Searching \ for '[OT] RC plane in near-miss with real one' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=plane+near+miss
Search entire site for: 'RC plane in near-miss with real one'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] RC plane in near-miss with real one'
2009\04\22@220059 by Jinx

face picon face
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6145239.ece

The video was made on Friday morning and shows a model plane
taking off from a park next to Perth airport in Western Australia. The
camera - attached to the plane - pans the skyline until suddenly the
737-800 arriving from Melbourne flies past, preparing to land on a
nearby runway

The model plane - reportedly only 100ft away - is then sucked into
the jet's wash and crashes to the ground

RC plane's on-board video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA19ieyqw5s

2009\04\22@231924 by solarwind

picon face
The guy flying the R/C plane so close to an airport is an idiot.

2009\04\22@233220 by fred jones

picon face


> The guy flying the R/C plane so close to an airport is an idiot.


Yes he is but not because he is flying near an airport but because of his lack of good judgement.  In the US, you can fly near airports but there are strict rules to live by or fly by for it.  My club was near an air force base and it was a pain to fly there because of the primary rule which was to require a spotter when flying.  This meant you could never just get up on your day off and go fly by yourself first thing in the morning like I liked to do.  You always had to find somebody to go with you.  We have since moved our flying site and so those rules are no longer required.  Being that Australia has banned guns and lasers, I guess model airplanes are next.

FJ

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.  
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009

2009\04\23@001807 by Jinx

face picon face
> My club was near an air force base and it was a pain to fly there
> because of the primary rule which was to require a spotter when
> flying

I remember Mythbusters being given an altitude restriction with their
helium balloon lawnchair, even though they were many miles from any
established fllight paths

It's a little hard to believe that the Australian incident is carelessness,
although he may have simply wanted a bird's eye view of airport
activity. But you might attach a better camera for good stills

The flyer would be well aware that the airport is nearby. Having a
video camera on-board was surely to record passing aircraft and
even casual observation would have told him how aircraft approach

2009\04\23@003227 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 22, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Jinx wrote:

> I remember Mythbusters being given an altitude restriction with their
> helium balloon lawnchair, even though they were many miles from any
> established fllight paths

There are no spots in the SF Bay Area that are "many miles" from typical
flight plans :-(

BillW

2009\04\23@015144 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:
> It's a little hard to believe that the Australian incident is
> carelessness,
> although he may have simply wanted a bird's eye view of airport
> activity. But you might attach a better camera for good stills

Carelessness? The article you cited calls it a "prank", which is confirmed
by the RC plane's comments in the video.

They did this on purpose.

Vitaliy

2009\04\23@021632 by Jinx

face picon face
> calls it a "prank", which is confirmed by the RC plane's comments
> in the video

Ah, I didn't realise that, not having watched the whole thing yet. I
knew a soundtrack was added (which is suspicious in itself) but
didn't know there was a commentary too

2009\04\23@021633 by Jinx

face picon face
> There are no spots in the SF Bay Area that are "many miles" from typical
> flight plans :-(

I can well imagine. Don't recall where they wanted to do it or where they
did
but ISTR it wasn't at M5

2009\04\23@024622 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 22, 2009, at 11:16 PM, Jinx wrote:

>> There are no spots in the SF Bay Area that are "many miles" from  
>> typical flight plans :-(
>
> I can well imagine. Don't recall where they wanted to do it or where  
> they
> did but ISTR it wasn't at M5

I believe that the MythBuster folk do most of their "big" things at  
the old Alameda Naval base airfield (which is being let go fallow,  
more or less.)  That puts it less than 10 miles from Oakland  
International airport, and about 20 from SFO.  Plus at least two  
municipal airports within 30 miles (hayward, San Carlos)

The Oakland and SF runways point pretty much straight at it.  I  
vaguely recall from aviation class that that means the traffic  
patterns DON'T aim at it (which would make sense when there was  
another airfield there), but that's for controlled craft.  For an  
uncontrolled "hazard", in an area subject to high winds, I am not  
surprised that they had trouble getting clearance!

BillW

2009\04\23@070745 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> The guy flying the R/C plane so close to an airport is an idiot.

<VBG> Family friends, when I was a small child, had a 'beach house' near a
small provincial airport that had very little activity. During the summer
holidays they would stay at the beach house, and one of the activities they
got up to was to fly a box kite on from the sand dunes at the end of the
airport. If they got it too high, or some airport activity was about to
happen, then someone on the airport staff would come driving around the
perimeter to tell them off. AIUI they got to a point where they scampered
promptly when they saw the airport vehicle move ...

...
>Being that Australia has banned guns and lasers, I guess model airplanes
>are next.

One of my recent colleagues here in the UK is a paraglider. Apparently the
UK was attempting to enforce some sort of rule whereby every paraglider,
along with every other form of flying object (not sure that it extended to
model RC aircraft) had to have some sort of position and IFF beacon on it.
The extra weight that they would have needed to carry on a paraglider would
have made it prohibitive, apart from the cost.

The way he explained the proposed regulation to me suggested that there were
moves afoot to have unmanned autonomous drones flying wherever they wanted
...

I got the impression that the relevant authorities were told to 'go get
stuffed' by the combined paraglider/microlight/etc organisations as what
they were proposing was impractical, and why they wanted to do it was
unrealistic. I think some of these clubs also had a bunch of guys who were
able to tear to shreds the figures that were being given as requirements -
it seemed that whoever thought the scheme up had no real experience of what
was required.

2009\04\23@071739 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I was lying airplane models near by an airport in Budapest, Hungary -- not
_that_ near though. And I had loads of problems with the transponders, they
made such a big noise that sometimes it was very hard to keep the plane in
the air due to loss of signal. (That was one of the reason I started to make
a failsafe device with digital filters, and that's why I started up with the
PIC). So it was double crazy to fly that model that close...

Tamas


On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Alan B. Pearce
<spam_OUTAlan.B.PearceTakeThisOuTspamstfc.ac.uk>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\04\23@095218 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
>  > The guy flying the R/C plane so close to an airport is an idiot.
>
>
> Yes he is but not because he is flying near an airport but because of his
lack of good
> judgement.  In the US, you can fly near airports but there are strict
rules to live by or
> fly by for it.  My club was near an air force base and it was a pain to
fly there because
> of the primary rule which was to require a spotter when flying.  This
meant you could
> never just get up on your day off and go fly by yourself first thing in
the morning like I
> liked to do.  You always had to find somebody to go with you.  We have
since moved
> our flying site and so those rules are no longer required.  Being that
Australia has
> banned guns and lasers, I guess model airplanes are next.


It's not like you can ban idiots.

The current laws can deal with him, from memory it's no flying within 6km of
an airfield, and a 250 metre ceiling, and lobbing stuff at planes (or even
suggesting) has always been frowned upon.  It'll be other flyers who track
him down, they have a vested interest in weeding out the undesired.

Yeah, lasers got restricted to 1mW, down from 5mW.  You can still amuse your
cat.  You can still own high-powered ones if you have a 'reasonable excuse'.
Still sucks, and the US isn't much better.

The 'great Australian gun ban' is an NRA myth.  Here ya go, get educated -
this <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia> sums it up
reasonably well.

I know it's hard for the stereotypical (not average) American to believe,
but Australians really don't care about guns all that much - it's simply not
in our culture.  Beer and sport, on the other hand...  It's actually quite
hard to disarm a nation that never had many guns in the first place.  

If you want a gun, you can get a gun.  You never really could own full-auto,
handguns or anti-aircraft cannons, the new rules added no semi-autos,
pump-action shotguns, or magazines holding more than five rounds.  That's
it, that's the 'great gun ban'.  Basically, you're allowed to have
bolt-action rifles.  In some cases (pro shooters) you're still allowed
semi-auto.

Of the guns handed in, about 5% were the banned semi-auto, the rest was
probably people dumping old crap for cash - I know a few who did just that.
Most shooters I know think semi-autos are for people with poor aim.

Tony

2009\04\23@095509 by Peter

picon face
fred jones <boattow <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> are no longer required.  Being that Australia has banned guns and lasers, I
> guess model airplanes are next.

Isn't it easier to just ban people ? The government could then set an example
starting with themselves, for others to follow (or not).

Peter


2009\04\23@100009 by Peter

picon face
If you think you can immunize a RC receiver to radar and transponder pulses at a
few 100 feet from the transmitter directly in the beam path you need help.

Peter

2009\04\23@220731 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Tony Smith wrote:
> I know it's hard for the stereotypical (not average) American to believe,
> but Australians really don't care about guns all that much

I can understand this, but it is definitely something that is ingrained in
the American culture. I don't own a gun, but my initial response to the
above statement, was slightly xenophobic. :-)


> If you want a gun, you can get a gun.  You never really could own
> full-auto,
> handguns or anti-aircraft cannons, the new rules added no semi-autos,
> pump-action shotguns, or magazines holding more than five rounds.  That's
> it, that's the 'great gun ban'.

The list is very restrictive, by American standards. I was looking into
buying a handgun recently, and the law in my state says that I don't need a
license to own one. I can even carry it on my person, as long as it is
clearly visible. I only need a permit if I want to hide it from view
(concealed weapon permit).

Vitaliy


2009\04\24@050749 by Grant Tudor

picon face
Guns are not banned in Australia - I own a number of rifles! There are
restrictions on what you can own (ie semi automatics and pistols). You can
get an exemption from these restrictions if you have a good reason (ie
farmer, member of pistol club etc).

Lasers are not banned in Australia - I own a number of lasers! There are
restrictions on what you can own (ie hand held devices over 1mW). You can
get an exemption from these restrictions if you have a good reason (ie
builders and surveyors) .

It is illegal to fly model aircraft within 5km of an airport (and I think
SIDS and STARS). Up to 2 years jail if I recall correctly.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, fred jones <.....boattowKILLspamspam@spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2009\04\24@082835 by Tony Smith

flavicon
face
> > I know it's hard for the stereotypical (not average) American to
believe,
> > but Australians really don't care about guns all that much
>
> I can understand this, but it is definitely something that is ingrained in
> the American culture. I don't own a gun, but my initial response to the
> above statement, was slightly xenophobic. :-)
>
> > If you want a gun, you can get a gun.  You never really could own
> > full-auto,
> > handguns or anti-aircraft cannons, the new rules added no semi-autos,
> > pump-action shotguns, or magazines holding more than five rounds.
That's
> > it, that's the 'great gun ban'.
>
> The list is very restrictive, by American standards. I was looking into
> buying a handgun recently, and the law in my state says that I don't need
a
> license to own one. I can even carry it on my person, as long as it is
> clearly visible. I only need a permit if I want to hide it from view
> (concealed weapon permit).


That last paragraph is a perfect example of a culture difference, the
reaction of your typical Australian is "why the hell would you want to do
that?"

Still, that's how it is, and if you want to amble around with your trusty
sidearm on your hip, well, happy trails pardner... and there's that
stereotyping again.  :)

Gun have about much relevance to people here as that fine game of cricket
does to an American.  And if you don't know what cricket is, count yourself
lucky.  It's the world's most boring pastime, in fact even
ewrgfcegr6245cgvwjrzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzz zz  eh wot?  Oh
sorry, even thinking about it causes one to nod off.  (A very very very
small chunk of the PicList may disagree.)

Oh right, guns.

I doubt Australian laws are that different from those of most developed
nations, from a world perspective it may be not that our laws are too
restrictive, but Americas' are too lax.  Guns have always been restricted
here, the 'gun ban' was probably the only major change.  Actually, some of
the laws passed have been eased slightly, eg locally there was a 28 day
waiting period to buy a gun, this has been reduced to 7 (?) days if it's
your 2nd gun.

I guess we divide owners up into a few groups:

Farmers - for shooting foxes & rabbits kindly donated by the UK
Criminals - for shooting each other
Pro's / target / recreational - for fun or a living, the fairly silent
majority
Idiots - for shooting everything else, everyone has plenty of those.  Ours
lob model planes at passing jets too.  Most of them eventually grow up.

As usual, it's the idiots that cause the problems.

Tony


(What kicked the ban off was a few incidents like this
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strathfield_massacre>, near where I currently
live.  A bit of black humour - there was a sign at a local railway station
that said 'If you have time to kill, come down to Strathfield Plaza".  It
was gone soon after.

Eventually there was this
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)>, where 35
people died.  The opinion seemed to be people may kill people, but people
with semi-automatics kill far more than they would otherwise.)

2009\04\24@152451 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Apr 23, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

> The list is very restrictive, by American standards. I was looking  
> into
> buying a handgun recently, and the law in my state says that I don't  
> need a
> license to own one. I can even carry it on my person, as long as it is
> clearly visible. I only need a permit if I want to hide it from view
> (concealed weapon permit).

This gets tricky, actually... by displaying it, you can be sued for  
"threatening" someone else with a weapon in some jurisdictions.  There  
are also numerous local ordinances that over-ride State ordinances.

(Example:  Within 50 miles of my home there's a myriad of rules about  
transporting firearms.  The general "consensus" -- if there is such a  
thing -- is that it must be unloaded, and locked inside a case,  
unavailable to the driver in any way from the driver's seat.  But like  
I said, that changes multiple times just on my 27 mile commute to work  
due to differences in CITY laws.  Whether or not those laws would hold  
up in court, is a toss-up until there's court cases to set precedence.)

Ironically, must of the confusion above is what leads many to apply  
for concealed weapon permits for their firearms.

They conceal the weapon on the way to/from target practice at the  
range, etc... so no one can feel "threatened" by the weapon, even  
though if it were on their belt, unloaded, in a holster, with a solid  
leather or other snap holding it in, with the safety on -- it's not  
very threatening to anyone other than a dolt who thinks every firearm  
is about to kill them personally.

--
Nate Duehr
natespamKILLspamnatetech.com




More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...