Sure glad we have good people out in West Texas not afraid to stand up to this BS!!!

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/texass ... heating-up

I haven't really weighed in on the other threads in this topic (how many do we need?) but I have a few thoughts.

I get it that as pilots we're opposed to drones, for a variety of reasons, safety of our flights being reason #1. I'd say #2 is just a general opposition to disposable aerial surveillance and the capacity to fill the skies.

The increase in popularity of the hobbyist variety kinda clouds the issue too. Those DJI units are selling like crazy, this article even used a photo of one as the lead photo. Radio control airplanes and helis have been popular for decades but nothing like this. These quadcopters are retardedly easy to fly and you can put your GoPro on them-- overlapping hobbies. I kinda take issue with calling these drones because they barely compare to the government variety.

A friend who's into RC told me the other day that, contrary to common belief, there's no FAA reg for ceiling on RC ops. It's an AMA (modelers) limit. 400 AGL? With these 5ghz FPV goggle systems you could easily exceed that as a weekend warrior for under $1000.

What I fear is coming regulation on radio control flying because of this surge. The upside would be increased safety for us barnstormers, the downside is increased regulation of yet another thing.

Luke (and all others concerned),

It's time to join this fight to the American Sportsmen. With the advent of PETA (haters of all hunters and fisherman) using drones to harass hunters:
http://www.peta.org/blog/hunters-watch-out-petas-drones-are-flying/

We can draw on Dallas Safari Club support here in Texas, and nationally Safari Club International (SCI), Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Wild Sheep Foundation. The NRA may be an ally as well.

I'm a founder and past president of the Austin chapter of SCI so I'll contact SCI. The Cabela's are SCI members so we might get them on board as well.

On the fishing side B.A.S.S. should be our strongest ally. PETA has been trying to shut down B.A.S.S. for a long time. Although most of the guys I fished with on the tournament circuit have retired, we all still have industry connections so I'll start there. I would expect Bass Pro Shops to join in the fight.

I have no connection with the other organizations mentioned so if someone else does please contact them.

We delayed the BMI overreach, whose ultimate outcome might be the near elimination of the Class 3 medical. We can put a stop to this as well - but our voices have to be heard.

It is not only the AMA. There is AC 91.57, granted not regulation but almost becomes regulation when government agencies and those wanting liability protection agree to follow the AC since its out there, like the BLM and some of the pro UAS companies/schools. For Q & As on commercial ops check http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn4

I think aerial hunting of drones would be a great sport. Pull the door off or open, Load the shotgun and have fun!

Resky wrote:It is not only the AMA. There is AC 91.57, granted not regulation but almost becomes regulation when government agencies and those wanting liability protection agree to follow the AC since its out there, like the BLM and some of the pro UAS companies/schools. For Q & As on commercial ops check http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn4

Good info, thanks Resky.

jugheadF15 wrote:I think aerial hunting of drones would be a great sport. Pull the door off or open, Load the shotgun and have fun!

I like the end of this video

It's a hot topic in Idaho too:

Leif Isaacson, of Terreton, Idaho, is the new president of the National Agricultural Aviation Association.

TERRETON, Idaho — Leif Isaacson sees potential for unmanned aircraft, commonly called drones, to help aerial applicators measure windspeed and weather conditions above fields — scouting work his business now conducts with a helicopter.

But as the National Agricultural Aviation Association’s new president, he’s more concerned that broader use of the technology — both in agriculture and commercially — could pose a safety hazard for his members.

Isaacson is scheduled to meet soon with the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss the creation of regulations to minimize the risk of agricultural pilots colliding with drones, among other topics of importance to his industry.

Isaacson said drones could be made safer by tracking their coordinates on a central database, fitting them with strobe lights or equipping them with transponders that would send an alert to aerial applicators’ cockpits.

“It’s almost impossible for a pilot, or guys going out on emergency services, to spot a drone out there,” Isaacson said.

Isaacson, who was sworn in for a year-long term as NAAA president during his association’s January convention in Reno., Nev., became an agricultural pilot in 1974 and bought Desert Air Ag in eastern Idaho in 1986.

“He’s established himself as quite good in the profession, but he’s also held just about every position in the Idaho Aviation Association and our own national association,” said NAAA Executive Director Andrew Moore.

Another safety priority for Isaacson is the passage of national standards requiring all towers above 50 feet tall to be specially painted and marked with bright balls on their guy wires to make them more visible to pilots who fly at low altitudes. He’d also like those towers to be included on aeronautical charts. Current federal law only requires marking of towers above 200 feet tall.

In the mean time, his organization urges FAA to address tower safety by publishing circulars detailing existing but little-known recommendations the agency has for marking meteorological towers.

Other priorities for Isaacson include lobbying federal regulators to take wind conditions into account when setting labels for farm chemical applications and backing legislation to reform National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

NAAA and other agricultural groups failed in their efforts to include language in the new farm bill eliminating NPDES permits, imposed due to a 2009 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling for spraying that could reach waterways. Isaacson views the permits as unnecessary paperwork.

In addition to working with NAAA’s committees and meeting with federal lawmakers and FAA officials, Isaacson will travel throughout the winter to different states to update members about the national organization’s efforts.

“I think I’ve been home eight days in the last 10-12 weeks,” Isaacson said.

Isaacson has worked for several years providing safety training for agricultural pilots through the Professional Aerial Application Support System. The PASS program, started in 1998, has helped to reduce agricultural aviation accidents by 22 percent and drift instances by 26 percent since its passage, according to Moore.

Moore said NAAA, which represents 1,900 members, has also prioritized recruiting new pilots to the industry, given that the average pilot is in his mid-50s.


- See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/201 ... tVHLe.dpuf

There was a lot of passionate reaction to UAS among the aviators in ND too. But that was several years ago. I don't hear nearly as much negative talk about it anymore. In fact a number of people that were probably the most resistant when this hit the stage in ND several years ago have become soft advocates for UAS. To the credit of many people, it was handled well among the alphabet aviation groups in ND. I plan to have an R&D project operating in the ND test site by this summer.

Personally, I'm a bit of a skeptic and think the benefits that will be derived from UAS are a little overstated particularly as they exist in the minds of UAS proponents that lack an aviation background. Of course that's just an opinion. But what fun to do something cool and new for aviation. I actually enjoy exploring the technology in the sensors more than the little flying machines. We've looking at ground penetrating radar, LiDAR scanning, thermal imaging, etc. Fun stuff for techy types.

Another nail in the coffin of uncontrolled airspace.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2014/09/12/drones-get-more-space-to-roam-over-south-texas-faa-approves-extended-range/

I rue the day the first light aircraft is knocked out of the sky with loss of life by one of these little menaces. The lawyers will have a field day and we will all pay the price with our insurance premiums becoming prohibitively expensive for our recreational type of flying. I see these drones as the first step in eliminating our freedom to fly.

I have no problem calling open season on all of these privacy violating constitution shreaders.

I see a couple of problems with the current push for drones in the national airspace:

1. Virtually every task I'm seeing these things proposed for has been, is and will continue to be easily and economically performed by manned aircraft. And CHEAPER. One example: A Russian icebreaker was brought in to open a sea lane to Nome, AK a couple winters ago. A drone was shipped in to scan for thin ice for the icebreaker. The drone was out there for several days. The logic put out to the media was that this was a task too dangerous to risk pilots in manned aircraft. What a joke. All the while, there were manned aircraft, both single and twin engine, that could have easily performed that task, for less money.

2. Many, if not most of the proponents of drone use in the NAS seem to believe that they will be able to order a drone from a supplier, and start flying it in the NAS with little or no training. These are folks who don't want to be bothered by all that pesky effort that would be required for them to become pilots. That's not going to happen, I believe. There's going to have to be a training program specific to these things, and it's going to have to involve testing to FAA standards. That'll piss off a lot of the drone crowd, of course, which leads to:

3. The drone movement (for lack of a better term) has a LOT of money behind it. Bear in mind that the CONGRESS has ordered the FAA to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System by 2015. The drone movement has bought and paid for a LOT of OUR elected representatives. How much yank do you suppose that general aviation is going to have with those elected representatives?

4. The FAA has struggled for years with implementing "Next Gen", the supposed next generation of management of aircraft in the NAS. This was the reason for the development of ADS-B, and the reason for the FAA rule requiring installation of ADS-B out in all aircraft using certain airspace by 2020. Why does this matter in this drone discussion? Because one of the sticking points for integrating drones with manned aircraft in the same airspace is how to avoid mid air collisions. See and avoid isn't going to work, since drones have limited capability to "see". So, "Sense and Avoid" is the new mechanism that is being bandied about. And, the FAA has just the system to make that work: ADS-B. Requiring that type equipment in all aircraft in the NAS, as well as all drones will greatly enhance the FAA's transition to the Next Gen system. It will also greatly increase the cost, size and complexity of drones. It will also ground a lot of little airplanes, because the equipment is and will be for some time, very expensive, and since much of the drone activity is going to be in the lowest part of our airspace, EVERY airplane will have to be ADS-B equipped to make this work.

5. So, where does that leave someone with a small airplane, barely getting by cost wise? Grounded, and probably stuck with an airplane that can't practically be operated. What about a no electric aircraft? Again, I suppose if they develop some kind of system that's cheap enough (RIGHT!) and low current draw, one could put an ADS-B system in a no electric plane. Maybe.

6. I spoke to a couple of avionics companies about 406 ELTs, asking why someone doesn't develop a solid state, reliable activation switch for ELTs, to replace the unreliable "ball bearing in a tube" switches they all now use. Their answer was that to certificate such a switch would cost well into the millions.......So for those who argue that ADS-B technology is going to become inexpensive for certificated aircraft......good luck. And, I'm betting that a portable unit isn't going to make it to meet that "sense and avoid" standard. Maybe.

It's a very complex, multi faceted issue, and I for one see no simple resolution. I do see a very strong potential for GA getting run over by the big bucks pushing for drone use of the NAS.

MTV

Since it is OUR airspace (we pay for it!!!), why don't we demand the drone manufacturers pay for everybody to have ADS-B for EVERY aircraft out there? They have the financial backing, let's stick it to THEM!!

flynbeekeeper wrote:Since it is OUR airspace (we pay for it!!!), why don't we demand the drone manufacturers pay for everybody to have ADS-B for EVERY aircraft out there? They have the financial backing, let's stick it to THEM!!

Simple, Because they OWN our Congressional representation. You said they have the money......all they have to do is spread it around the halls of Congress.

MTV