still talking about the NY incident, the collision occurred offshore in the vicinity of Hoffman Island, not over a residential area. Maybe that's one of those "amazing facts" that you had missed by not actually reading that report either? Do you actually know anything at all about that incident?

You really don't understand anything about the relationship between Part 101 and Part 107. To be covered by Part 101 you have to follow the guidelines. If you don't follow them then you simply fall, instead, under Part 107. Part 107 regulations are not guidelines - they are law.

 

[sar104]

Thank you, I do try. You may have helped debunk it once it was already patently obvious it was crap. You're also consistently one of the first to jump on the condemnation without proof bandwagon as well.

You misunderstand. A bunch of baseless, lazy, assertions of "fake news" does not constitute evidence that a report is false. Discounting it requires some actual research.

 

[sar104]

I don't know about the only factor, but mass times velocity is really important. If the velocity is the same I want the most mass.

Agreed, but I think that velocity is being ignored in most comments because, whether it's a bird or a drone, the impact speed in a collision with an aircraft is going to be essentially the same. So it's important, but not an independent variable. Compressive strength, however, varies greatly between birds and drones, and makes an enormous difference to the impact forces exerted on the aircraft.

 

[Rogat19]

"Ignorance"? Who was the sucker that believed this hair ball story in the first place? Now that the story has been basically debunked, you're on to the normal back up tactic of "but if this story was true..." to forward the agenda. Like I said before, some of you are so quick to jump on these stories because you want it to be true. You're just waiting for proof of your narrative. I'm expecting a huge fist pumping/ I told you so party if a drone ever does take out a jet liner.

Ahh yes so very true Lon, but hey good old Sar104 wouldn't be able to back down he would then be admitting his ignorance in the first place, by not researching and reading the articles first, heaven forbid much better to just jump straight in sound knowledgable ( Burr! not!) full of himself (ting! Right) and then when questioned (how dare they) backpedal madly and hasve a go at the person for actually reading the articles but NOT reading all his constant dribble to see if the penny had finally dropped with him, cheers Mate d

 

[Rogat19]

Did you read as far as post #45, or is it beyond your capacity to follow a thread before jumping in, late and inaccurately, and parading your ignorance?

Ohh god post #45?? you are kidding right? reading that many posts that im sure must contain much of your dribble before the penny actually dropped? uhhu I don't thing so Holmes, Sar104 you would be better off admitting your ignorance in the first place, by not researching and reading the articles first, heaven forbid much better to just jump straight in sound knowledgable ( Burr! not!) full of yourself (ting! Right) and then when questioned (how dare I !) backpedal madly and have a swipe at me for actually reading the articles but NOT reading all your postulating rubbish to see if the penny had finally dropped with you, in closing nah i didnt read to post #45 and i still haven't oh no (Snap fingers) and i ain't going to boyfriend!

 

[Rogat19]

Pretty sure this one was already called out as fake here on this forum and others.
Just saw BigAls post, and this Drone Strike

yeah very tragic story that one

 

[Rogat19]

I'm not sure the photo is inconsistent with the shape of a Phantom, but there may be a bigger problem. I took another look at the image and estimated the location from that view. The aircraft was at least 25 miles from landing, which is consistent with an altitude of at least 7000 ft. That would put the Phantom way over its accessible ceiling unless it were a P2 or a hacked P3 or P4. Starts to seem less probable.

View attachment 26940

ahh so your a plagiarist as well old son! thats lifted straight from the article about the sighting man oh man your a peice of work

 

[Keule]

Who in the heck makes a drone that weighs anything close to that?

These are definitely no consumer drones ... Given the fact you have enough money, put one of these into your shopping cart:

• Freefly Alta 8 / GTOW 40 lbs (18,1 kg) @ MSL Freefly ALTA 8 Specifications - Dimensions, Weight & Payload
• DJI Agras MGS-1 / GTOW 52,9 lbs (24 kg) @MSL Agras MG-1’s Spezifikationen - DJI
• Pulseaero Vapor 55 / GTOW 55 lbs (24,9 kg) @MSL and a ceiling of 15.000 ft. Vapor 55 Helicopter UAV / Drone - Pulse Aerospace

 

[Brojon]

Don't be an idiot mate. It shouldn't be happening.
Those so called drone pilots are making things worse for everyone else

Incorrect. The media whipping people into a fear-induced frenzy is making things worse.

 

[sar104]

Ohh god post #45?? you are kidding right? reading that many posts that im sure must contain much of your dribble before the penny actually dropped? uhhu I don't thing so Holmes, Sar104 you would be better off admitting your ignorance in the first place, by not researching and reading the articles first, heaven forbid much better to just jump straight in sound knowledgable ( Burr! not!) full of yourself (ting! Right) and then when questioned (how dare I !) backpedal madly and have a swipe at me for actually reading the articles but NOT reading all your postulating rubbish to see if the penny had finally dropped with you, in closing nah i didnt read to post #45 and i still haven't oh no (Snap fingers) and i ain't going to boyfriend!

ahh so your a plagiarist as well old son! thats lifted straight from the article about the sighting man oh man your a peice of work

Impressive. So you didn’t read the article or the rest of the thread. That explains your confused attempt at commentary.

 

[Rogat19]

Incorrect. The media whipping people into a fear-induced frenzy is making things worse.

so right bloody media have a lot to answer for

 

[787steve]

Sar are you really an anti Droner ? disguised as an oh so impartial observer to reports of this dron or just playing Devils advocate? and in closing a couple of things, Simon baby our intrepid photographer has some serious camera gear that would have to be stowed for landing and ' 250KIASlso would be powerful enough to get a clear shot of said drone, and surprise suprise he runs a blog among other things, wonder how many extra hits he got on his web site from this little post? and last but not least the aircraft is nowhere near on final approach its probably around 6 or 7 thousand feet so probably rocking and rolling along at 300 to 400 miles an hour, 1 pretty amazing eyesight to spot a drone at those closing speeds plus a pretty amazing drone to be up at that height hanging around for a passing jet with a photog waiting to get a shot of it. my Verdict ? "FAKE NEWS" !!

FAA reg, below 10,000 thou shalt not exceed 250Kts. I have seen "FREED" kids helium balloons at higher speeds and altitudes.

 

[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.

Where is the info on the pilots history? I'd like to see that.