Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: GA according to Amazon

  1. #1
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like

    GA according to Amazon

    Here is what the future looks like. This is from today's Wall Street Journal.

    "...Amazon’s plan proposes a no-fly zone between 400 feet and 500 feet to create a buffer between unmanned and manned aviation. Airplanes would be restricted to above 500 feet, while the area below 400 feet would be split into two sections. Drones equipped with collision-avoidance technology and reliable links to the traffic-management system would be able to fly in the high-speed zone between 200 feet and 400 feet. Other drones, including $500 consumer drones and devices being used for surveying or video, would be restricted to the “low-speed localized traffic” zone below 200 feet."
    Phil Whittemore

  2. #2
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Good thing no one flys that low.

  3. #3
    Iflylower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    They are dreaming and trying to co-opt airspace.

    They should try harder to be creative on electronic avoidance, pathways over congested suburban areas, no-go zones...etc.

    I can see where these drones would be programmed never to enter or cross FAA airports. How would these drones avoid aircraft departing/arriving climbing through 500' from private airports?

    One more thing....
    How about a real proof of network concept before the airspace grab? Unfortunately, these companies have piles of cash to burn on elected representatives.
    Last edited by Iflylower; 07-28-2015 at 04:46 PM. Reason: One more thing....

  4. #4
    little wing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    340
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by RaisedByWolves View Post
    Good thing no one flys that low.
    Don't you mean that high?

  5. #5
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    I can see a version of Amazon's proposal easily becoming law, and expect it will. The altitude restrictions will cover the entire US, it has to, "leveling the playing field for all" will require it. It's a no brainer for the FAA really. Amazon did their research and thought this through, gotta give them credit, and it's so simplistic.


    First, we already aren't allowed to fly below 500 feet unless we are landing or taking off, I expect the FAA will enforce this so it applies to actual airports or legitimate turf strips. We fly below 500 feet anywhere else and we will be subject to fines, license suspension, and revocation. That will be easy to enforce thanks to ADS-B which will become a requirement for all aircraft (and drones) under all circumstances.


    Airports with IFR approaches, there is how they'll determine where the drone airspace begins and ends around airports. Easy enough to extrapolate that to every other airport and strip.


    Any opposition? Non that has any influence. The airlines and their unions will applaud this, GA will have no objection since no new GA rules will need be created, and most importantly it speaks to the drone threat. I think of the 125+ pilots at my airport, I'm the only one that will be affected, the others will have no objections, quite the contrary I'm sure.


    And in case you missed the news, Google is launching a major drone initiative. Combine Google, Amazon, and the Drone Industry and I see no way to stop this, there simply aren't enough of us to matter.


    I predict the rules go into affect by 2020, when ADS-B becomes required for most. By 2030 at the latest, probably 2025, the remaining aircraft will be required to be ADS-B compliant.


    Sure wish I saw it differently. And I hope I'm wrong. But what are the odds.

    **************
    Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
    (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
    (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
    (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
    (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph(b)or(c)of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator
    ***********************
    Phil Whittemore

  6. #6
    FdxLou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Atlanta Ga. 6ga0 Stoney Point Airfield
    Posts
    1,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    Phil
    That's a real buzz kill.

    Lou

  7. #7
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FdxLou View Post
    Phil
    That's a real buzz kill.

    Lou
    Yea, sorry.
    Phil Whittemore

  8. #8
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    9,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mossberg 12ga auto with 10 round tube on each jury strut and open the season.

    Glenn

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Elizabeth, WV
    Posts
    520
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well the police can park their helicopters and get on the drone wagon to chase crooks around town. But I guess we can forget about a MedeVac dodging the drones to haul out a victim. Pizza delivery takes precedence over a heart attack. jrh
    You can't get there from here. You have to go over yonder and start from there.

  10. #10
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,770
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's all in how you interpret it. We fly Cubs and only need a few hundred feet of that sparsely populated fields. Or rivers. Heck I take off and land all over the place. So how is this going to work? When you're flying your cub type airplane with no transponder (remember sparsely populated, no airspace around) and someone has a mid air with one and crashes, now what? How is this a good idea? What about all the ag planes flying around low? I see them and avoid them. How is a drone going to see and avoid aircraft with out transponders?

  11. #11
    behindpropellers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,689
    Post Thanks / Like
    Simple. Strap a drone with their adsb unit on your cub.

  12. #12
    cubdriver2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    upstate NY
    Posts
    9,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    The old Griffiss SAC AFB is 40 miles from me and won a 4 billion $ drone testing contract. Should be interesting

    Glenn

  13. #13
    RaisedByWolves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    Mossberg 12ga auto with 10 round tube on each jury strut and open the season.

    Glenn
    Don't tell my dad that. He came close to hitting one over down town boston. He was talking to the controllers. The drone was not. 1200ft agl

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois & Wisconsin
    Posts
    600
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't believe it will ever be allowed to happen.

    Right now Amazon pays FedEx, UPS, and the post office lots of postage to deliver their stuff and they are looking for a way to save that money.

    FedEx and UPS ships an estimated 6 billion packages per year. Assuming Amazon clears the way to drone delivery, it would not be unreasonable to assume that FedEx, UPS, and even the USPS will get in on that delivery method in order to stay competitive.

    Do you really think Americans, or any other non-hearing impaired human being, will tolerate hundreds or thousands of drones flying overhead each day? Imagine the impact on the people in the flight path between the distribution center and frequent drop off sites. Remember, each package will require a flight from and to the distribution center. The skies will be full of them 24/7. Note: The Guardian's video clip had the volume turned way down so it appeared that the drone was whisper quite--NOT!!! And Note, too, the proposed rule doesn't say anything about what time in the morning the aerial assault can start or when at night it ends.

    And how do they propose law enforcement will be able to distinguish a weaponized drone from one that isn't? I'm actually quite surprised that ISIS and/or any other terrorist group hasn't figured out how to drone deliver a grenade or a 10 pound package of C-4 into a crowded market. Didn't they see the video of the kid who rigged the 9mm to his drone?

    Too many hurtles, I think, at least for now.

  15. #15
    CamTom12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnstormer View Post
    (c) ...In those cases(over open water or sparsely populated areas), the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
    We just need some sparsely populated areas. Or open waters. Totally legal there as long as it's 500 ft from "the big 4," people, vessels, vehicles, or structures.

    I can't imagine anyone on here flies that low over populated areas.

    That makes me feel like the regs are protecting us here, but you've got a great point about big money and the pull it can have.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    No ads-b out will be required under 10,000' MSL or to 2500' above the surface in Class E airspace. I don't guess drones will dominate rural airspace.

    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx..._1225&rgn=div8
    Last edited by stewartb; 07-29-2015 at 12:11 AM.

  17. #17
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    This whole drone integration into the air space system is a lot further along then I realized, especially in Europe.


    Going down all the different rabbit holes I found on the InterWeb I stumbled across "NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGULATORY EVALUATION Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 14 CFR Part 107", a document produced by the FAA earlier this year.


    I've uploaded a copy of this document here:


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqnamgu06s...t_107.pdf?dl=0


    It doesn't provide answers to all our questions but certainly provides insight as to what the FAA is currently thinking and proposing.
    Phil Whittemore

  18. #18
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnstormer View Post
    First, we already aren't allowed to fly below 500 feet unless we are landing or taking off, I expect the FAA will enforce this so it applies to actual airports or legitimate turf strips. We fly below 500 feet anywhere else and we will be subject to fines, license suspension, and revocation. That will be easy to enforce thanks to ADS-B which will become a requirement for all aircraft (and drones) under all circumstances.

    **************
    Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
    (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
    (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
    (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
    (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph(b)or(c)of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator
    ***********************
    actually, Phil, there is nothing in that regulation which precludes us from operating below 500 feet. Note the verbiage under "anywhere". In fact we can legally fly our aircraft at one foot agl throughout most of the country, AS LONG AS we don't create undue hazard to persons or property on the ground, and we don't operate within 500 feet of people and property on the ground.

    Nothing there says or even suggests that we have to fly above 500 feet, only that we have to remain clear of people and property......except when NECESSARY for landing or takeoff. It's important to recognize the term "necessary" there, because this reg has been enforced on pilots who knowingly took off close to people when other alternatives were a available....these were in the off airport environment.

    To take this to the next level, sprayers are permitted to operate closer to people and property while working when necessary.

    And, consider this: Why would the FAA permit drones to operate closer than 500 feet to people or property on the surface? A 55 pound drone will leave a mark on a human, I'd guess.

    MTV

  19. #19
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    For sure Mike. I included the reg reference after I had already posted my comments, guess I should have edited my comments as well. Thanks for keeping me honest.

    Reading the FAA document I'm slightly encouraged from the standpoint that, at least for commercial drones, they (FAA) plan on requiring operators be licensed and receive recurrent training, and the drones be registered. That will at least slow down the proliferation for a while. Still leaves recreational users "on the honor system", time will tell how well that works out.

    On an unrelated note (at least I thought) Amazon, through their Amazon Prime membership, is providing 2 hour and 1 hour (extra fee) grocery pickup and delivery, at least here in Austin. My youngest daughter took advantage of it a month or so ago. Amazon evens offers real time tracking of the delivery. In light of Amazon's recent drone announcement I can see where this delivery service might be both a proof-of-concept and a stepping stone to future drone delivery.

    More rabbit hole diving revealed that Google is doing a lot of their drone delivery research in Australia.

    Interesting times in Aviation. Believe I will check in with AOPA and EAA to see if they've dedicated any resources to keeping abreast of this issue.
    Phil Whittemore

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnstormer View Post
    This whole drone integration into the air space system is a lot further along then I realized
    Since you split time in Texas and Alaska you're closer to them than most. The University of Alaska and Texas A&M are both chosen participants in drone development in the US. UofA has demonstrated their usefulness in Nome and on the Arctic Coast and I believe continues to operate them over the Arctic Ocean. I haven't paid attention to what the Texas guys are doing but I'll be sure to ask.

    http://acuasi.alaska.edu

    Within that link is this link that includes a winter SAR exercise. http://acuasi.alaska.edu/missions
    Last edited by stewartb; 07-29-2015 at 12:55 PM.

  21. #21
    mvivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bozeman,MT
    Posts
    10,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    I posted this link earlier....a pretty realistic looking drone collision with an airliner. Phil (Barnstormer) pointed out to me that it's a fake.....and it is. At the end of the video, you can see the creator's web link on the winglet, instead of Southwest's, which this was obviously made to resemble.

    Some folks have more free time than they know what to do with....but they're creative.

    Video of drone hitting a Boeing winglet..... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1435080329

    MTV
    Last edited by mvivion; 07-29-2015 at 03:07 PM.

  22. #22
    WhiskeyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Boxford MA
    Posts
    873
    Post Thanks / Like
    What about banner tow routes in LA and NJ/NY where there are 50 planes going up and down the coast daily in summer?? At 500 and below. this just plain BAD and DANGEROUS all round. You've got fools flying drones and trained professionals flying planes.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Decatur, Texas
    Posts
    48
    Post Thanks / Like
    I must insist that the drone operator pass at least a 3rd class physical. If we have to, so should they. My goodness, what if that drone operator had a heartache. It could kill us all!!

  24. #24
    marcusofcotton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cotton, MN
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by st8cop166 View Post
    ...what if that drone operator had a heartache. It could kill us all!!
    Country Western song in the making???
    Practicing open cockpit extremism

  25. #25
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    for commercial purpose, a second class would be more appropriate.

    Keep the shot gun handy, and kill them all!
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

  26. #26
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    I bet I know someone who can build a signal jammer. They can fall out of the sky like dead buggs. Might make a sport of hitting them after installing some stainless leading edge covers like they used when flying into storm clouds years ago.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,722
    Post Thanks / Like
    Out here, we have drones flying in fire TFRs. One drone sighting stops all air attack aircraft from entering the fire zone, or TFR, or whatever it is called. But note the drone encounter in Boston above - did you hear of any scheduled airliner stoppage due to that drone?

    The whole thing is kind of fuzzy right now, but I would not be surprised if, in 20 years, all flights in and around any metropolitan area will be rigidly controlled, as if they were in class Bravo. I will probably dump the Super D in 2020, and continue to fly the Cub for ten more years, but then I shall be 90, and my ancestors have not lived past that point.

    It does seem anomalous that drones and helicopters can operate below 500 feet and closer to persons/ property, but we don't make the regs - an administrative agency does. A number of things done that way don't make sense, although the idea of Federal Register exposure can help.

  28. #28
    PerryB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern Calif.
    Posts
    1,797
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdriver2 View Post
    Mossberg 12ga auto with 10 round tube on each jury strut and open the season.

    Glenn
    Damn straight!
    After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says WTF !

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maynard,MA
    Posts
    1,219
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder if Don Sheldon did this with a 337.Too bad it was not multiple STC
    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/ne...photo/50775765

    Bill

  30. #30
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    I reached out to both the EAA and AOPA regarding Amazon's announcement in particular and my concerns about being "out of the loop", and asked them whether or not they were part of the conversation between the FAA, UAS ARC, and the AUVSI.

    Just heard back from the EAA. Here is there response to my comments (and a copy of what they sent the FAA):

    Hello,

    I have attached our comments to the FAA NPRM on small UAS. We want to make clear that our priority is maintaining the freedom of navigation and safety of manned aircraft in the NAS through this change. EAA was also one of the first supporters of the AUVSI/AMA “Know Before You Fly Campaign.” This article shows that Amazon is clearly not familiar with the complicated nature of the NAS and the prevalence of ultralights, LSAs, hangliders, and many other aircraft in the airspace they wish to “own” for autonomous unmanned aircraft operations. EAA supports the NPRM’s provision for line-of-sight only operations, among other parts of the NPRM. I invite you to read our comments and welcome any feedback you have.

    Regards,

    Mackenzie "Mack" Dickson, EAA #1096940
    Government Advocacy Specialist
    EAA—The Spirit of Aviation


    U.S. Department of Transportation
    Docket Operations
    1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room, W12-140
    Washington, DC 20590-0001

    To Whom it May Concern,

    The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an international membership of more than 180,000 people in over 100 nations, EAA brings together pilots, aircraft builders, owners, and aviation enthusiasts who are dedicated to sharing the Spirit of Aviation by promoting the continued growth of aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to its future.

    EAA is commenting on the FAA’s proposed policy regarding operation and certification of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS), contained in federal docket FAA-2015-0150 and published in the Federal Register as number 2015-03544.

    EAA is grateful for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rulemaking, which allows for the safe integration of sUAS into the National Airspace System (NAS). As an organization that represents thousands of general aviation stakeholders, EAA is appreciative of the FAA’s effort to ensure that the freedom of manned aircraft to safely operate and navigate within the NAS is not hindered by the integration of sUAS. Though we believe this is a good start to rulemaking, we also believe there are areas of improvement. Below are EAA’s recommendations on how the FAA can expand upon and elaborate various aspects of the proposed rulemaking to further ensure that it will positively impact the safety of the NAS.

    Operating Rules

    Manned aircraft should always have priority over sUAS in the NAS. EAA agrees with the FAA’s prohibition of sUAS operation in Class A airspace and the requirement for ATC permission in Class B, C, D, and E airspace. Though Class G airspace is uncontrolled, the introduction of sUAS has the potential to increase the risk of collision with manned aircraft operations in that airspace. Operators of sUAS should be cognizant of manned air traffic in whatever airspace they are operating. EAA recommends that sUAS operators notify public-use Class G airports if they are operating within 5 statute miles of the airport.

    Model aircraft operators should be considered operating under the provisions of Public Law 112- 95, section 336 when they notify airport management and air traffic control (when air traffic control is present on the field) if operating model aircraft within 5 statute miles of a public-use airport. EAA also stresses that this is a notification requirement, not an approval process. Model aircraft operators conducting one-time operations within 5 statute miles of a public-use airport should notify the aforementioned airport authorities before conducting that operation. Model aircraft operations that occur on a regular basis should be required to notify the aforementioned airport authorities annually.

    EAA also recommends the FAA clearly define flying model aircraft for compensation or hire as they have applied it to the manned aircraft airshow industry. Factory pilots, sponsored pilots, and other pilots flying for indirect compensation, such as yearly sponsorship for promotional purposes, should not be considered as flying for compensation or hire.

    EAA proposes that the FAA lower the operating ceiling of sUAS operations from 500 feet AGL to 400 feet AGL. This limitation is reflective of FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which outlines standards for model aircraft operations. In the current rulemaking proposal, an accidental yet egregious excursion from altitude limits would drastically increase the possibility of a collision. An operating ceiling of 400 feet AGL would create 100 foot safety buffer for both manned aircraft and sUAS.

    Equipment Requirements

    The integration of sUAS into the NAS should not create an additional requirement for position source and/or navigational equipment on manned aircraft. EAA has made significant strides with the FAA regarding their “Equip 2020” ADS-B Out mandate. This cooperative effort between EAA and FAA has recently allowed new and affordable options for FAA-compliant ADS-B equipment to be introduced into the marketplace. The introduction of sUAS does not justify further equipment requirements for GA aircraft. EAA stresses the importance of maintaining the current timeline and requirements for ADS-B equipage.

    The proposed rulemaking recognizes the potential of operators to lose positive control of their sUAS. Though the FAA believes that the provisions within the proposed rulemaking negate the need for an onboard termination of flight system, EAA believes such a system would be advantageous to the safety of the NAS. The nature of the term “loss of positive control” suggests that the speed, visibility, and vertical/lateral limits of operation in the proposed rulemaking may not be adequate in containing an sUAS in the event of such a scenario. The termination of flight system should not be reliant upon any external data downlink (i.e. GPS), but should simply allow the sUAS to safely terminate the flight if the connection with the operator has been lost.

    Enforcement Action

    EAA wishes to ensure that the proposed rulemaking does not give the FAA wide authority to enforce violations of sUAS operating rules upon multiple FAA-issued certificates. These rules should be enforced with the presumption that action taken against an sUAS operator certificate would not affect other FAA certificates that the operator may hold. Operation under an sUAS certificate does not necessarily affect fitness to exercise the privileges of other FAA certificates held by the operator. This same concept should apply to model aircraft operators who also hold FAA certificates.

    It will be the responsibility of the FAA to determine if a violation under an sUAS operator certificate reflects upon the necessary skills to operate under other FAA certificates.
    
    Furthermore, the FAA should continue to recognize the pilot’s right to due process during certificate action in accordance with the Pilot’s Bill of Rights.

    Conclusion

    With the above considerations, EAA believes this is a positive start to rulemaking regarding sUAS operation. The introduction of sUAS into the NAS represents the evolution of aerospace technology and how it is used to connect people. EAA believes sUAS can open the door for new opportunities in aviation with their safe and responsible introduction to the NAS. We thank the FAA for recognizing the concerns of the general aviation community as they pertain to sUAS integration and hope the rulemaking continues to evolve to ensure the safe integration of sUAS.

    Respectfully,

    Sean Elliott
    EAA Vice President, Advocacy and Safety
    Phil Whittemore

  31. #31
    Barnstormer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Sterling, Alaska
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    Out here, we have drones flying in fire TFRs. One drone sighting stops all air attack aircraft from entering the fire zone, or TFR, or whatever it is called....
    This is how serious some local authorities are taking this. Good for them.

    http://www.myfoxla.com/clip/11721592...-drones-reward
    Phil Whittemore

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 08:04 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •