Only a Matter of Time

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:36 pm

Only a matter time before drone users will have to be licensed and regulated. Seems the first time ever a drone has crashed into a plane as it was landing. I don't know about you but I can see no earthly purpose on some idiot flying his drone anywhere near a airport. Even tho this is only the first case of a drone hitting a plane, all it will take is this one incident to have severe repercussions for the responsible drone user. I'm just afraid if the govt. doesn't restrict drone usage after this incident, then they will do something when a plane crashes and people die. Sadly this is what usually happens before action is taken. Can't say they weren't warned beforehand.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dr ... er-7776727

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:55 pm

Isn't small unmanned aircraft, i.e. drones, registration already required for owners in the U.S. now?

http://www.faa.gov/uas/

Z.. · Post by **Z..** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 2:48 am

It just simply makes no sense. Even if I had a drone, and I really don't have too much of a problem with people owning them, I'd never fly it around an airport. Who actually does crap like that? It sucks knowing that we share the streets with those folks.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:55 am

I would assume people who like planes and are into photography would fly them near it. Also, terrorists will start using drones to scope out places.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:56 am

Lots of people Z. But most of those reports are mistaken.

And speaking of mistaken.. that supposed collision between a drone and plane? It's looking more like a plastic bag. Because unless you have had your eyes transplanted from an eagle, you can't see any multi-rotor sized aircraft at 1700 feet from the ground.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:07 pm

Z.. wrote:It just simply makes no sense. Even if I had a drone, and I really don't have too much of a problem with people owning them, I'd never fly it around an airport. Who actually does crap like that? It sucks knowing that we share the streets with those folks.

The same imbeciles who point lasers at aircraft, for the sick fun of it I guess.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:01 pm

and no one seems to care that the report filed by the pilot was false?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:31 am

That fact hasn't been reported in the news. It's dropped off the radar for most people who get their news from TV and the newspapers. That's why no one has heard about it. A plot?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:37 pm

tunnelcat wrote:That fact hasn't been reported in the news.

Oh?

The fact that the original story stated that the plane took off immediately after should have been a dead giveaway. Someone ran the number on the likelihood of drones vs aircraft collisions. They reckon it's about 1.3 million to one.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:35 pm

Ferno, I SAID on network TV and at least in my local newspaper. Nothing, bupkiss. I haven't heard one peep from the network news about it for days, other than the original drone scare. Yes, I can search the net and find out what really happened, and sometimes that's what it takes to get informed anymore. I was also originally suspicious when no news outlet even showed us any supposed damage to the airplane. It's a shame that most of the major networks never corrected the original story, like they should have. Maybe it's a plot.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:50 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe it's a plot.

to sell you more stuff.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:47 pm

There's definitely a plot to sell more expensive prescription drugs. The networks must think that only old farts watch the TV news.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 02, 2016 2:34 pm

meanwhile, here on the Delmarva Peninsula:
http://www.delaware-surf-fishing.com/dr ... -for-tuna/

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 02, 2016 3:05 pm

That's pretty damn cool. It is cheating, isn't it?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 02, 2016 3:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:meanwhile, here on the Delmarva Peninsula:
http://www.delaware-surf-fishing.com/dr ... -for-tuna/

Appears to be a version of kite fishing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 02, 2016 3:44 pm

yes, to Woody, thus no to TC. Perfectly legal method of getting the bait to where the fish are.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 02, 2016 3:48 pm

I'd say that's a pretty cool way to spot and bait for fish. It beats trying to cast your line into the unknown. My only worry would be losing the drone in the drink if something went wrong. It would then become a very expensive fishing expedition.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 02, 2016 4:57 pm

hell, try hiring a tuna guide/boat for a day. A drone is CHEAP!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 02, 2016 5:21 pm

40 years ago I hired Tarpon guides in the Everglades and they were 150.00 a day back then.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon May 02, 2016 5:23 pm

a tuna run is around $1000......if you know someone. Now, that might allow 3 of you, tops, on the boat, maybe not. It isn't cheap, at any rate.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 02, 2016 5:26 pm

In my case the boat was a lot smaller than the sport fisherman type boat the tuna fisherman would be aboard. Plus I was the only client. Lot of fun either way.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon May 02, 2016 5:54 pm

callmeslick wrote:hell, try hiring a tuna guide/boat for a day. A drone is CHEAP!

A drone is a fully autonomous flying object, programmed on land before takeoff.

What you see referred to so much is a remotely piloted vehicle, or unmanned aerial system

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 02, 2016 6:21 pm

A drone is what they are both referred as in the common vernacular.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon May 02, 2016 7:49 pm

woodchip wrote:A drone is what they are both referred as in the common vernacular.

Just don't you dare call a magazine a clip.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue May 03, 2016 8:50 am

woodchip wrote:A drone is what they are both referred as in the common vernacular.

the common vernacular is off-base.

but what do I know? I've only been flying the things for the past six years now.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue May 03, 2016 11:12 am

well, heck, Ferno.....let's go fishing. I'll put you up and the house in VA and feed you and all!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue May 03, 2016 12:35 pm

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:A drone is what they are both referred as in the common vernacular.

the common vernacular is off-base.

but what do I know? I've only been flying the things for the past six years now.

Really. Show me where your term is used other than in your hobbyist journals.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Tue May 03, 2016 1:25 pm

woodchip wrote: Really. Show me where your term is used other than in your hobbyist journals.

And that's the problem. Everywhere else, it's "drone drone drone" and no one seems to care if it's correct or not. I blame laziness.

Only a Matter of Time

Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time

Re: Only a Matter of Time