Stereodude
Not really a
At least you could stand under it and get a bit of a breeze. :rofl:Yeah, my buddy and I took a break to enjoy the 97F weather and fly around in the empty lot.
At least you could stand under it and get a bit of a breeze. :rofl:Yeah, my buddy and I took a break to enjoy the 97F weather and fly around in the empty lot.
It felt nice.
It's not that great without the humidity either.Heat with humidity is terrible unless you like sweat.
So basically it sounds like all I could legally do with a drone is fly it directly over my property during the daytime, and no higher than 400'. So much for having it follow me on a bike ride and other cool stuff like that. I also would want to be able to go way higher than 400', which should be legal if you're not near any glide paths.I took a quick skim of their regulations today no one would buy one of these drones if they intended to follow the regulations. You can't fly it indoors. You can't fly it out of line of sight (unaided). You can't fly it over 400ft. You can't fly it at night. You can't fly it over people outside who aren't part of your flying activity. You can't fly it if there is less than 3 mi visibility. etc...
What a joke...
To me, "97°F" and "enjoy" are mutually exclusive.Yeah, my buddy and I took a break to enjoy the 97F weather and fly around in the empty lot.
You can do a little bit more than that, but not much. You can fly it over public land presuming there's no other people there and it's not against the law for that public land and you're following all the other rules. It seems like most people just do what they want.So basically it sounds like all I could legally do with a drone is fly it directly over my property during the daytime, and no higher than 400'. So much for having it follow me on a bike ride and other cool stuff like that. I also would want to be able to go way higher than 400', which should be legal if you're not near any glide paths.
I'm not exactly sure, but I would tend to agree with your assessment. Maybe a LiPo battery getting ingested in a jet engine makes bad things happen.As an aside, do the smaller drones really present all that much of a danger to aircraft? I really think this problem is exaggerated. Aircraft hit birds all the time. They're designed to be able to strike objects of perhaps 10 pounds or less and keep on going without problems.
That's a feature not a bug to the people that run those regulatory agencies. If they can't figure out how to make money from it, they'll want to ban it. You don't want to put yourself out of a job. Doing things to increase your budget and size of your agency are seen as positives.But as usual, we're leaning in the direction of creating yet another regulatory nightmare.
You can do a little bit more than that, but not much. You can fly it over public land presuming there's no other people there and it's not against the law for that public land and you're following all the other rules. It seems like most people just do what they want.
I'm not exactly sure, but I would tend to agree with your assessment. Maybe a LiPo battery getting ingested in a jet engine makes bad things happen.
Yeah, when I watched it the first time, I was like, "Don't go in the metal box car. Your radio might cut out."I'm amazed the operator can get a good enough signal to control the drone even from inside a box car.
A bird is actually worse. It's denser overall, plus 100% of it is flammable. A large drone might destroy the turbines but a smaller one would probably just get ground up and spit out. Which brings me to the point that drones should be regulated proportional to their size/weight. Something weighing a few pounds is no more harmful than a bird. Something weighing tens or hundreds of pounds, like most of the commercial drones, should be regulated. Those can pose all sorts of dangers, especially in populated areas.A system should be developed to shoot down the drones if they stray from designated areas. I surely don't want to be flying when some drone gets sucked into the engine.
A bird is actually worse. It's denser overall, plus 100% of it is flammable. A large drone might destroy the turbines but a smaller one would probably just get ground up and spit out. Which brings me to the point that drones should be regulated proportional to their size/weight. Something weighing a few pounds is no more harmful than a bird. Something weighing tens or hundreds of pounds, like most of the commercial drones, should be regulated. Those can pose all sorts of dangers, especially in populated areas.
I still think there's a technological solution to this along the lines of an aircraft sends a signal which gets drones out of its flight path. That would keep idiots who enjoy buzzing helicopters from doing so.
A system should be developed to shoot down the drones if they stray from designated areas. I surely don't want to be flying when some drone gets sucked into the engine.
Do you dislike drones flying around entirely given you would prefer to shoot them down? What if the shot misses...it could end up killing someone with a stray bullet?
I agree that airports should be restricted for safety but suggesting they should be shot if they're not in designated areas is a bit much.
I am also interested to know about Mavic Pro 2. Thanks!
But is that actually significant? Is the Mooney M20 a good representation of a typical airplane wing? Is the DJI Phantom 2 a good representation of a typical drone an aircraft is likely to strike? Is the leading edge of an aircraft wing the most likely part of the plane to hit a drone?Story from Petapixel. This is What a Drone Strike Would Do to an Airplane.
The video is neat but I'm on board with a bit of skepticism that SD is showing by asking more questions. My first thought when seeing the video is how likely would such a direct hit be? Did they simulate the tests with actually wind blowing? My guess is no, and I might expect the drone to get pushed by through the turbulent wind making a direct hit like this very unlikely.
A second or two is fine. It was off by 25 seconds until I was able to find the old time setting. I connected it to the internet, but immediately MS wanted to D/L a bunch of stuff. I'll update the notebook in December when I have time to test it afterwards.
I share SD's skepticism. This demo is purely for dramatic reasons to get legislators to enact a stricter set of regulations than necessary. It's much like those idiotic demos of bike helmets teachers give using eggs. You're either using a situation highly unlikely to happen in the real world, and/or you're ignoring real-world physics (i.e. heads are closer to coconuts than eggs).The video is neat but I'm on board with a bit of skepticism that SD is showing by asking more questions. My first thought when seeing the video is how likely would such a direct hit be? Did they simulate the tests with actually wind blowing? My guess is no, and I might expect the drone to get pushed by through the turbulent wind making a direct hit like this very unlikely.
F*cking ignorant drone pilots.:-x
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...passengers-stranded-by-gatwick-airport-drones
Let me fix that for you.