ClearedHot Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) http://www.wired.com...drone-grounded/ The state of Hawaii spent $75,000 to purchase a drone to conduct aerial surveillance over Honolulu Harbor, but the aircraft has been sitting in storage since it was delivered last year because authorities have been prohibited from flying it. http://bcove.me/ew8gzx1y Edited April 11, 2012 by ClearedHot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I was going to say since it's so small just keep it in class G and fly low. But then I looked at the chart and saw class C is surface to 090 all around the harbor. Woops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxhead Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The FAA is f-ing retarded when it comes to RPAs. I can appreciate the need for some RPA specific concerns, but I swear they sit around and watch Terminator and drink when they make their decisions. It's like there are no incursions/Near-Hits/TCAS advisories/crashes/Class-As....now with manned aircraft. The FAA needs to at least have some RPS-smart folks in the decision tree to be told to shut up and color...not just make decisions based off their gut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepileit Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Many seem to miss the fact that in VMC, see and avoid is always the rule. IFR and ATC are just there to help you, like TCAS. Cloud clearance rules are the bare minimum under most circumstances under VFR, for instance. Visibility of 3 miles when you are near-scud running obviously cuts into see and avoid even at J-3 cub speeds. RPAs do not have the field of view of a human, for now. They may have GREAT FLIR/sensors/cameras- but you cannot tell me they see everything a "competent" VMC pilot next to them sees second to second. Yes, even a J-3 cub may have a pilot staring too often at their chart/GPS/IPad/cell phone- but they are still liable to see and avoid. They may not have a transponder- so TCAS/Sensors are no help to the RPA. When there is a mid-air collision- the NTSB tries to figure out how long each aircraft should have been able to see the other. Unless you can shift the entire basic doctrine away from see and avoid, you have to understand how much an RPA operator cannot see. I predict more areas where RPAs can operate and local pilots will have agreements through the FSDO, maybe just a beefed up MOA rather than restricted airspace. If folks will be smart, they can co-exist and keep the RPA industry happy. Typically, that isn't the case when it comes to more written rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The FAA needs to at least have some RPS-smart folks in the decision tree to be told to shut up and color...not just make decisions based off their gut. Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJDRVR Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 (edited) They have no place in US airspace. I don't want to share the skies when I go to work nor do I want to be the only one seeing and avoiding when flying my transponderless airplane. I do not want my life or property threatened by control of the RPA being lost. Mere words cannot begin to express my disdain for these abhorrent pieces of crap. Edited April 12, 2012 by LJDRVR 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 They have no place in US airspace. I don't want to share the skies when I go to work nor do I want to be the only one seeing and avoiding when flying my transponderless airplane. I do not want my life or property threatened by control of the RPA being lost. Mere words cannot begin to express my disdain for these abhorrent pieces of crap. Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 F drones 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoHum Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I gotta feeling that (eventually) this drone business will force the requirement of transponders for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I have some feelings on this too, I live in America's largest metropolitan area and every two-bit business and law enforcement agency wants one of these, and I don't see it working out well for the flying public, or the people below them when the wreckage inevitably rains down. In this case - not surprising in the least that the state of Hawaii would piss away that amount of money on a half-cooked idea, without doing any research or seeking any approval. Oh and trying to operate something this finicky on short final for the region's largest airport and military air base? Yeah bad fucking idea. Not surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 In this case - not surprising in the least that the state of Hawaii would piss away that amount of money on a half-cooked idea, without doing any research or seeking any approval. Are you talking about birth certificates or drones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel! :-) Spend the majority of your time at around 2500 AGL and you'd understand the sentiment. ###### drones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now