Tractor from drone's pov

[two_bit_score]

As several recent news stories have highlighted, there are significant security issues within many airport grounds, with airport / TSA employees. Moving drugs, illicit money, etc.

But, doubt if many, if any, of the laser pen, drone issues have involved airport employees, on duty at airport, which is the subject matter of this thread.

Now ..... those birds ..... who know who they work for? ;-)

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

I may have unintentionally confused you by placing several threats to airport security together instead of keeping them separate. Of course, you are correct that laser pointers and drones are not the same kind of internal threats as employees who might engage in illegal acts. Although possible that they could overlap it's more likely they would be separate. Sorry to be so confusing to you.

.

 

[two_bit_score]

The DJI drones won't take off in restricted areas in GPS mode. If you are in an "Advisory" area, it warns you on screen when you turn it on. You can shut off the GPS and fly them, but that's a lot harder to control.

I posted a link above of a map of the US with all the restricted areas in the country in the DJI software. The issue is that 99% of the people using drones were already observing common-sense rules, and the 1% will still do stupid stuff whether the FAA requires registration or not.

But plenty of people have their panties in a bunch about drones, just look at all the idiotic talk of shooting them down, or making up other stories.

Yes a small percentage of any group are prone to doing stupid stuff. Just look at some TBN threads for proof of that statement. :laughing:


.

 

[TomSeller]

Here's another overhead shot from our neighborhood in Boston looking east towards UMass Boston, with several Boston harbor islands visible on the right. Neat way to get a new perspective.

Very nice city location you have with a nice view of parts of Boston and Boston Harbor.

 

[comancheflight]

Deleted

 

[joefromga]

Very impressive photos, Joe. Even nicer than the photo of the van with the AC
inside. Wow.

Did you work your way up to your current "drone" from cheaper ones? I see one
can buy one now for as little as $50 at Frys, but I imagine the camera is not too
good, and keeping it stable, maybe not so easy either.

Thanks. I have a couple of those cheapie copter but they are nothing like the Phantom. It's pretty much autonomous and is very easy to fly and maneuver.
The camera is quite good. Takes 12mp stills and records up to 4k video.
If you have land it's very amazing especially at first but eventually you run out of places to fly if you don't own property.
I have 70 ACRES there and haven't seen or set foot on probably 55 acres of it. It's so heavily wooded I can't get in there but now with my tractor and hydraulic bush hog conversion I'll be cutting new trails soon I hope.

The quad has allowed me to see all of it and next time I'll be doing closer exploration. It would be cool to see some deer or other animals.

 

[Garandman]

If Savin Hill is within 5 miles of Logan Airport, aren't you restricted from flying there? Or is it just that you are limited to 500ft or so?? The typical flight path for 4L and 4R are just a little south of where your drone is.

 

[IslandTractor]

Pretty cool implementation of GPS and flight control hardware/software to maintain safe distances around airports.

 

[Garandman]

I emailed Logan Airport and got an outstanding example of bureaucratese:

"Local procedures for approving drone activity do not yet exist for airspace around very complex and busy airports like Logan."

So I asked the direct question: "Does this mean that all drone activity within five miles of Logan is prohibited?"

I posted the picture above for a very specific reason: the drone was below a local hill (aside from being taken before any regulations existed). So if i'd taken off from the hill, my altitude would have been negative 100 feet. There are taller hills and building nearby.

Oh, well, just another law to criminalize the average citizen.

 

[IslandTractor]

I emailed Logan Airport and got an outstanding example of bureaucratese:

"Local procedures for approving drone activity do not yet exist for airspace around very complex and busy airports like Logan."

So I asked the direct question: "Does this mean that all drone activity within five miles of Logan is prohibited?"

I posted the picture above for a very specific reason: the drone was below a local hill (aside from being taken before any regulations existed). So if i'd taken off from the hill, my altitude would have been negative 100 feet. There are taller hills and building nearby.

Oh, well, just another law to criminalize the average citizen.

I doubt seriously the FAA is trying to "criminalize the average citizen". It will take a while to work out details but the idea of protecting flight paths from drones is just fine with me. I frequently fly just about over your house when landing in commercial jets at Logan. I do believe based on your photo that the actual flight path is about a half mile or so south of you but that is close enough to warrant concern. I don't want a pilot catching a glimpse of a drone on his port side and being distracted when he should be focusing on the runway. (I was working at MGH the day that an Eastern Airline jet came in too low and slammed into the seawall killing all aboard back in ?1973).

The FAA rules are not intended to criminalize anyone they are for safety. Pure and simple. Just like speed limits on the Mass Pike. The problem is that this is new technology and potential issues are popping up faster than a deliberate careful body like the FAA can deal with them. Hence we get overly broad early regulations and confusion on all sides. I doubt the concept of "speed limit" on roads was something that was well established and understood within a year of the first Model Ts rolling out of the factory either.

 

[Garandman]

From the FAA:

Q: How often do wildlife strikes occur?

A: There have been about 142,000 wildlife strikes with civil aircraft in USA between 1990 and 2013 (about 11,000 strikes at 650 airports in 2013).

About 92% of the bird strikes with commercial civil aircraft in USA occur at or below 3,500 feet AGL (above ground level). From 1990-2013, there were 21 strikes with commercial aircraft at heights from 20,000-31,300 feet AGL.

Gulls (19 species) are the most common type of bird struck by civil aircraft in USA, accounting for 15% of the birds identified in bird strikes, 1990-2012. Waterfowl (ducks and geese) account for 7% of the strikes but are responsible for 30% of the strikes that cause damage to the aircraft.