Serious Belief
- Thread starter KEITH KUHN
- Start date
-
- Tags
- drone hobby
- Status
We understand that @Mrgs1 , @Mike Irish , and @Agustine and appreciate the support you do give those of us in the US.
Especially @Agustine with his fight from north of the border on the NPRM issue as well as the info he forwarded on the MCDO vs Genesee County Park Commission. My humble thanks brother! All of us Great Lakers need to stick together.
I sure hope we can all stay calm about this and see how it plays out. I agree we all needed to send our opinions to the FAA, and hopefully none of us said some of the things as stated here . Also we must think of the hundreds or maybe thousands of others that do read this forum. We want the support of as many "droners" as possible. Have we come across as a forum that others want to become a part of?I do hope so.There are several members on here that have helped tons of people whether "Yuneec" or otherwise,and I hope all are appreciative of this.We all need to keep on HELPING. Keith C.
How many collisions between our tiny drones and manned aircraft have actually been proved? Statically zero. Or is this related to delivery drone issues? Pat R, a few years ago, a manufacturer POH were an unnecessary item according to you. Now....you advocate for full GA certification standards applying to our tiny drones. The cost cost of that will be OUTRAGEOUS. Anyone advocating for FAA certification for our tiny drones has money to be made if that happens
PatR
Premium Pilot
A direct accusation gets a reply. Please post links to posts I’ve written to support your allegations.
As my working life included developing service procedures that had to be described in detailed service bulletins and manuals, and as I was a very large part of developing operating procedures that were applied to field operations and training programs, the concept of me opposing POH documentation is absolutely ludicrous. I’m a very firm believer in books and read voraciously, both recreationally and to increase knowledge and understanding. I believe others should do likewise.
I’ve been building my own aircraft for close to 50 years and the thought of doing so without any supportive documentation is insane. You don’t build at my level unless you learn and you don’t learn unless you review every bit of documentation you can.
The first multirotor I was ever involved with was a two operator system for commercial ops, a system I had to write an ops manual for (camera and aircraft) prior to handing it over to the operators. The first multirotor I built used a DJI controller, and without their build and ops documentation the task would have been extremely difficult to complete.
Simple systems like those flown in the living room don’t need an ops manual but as features and complexity increase so does the need for an ops document. The more detailed the better.
As for GA certification standards, I think you’re telling yourself something you want to hear. I’ve never made such a suggestion, although I have stated such requirements are likely in government planning stages.
I have most certainly campaigned for some minimum level of product certification as no standards means we can be delivered with any quality level, all the way down to none at all, that any manufacturer wants to provide. A minimum certification/performance standard is also important when we consider who buys and flies drones. A very large percentage of them are not tech savvy, don’t read instructions, have little to no interest in learning about makes their systems work. To insulate the rest of the world from their laziness and stupidity requires that manufacturers sell products with an assurance of correct functionality.
Questions:
How many hours should motors and ESC’s last?
What is the anticipate life cycle of a Yuneec, DJI, Autel, or Parrot battery?
How many hours should gimbal actuators function?
What are the min and max allowable temperatures inside the aircraft?
You don’t know because their are no published standards.
As my working life included developing service procedures that had to be described in detailed service bulletins and manuals, and as I was a very large part of developing operating procedures that were applied to field operations and training programs, the concept of me opposing POH documentation is absolutely ludicrous. I’m a very firm believer in books and read voraciously, both recreationally and to increase knowledge and understanding. I believe others should do likewise.
I’ve been building my own aircraft for close to 50 years and the thought of doing so without any supportive documentation is insane. You don’t build at my level unless you learn and you don’t learn unless you review every bit of documentation you can.
The first multirotor I was ever involved with was a two operator system for commercial ops, a system I had to write an ops manual for (camera and aircraft) prior to handing it over to the operators. The first multirotor I built used a DJI controller, and without their build and ops documentation the task would have been extremely difficult to complete.
Simple systems like those flown in the living room don’t need an ops manual but as features and complexity increase so does the need for an ops document. The more detailed the better.
As for GA certification standards, I think you’re telling yourself something you want to hear. I’ve never made such a suggestion, although I have stated such requirements are likely in government planning stages.
I have most certainly campaigned for some minimum level of product certification as no standards means we can be delivered with any quality level, all the way down to none at all, that any manufacturer wants to provide. A minimum certification/performance standard is also important when we consider who buys and flies drones. A very large percentage of them are not tech savvy, don’t read instructions, have little to no interest in learning about makes their systems work. To insulate the rest of the world from their laziness and stupidity requires that manufacturers sell products with an assurance of correct functionality.
Questions:
How many hours should motors and ESC’s last?
What is the anticipate life cycle of a Yuneec, DJI, Autel, or Parrot battery?
How many hours should gimbal actuators function?
What are the min and max allowable temperatures inside the aircraft?
You don’t know because their are no published standards.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 387
So for those of us who have lost the train of thought on this post (which would be me for sure) what is best positive conclusion? I'm up for this forum to post info that is helpful to all of us in safety, testing and the often excluded point of having fun flying drones.
I can from my perspective which is very limited state that I don't want the gov't FAA impeding my drone time. I think we can all figure out how to fly a drone without the gov't's involvement. The gov't's job is to intervene when we willfully or neglectfully harm other people, their property, the environment or their rights.
I don't think we need to be taxed, fined, fee'd or registered to death. Am I missing the point of this post?
I can from my perspective which is very limited state that I don't want the gov't FAA impeding my drone time. I think we can all figure out how to fly a drone without the gov't's involvement. The gov't's job is to intervene when we willfully or neglectfully harm other people, their property, the environment or their rights.
I don't think we need to be taxed, fined, fee'd or registered to death. Am I missing the point of this post?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 387
@Ty Pilot with respect don't you think the gov't always starts paving the roads with good intentions but then their best laid plans always turn into a feeding frenzy where us walking ATM's are targeted for more regs which begets more registration fees which begets more bureaucracy which requires more $ to hire more gov't workers?As per usual, the FAA has written yet another set of regulations that is so vague in some areas while being very matter of fact in others, and is of such reach and scope (not to mention length) that for many of us it is hard to get our heads around it.
Do I believe the 'hobby', as in RC in the traditional sense, is going to go away? NO.
Do I believe the RC hobby is going to change somewhat? YES
Do I believe that the 'hobby' as many multi-rotor 'drone' hobbyists understand it going to change? YES
Drastically? YES
Ended for the average Joe? That Depends on the average Joe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Feds intend to end the types of occurrences that we have been seeing since the dawn of the commercial drone. Keith, I am just speaking my mind and this is not directed at you rather it is an inward look at how many of us in the drone community think, I am just using your first sentence as an example. When you said:
'For those of us who
have common sense
and fly in a safe place'
I agree many of us know what a safe place is and I think most of us fly with common sense, but so do those people that do some of the most unsafe flying we've ever seen. Whether it is flying an Inspire into the Space needle, flying directly in the approach of a runway to capture footage of airliners landing and taking off or hovering over a road making a motorcycle cop swerve to miss it and on and on - they all had similar responses when questioned WHY?
They almost always felt they were not harming anyone and that they could perform those flights safely. In other words, they deemed the rules did not apply to them and that they could just self-administer themselves a waiver to do what they want.
The FAA now lumps me, you and the rest of us in with those types - as far as they are concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I going to let someone come up and confiscate my drone for flying? NO
But then again, I probably won't be flying where I'm not supposed to. And if being able to fly becomes so costly or requires pouring through red tape, then I will just fall back to flying at a designated site, but thats not here yet and we've got a lot of time to see how this thing unfolds.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 387
I'm assuming the exclusion of you was tongue in cheek. I still enjoy seeing you get riled up though. It never hurts to have a robust debate. I really really really hate the fact that gov't has injected itself into every aspect of our lives.
I think the guys that flew the drones into flight paths, or at cops etcetera knew it was wrong but like everything else in life they ignored common sense and decided to sway from the straight and narrow.
As always I mean no disrespect to anyone in my comments unless you intentionally piss in my oatmeal.
I think that all depends on where you are flying …. I am flying away from city centers and away from forbidden areas. And sincerly I think that the US police is not so good in relationships with citizens, they often have a bad approach (I was in the police for 10 years here in Italy) when I was approching people I always was gentle and polite and let me say that you have to speak with them explaining things based on rules and laws …. most videos I saw on YouTube are showing Police officers that just say "You can't fly here" often without any right to do that …. probably they are educated in a different way.
On the other side you often find drone pilots like this: Drone fall on an highway in Italy.
Here in Italy too you need a license and you need to register the drone via website.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I mentioned in another thread that RC will go on, but see many negatively impacted with regulatory changes in a few more years.
Today’s drones will end up grounded because most will not be adaptable to meet regulatory changes. The size and weight of compliance equipment, or the power consumption of that equipment, or both, will end up more than current consumer platforms can effectively handle. We also have the integration of incompatible software to deal with.
The cost of compliance will, IMO, be much higher than what the FAA suggested, both in the initial cost and recurring cost of subscription services. The NPRM provided no indication of fee limitations and if FAA certification approvals are required the cost of broadcast equipment will be 10X to 100X of what it could or should be.
RC aviation is an activity that has seen the cost to participate at “average” levels decrease significantly over the last 25 years. This has been due largely to the number of people that complained about “elitism”, which in turn provided the impetus for Chinese manufacturers to get involved with manufacturing and sales, driving costs down, allowing people with less disposable income to play. Implementation of the NPRM as written will quickly reverse cost trends, forcing the less financially capable out of the hobby.
Some might want to note I’ve never viewed (and still don’t) multirotor drones as an exciting form of RC aviation as for the most part they cater to “bottom feeders”, people that don’t really want to do or understand the act of flying themselves. But for an intelligent, inquisitive few it has provided ample stimulation to cause them to dig deeper in what allows them to work, along with what more could be done with them if they knew how. There’s a lot to be learned for those interested from a robotics perspective. Enough so that some would become engaged in further robotics education and research.
So some will still be able to play while many others won’t because of higher cost. From my perspective that’s a tragedy on an epic scale as RC aviation had been a fun way for many to discover, relatively cheaply, what they wanted to do for the rest of their lives while having a good time. It doesn’t get any better than to be well paid at a job where you’re having a good time. RC aviation has been a stepping stone allowing people to enter fields of engineering and enticing many to become full scale pilots. Occupations begging for the best and brightest to create so many new and wonderful things, and to fill the seats of airliners now starting to see thousands of their pilots retiring, not to mention the continued expansion of air carriers.
As for why this is happening, I see it as a combination of factors, with the unsafe recreational operators likely the least of them. Those have been relatively few compared to the number of participants. Most of the “bad guys” acted as they have out of ignorance, with just a few being deliberate. The ignorance is largely due to a toy cabal interested in maximizing the quick sale of their products with no thoughts given to the long term benefit of educating their buyers in safe operating practices, which in turn would have benefitted the toy makers by minimizing the introduction of reactionary regulations, extending the period they would continue selling product. Had the media not been provided with activities that could, and has been used to instill fear in the general public it would have been much more difficult for corporate interests, including DJI, to introduce legislation intended to restrict the recreational operators to the benefit of corporate interests.
Sorry if some of the above wandered a bit. Keith’s original post contained questions that require complex answers. Questions that to be effectively addressed require a book to lay out.
Today’s drones will end up grounded because most will not be adaptable to meet regulatory changes. The size and weight of compliance equipment, or the power consumption of that equipment, or both, will end up more than current consumer platforms can effectively handle. We also have the integration of incompatible software to deal with.
The cost of compliance will, IMO, be much higher than what the FAA suggested, both in the initial cost and recurring cost of subscription services. The NPRM provided no indication of fee limitations and if FAA certification approvals are required the cost of broadcast equipment will be 10X to 100X of what it could or should be.
RC aviation is an activity that has seen the cost to participate at “average” levels decrease significantly over the last 25 years. This has been due largely to the number of people that complained about “elitism”, which in turn provided the impetus for Chinese manufacturers to get involved with manufacturing and sales, driving costs down, allowing people with less disposable income to play. Implementation of the NPRM as written will quickly reverse cost trends, forcing the less financially capable out of the hobby.
Some might want to note I’ve never viewed (and still don’t) multirotor drones as an exciting form of RC aviation as for the most part they cater to “bottom feeders”, people that don’t really want to do or understand the act of flying themselves. But for an intelligent, inquisitive few it has provided ample stimulation to cause them to dig deeper in what allows them to work, along with what more could be done with them if they knew how. There’s a lot to be learned for those interested from a robotics perspective. Enough so that some would become engaged in further robotics education and research.
So some will still be able to play while many others won’t because of higher cost. From my perspective that’s a tragedy on an epic scale as RC aviation had been a fun way for many to discover, relatively cheaply, what they wanted to do for the rest of their lives while having a good time. It doesn’t get any better than to be well paid at a job where you’re having a good time. RC aviation has been a stepping stone allowing people to enter fields of engineering and enticing many to become full scale pilots. Occupations begging for the best and brightest to create so many new and wonderful things, and to fill the seats of airliners now starting to see thousands of their pilots retiring, not to mention the continued expansion of air carriers.
As for why this is happening, I see it as a combination of factors, with the unsafe recreational operators likely the least of them. Those have been relatively few compared to the number of participants. Most of the “bad guys” acted as they have out of ignorance, with just a few being deliberate. The ignorance is largely due to a toy cabal interested in maximizing the quick sale of their products with no thoughts given to the long term benefit of educating their buyers in safe operating practices, which in turn would have benefitted the toy makers by minimizing the introduction of reactionary regulations, extending the period they would continue selling product. Had the media not been provided with activities that could, and has been used to instill fear in the general public it would have been much more difficult for corporate interests, including DJI, to introduce legislation intended to restrict the recreational operators to the benefit of corporate interests.
Sorry if some of the above wandered a bit. Keith’s original post contained questions that require complex answers. Questions that to be effectively addressed require a book to lay out.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,001
- Reaction score
- 3,196
- Location
- Central Florida
- Website
- copperdawg.com
Good points all Pat but in particular what you said about RC and model aviation in general I couldn't agree more with. Neil Armstrong was quoted as saying it was model aviation that led him to a career in the military as a pilot and later to become the first American astronaut to stand on the moon. The 'right stuff' it seems; had some roots in model aviation.
I just saw a post speaking about DJI saying that FAA solution of transmitting the drone identification data is too expensive (about $ 9 a month); DJI is trying to push its phone app … that seems bad to me too.
I think the best solution is a proposal here in Italy about having a transponder on the drone with a temporary ID and only authority can link this ID to the pilot and drone data;
other people will only see the temporary ID and the reason of the fly (like fun, video recording, phototelemetry etc.…).
I don't think that other people have to know where you are or who you are.
A solution like that is not giving away "ultra"information and in the same time permits to general people to defend their rights if they have any.
I think the best solution is a proposal here in Italy about having a transponder on the drone with a temporary ID and only authority can link this ID to the pilot and drone data;
other people will only see the temporary ID and the reason of the fly (like fun, video recording, phototelemetry etc.…).
I don't think that other people have to know where you are or who you are.
A solution like that is not giving away "ultra"information and in the same time permits to general people to defend their rights if they have any.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,001
- Reaction score
- 3,196
- Location
- Central Florida
- Website
- copperdawg.com
If your talking about DJI's March 3rd press release, the did not say the cost was nine dollars, they said the 'cost' would be nine times higher than the FAA's estimate.
mavicpilots.com
Here we go Remote ID Cost
Analysis Puts Remote ID for Drones Costs 9X Higher than FAA Estimate: DJI Urges FAA to Reconsider Posted By: Miriam McNabbon: March 03, 2020 image public domain The comment period for the Remote ID for Drones NPRM closed yesterday. There were more than 50,000 comments posted on the NPRM...
mavicpilots.com
Lol....here they are speaking in a different way ... DJI, costa troppo l'identificazione elettronica del drone prevista dalla FAAIf your talking about DJI's March 3rd press release, the did not say the cost was nine dollars, they said the 'cost' would be nine times higher than the FAA's estimate.
Here we go Remote ID Cost
Analysis Puts Remote ID for Drones Costs 9X Higher than FAA Estimate: DJI Urges FAA to Reconsider Posted By: Miriam McNabbon: March 03, 2020 image public domain The comment period for the Remote ID for Drones NPRM closed yesterday. There were more than 50,000 comments posted on the NPRM...
PatR
Premium Pilot
They (DJI) failed to mention the push towards the broadcast solution was largely their doing. For DJI, remote ID is a self serving piece of legislation as it provides the profit needed to drive their data acquisition, sharing, cloud computing, platform tracking, and anti drone surveillance programs. Programs I surmise will be, in great part, replacing their drone manufacturing activities. Pure bait and switch but on a grand scale.
The only problem is they are based on platforms they are, through their own lobbying, forcing out of the sky, ending up with progressively smaller returns. The high end players have far greater FAA influence than DJI does.
The only problem is they are based on platforms they are, through their own lobbying, forcing out of the sky, ending up with progressively smaller returns. The high end players have far greater FAA influence than DJI does.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Good points all Pat but in particular what you said about RC and model aviation in general I couldn't agree more with. Neil Armstrong was quoted as saying it was model aviation that led him to a career in the military as a pilot and later to become the first American astronaut to stand on the moon. The 'right stuff' it seems; had some roots in model aviation.
Similar occurred with me. Because of RC I became interested in full scale and obtained ratings. One day I came across an ad seeking people with the ability to fly giant scale RC airplanes, licensed pilots preferred. Responding to the ad introduced me to military UAV’s and an extremely well compensated, very satisfying career.
Had it not been for RC it could not have happened.
Drones and RC airplanes still play large in corporate sponsored STEM programs as s multi-facet means of generating interest. How RID will impact that is anyone’s guess.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I saw it more as being lucky, in the right place at the right time, and scared, but willing, to take a chance.
- Status
Similar threads
