|
Nah man you missed the best quote from there: quote:Hurr durr I'm a plane my wings can't move hurr durr
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
simplefish posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35097650
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm sure jet pilots could clarify this if I get it wrong. But, modern airliners compute the amount of runway needed to take off, plus a reserve. They then adjust the takeoff power setting for the engines to maximize fuel economy. Its not necessarily the airplane thats doing the calculations for the amount of runway required. Sure, most airliners' FMC's are capable of determining a balanced field length (i.e., the amount of runway needed to takeoff and climb to a height of 35' is the same for it to accelerate, lose an engine at V1 and stop) but many airlines will use some kind of runway analysis that takes into account many hundreds of variables to determine just how much runway you need and how much engine thrust you'll use. I think what happened with the Qatari 777 in Miami was that they fat fingered the FMC in a certain way and thought they had performance data for the intersection takeoff when in reality they didn't. I don't remember the specifics as it was something particular to the 777 and how the company operated them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
simplefish posted:http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35097650 Cool. Now do guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Not "drones," ALL sUAS between .55lbs and 55lbs must be registered. It doesn't matter what it is or how you fly it, for fun or for profit. Even little Timmy's balsa plane flown at an AMA field. So much for the congressional orders to the FAA to not try to regulate hobby flight. I actually like the idea of putting a real official FAA registration number on my foam Hobbyking motor-glider 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Not "drones," ALL sUAS between .55lbs and 55lbs must be registered. It doesn't matter what it is or how you fly it, for fun or for profit. Even little Timmy's balsa plane flown at an AMA field. So much for the congressional orders to the FAA to not try to regulate hobby flight. I thought this couldn't be right, so I went and looked. http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856 Yeeeeeeup. Fortuneatly(?) it's :fivebux: per older than 13 owner and not per model airplane, but I predict that the AMA is going to explode.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:Not "drones," ALL sUAS between .55lbs and 55lbs must be registered. It doesn't matter what it is or how you fly it, for fun or for profit. Even little Timmy's balsa plane flown at an AMA field. So much for the congressional orders to the FAA to not try to regulate hobby flight. If Timmy makes a plane out of balsa that weighs half a loving pound, he earned that merit badge. Or he's poo poo at aero engineering. Either way. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Anything with a motor in it will weight more than that.simplefish posted:http://m.imgur.com/gallery/tzxTiGm Did you copy this from somewhere? Or just forget that half the "wings" are facing the wrong direction? Edit: V Phew! Godholio fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
...it was a joke
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
I don't get what the issue is with model aircraft registration, really. The FAA wants you to pay a 5 dollar fee (which is waived if you do it in the first month) to get a number that you stick on the side of your plane or quadcopter. Beyond that, nothing has changed. Surely the AMA greybeards with $20,000 quarter-scale P-51s won't have an issue with that sort of thing. After all, it's one step closer to flying a real plane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
VOR LOC posted:but many airlines will use some kind of runway analysis that takes into account many hundreds of variables to determine just how much runway you need and how much engine thrust you'll use. Are those figures that are provided by the FMC after setting parameters? If so, I kinda still call that the airplane doing the calculations. Sorry if I'm just mixing up the terminology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:I thought this couldn't be right, so I went and looked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
dissss posted:Gotta get your moneys worth 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Are those figures that are provided by the FMC after setting parameters? If so, I kinda still call that the airplane doing the calculations. Sorry if I'm just mixing up the terminology. The most advanced thing I have seen myself is a countdown of runway distance still available during a low-visibility takeoff as part of the LVTO mode in a HUD of an E190, and the Collins Vision FMS which will give you the maximum weight you can uplift from a particular runway for the configuration and conditions you entered, and will let you iterate different derated thrust settings to find the minimum takeoff thrust setting you can get away with. But this is on a bizjet.... I have seen no such thing on an airliner yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
What about lighter‐than‐air craft? Do I get to consider them zero pounds? I want some æro lawyers on this, stat! Seriously, though, I know the answer is “no”, I just don’t know why, specifically. Or, in the words of Neal Savoy, “We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Not even gonna lie, this is bad rear end http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/aviation/windspeed-skydeck-seats-on-top-of-aircraft/index.html Edit: FAA Drone rules are unenforceable. They WAYYYYY overstepped their bounds on this one. McDeth fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Not even gonna lie, this is bad rear end This seems like a concept from the ’60s, when fuel was cheap and cameras were not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Edit: FAA Drone rules are unenforceable. They WAYYYYY overstepped their bounds on this one. I don't want to be the defendant in the test case here, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I don't get what the issue is with model aircraft registration, really. The FAA wants you to pay a 5 dollar fee (which is waived if you do it in the first month) to get a number that you stick on the side of your plane or quadcopter. Beyond that, nothing has changed. Surely the AMA greybeards with $20,000 quarter-scale P-51s won't have an issue with that sort of thing. After all, it's one step closer to flying a real plane. The problem is that Congress' FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 explicitly said that the FAA can't regulate hobby flight and to release commercial UAS rules and licensing structure. So basically this registration program is the opposite of what Congress told them to do. Commercial rules are still not here. And I believe a LTA craft would be fine as the only specification really is "weight," not mass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What about lighter‐than‐air craft? Do I get to consider them zero pounds? They could have used either of two definitions, total weight of the aircraft at the time of takeoff (which would include lifting gas) or the weight of an empty aircraft (which arguably would not include lifting gas) They used the first definition for the rule. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Exactly how often do drones that people gently caress around with actually get recovered by authorities to have their registration number checked in the first place? If it doesn't crash, you need to shoot it out of the sky first. Unless you feel like canvassing door-to-door and asking everyone if they have a green quadrotor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
As an anti-drone guy (i hate your drones): Don't register your drones. The registration rules they came up with are even worse than the people who flew drones too close to airports. Rules and enforcement should have been the 50th step, with education being the 1st.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
I hate the term drone being slapped all over anything radio-controlled. Lots of hobby stuff is too dumb to be called a drone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Rules and enforcement should have been the 50th step, with Fixed. Drone nuts are almost as bad as gun nuts when it comes to their toys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Behold the world’s shortest commercial flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwyVWaCAD2A There are runways longer than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Behold the world’s shortest commercial flight: For when the 10 minute boat ride is just way too time consuming?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Fixed. Drone nuts are almost as bad as gun nuts when it comes to their toys. Ban all nongovernmental and non-commercial flight. Hobby pilots are a drain on ATC, regulatory, and rescue/investigation agencies. All air use should be prioritized for corporate profits and government utility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:It's not the end of the world or even a big deal, we'll see if that changes. No, the law didn't say that the FAA can't regulate "hobby flight." That is loving absurd. People fly four-engine jetliners and MiG-21s - real ones - as hobby aircraft. What the law actually exempts is "model aircraft," flown for non-commercial purposes under the auspices and rules of a national club. It remains to be seen whether the FAA's argument that they can regulate aircraft generally will hold up, but if it doesn't, then it would be very easy for them to say, "OK, actual models of full-size aircraft flown for hobby purposes are exempt, but your DJI Phantom must still be registered." chitoryu12 posted:Exactly how often do drones that people gently caress around with actually get recovered by authorities to have their registration number checked in the first place? If it doesn't crash, you need to shoot it out of the sky first. Unless you feel like canvassing door-to-door and asking everyone if they have a green quadrotor. More often than you'd think. For instance, some anonymous idiot crashed their quadrotor in Seattle not too long ago, trying to fly through the spokes of our big Ferris wheel. (It crashed in a waiting area and hosed up a picnic table but missed hitting people) A registered serial number takes that case from "no idea who did it and no leads" to a name and address. It's not a perfect system, but removing anonymity from the equation will do a lot to help keep the "wow, this is just like a video game with great graphics!" crowd under control.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Ban all nongovernmental and non-commercial flight. Hobby pilots are a drain on ATC, regulatory, and rescue/investigation agencies. All air use should be prioritized for corporate profits and government utility. ....Sully posts here now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
EightBit posted:I hate the term drone being slapped all over anything radio-controlled. Lots of hobby stuff is too dumb to be called a drone. Radio controlled? The rule includes control line model airplanes, too. (so long as they're over 250g)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Behold the world’s shortest commercial flight:
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Radio controlled? The rule includes control line model airplanes, too. (so long as they're over 250g) Does it have to have an engine? If not, would this technically then include large kites? If so, that's pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Does it have to have an engine? If not, would this technically then include large kites? If so, that's pretty funny. Thank god baseballs are less than 250 grams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Does it have to have an engine? If not, would this technically then include large kites? If so, that's pretty funny. Airplanes need engines, aircraft do not. An aircraft is simply "a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Kites under 5 pounds do not have flight regulations, but this new rule would seem to apply to registration of a kite if it and its string weighed more than 250g. quote:If the unmanned aircraft is tethered by the cable in such a way that the cable, securely attached to an immoveable object, prevents the unmanned aircraft from flying away in the event of loss of positive control, only the portion of the cable which may be lift aloft by the small unmanned aircraft must be added to the weight of the unmanned aircraft when determining total weight. mlmp08 posted:Thank god baseballs are less than 250 grams. Perhaps it would turn on the difference between flight 'through' the air vs. flight 'in' the air. How long must a 'flight' be to be considered 'flight?' joat mon fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
reply is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
The Locator posted:For when the 10 minute boat ride is just way too time consuming? I imagine nobody gets off after that hop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:More often than you'd think. For instance, some anonymous idiot crashed their quadrotor in Seattle not too long ago, trying to fly through the spokes of our big Ferris wheel. (It crashed in a waiting area and hosed up a picnic table but missed hitting people) A registered serial number takes that case from "no idea who did it and no leads" to a name and address. It's not a perfect system, but removing anonymity from the equation will do a lot to help keep the "wow, this is just like a video game with great graphics!" crowd under control. I can't see it being a huge benefit, since that relies on people who are stupid enough to pull dangerous stunts or harassment with their drones and smart enough to consider the risk of crashing and having the cops run their registration number after seizing it. A pretty hefty percentage of fatal car crashes involve unlicensed drivers, since people who are dangerous behind the wheel will probably just get back in and keep driving when their license gets suspended anyway. It just feels like a feel-good reflex to the "We must do SOMETHING!" pearl clutching that recently came up about the latest buzzword risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Do they have a 'device' definition? I heard someone mention that you didn't need to register anything that didn't have 'communication electronics' but that seems like it's probably inaccurate. I wonder how model rocketry fits into all this. You could definitely build something that weighs more than 250grams at launch, but loses mass as it expends fuel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf posted:The definition of unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft” is a statutory definition, and as such, this rule will finalize that definition as proposed.23 So, I guess normal RC models are exempt, but model rockets, freeflight models, javilins and cabers still count. *edit* or does radio control count as indirect? Ardeem fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Ardeem posted:So, I guess normal RC models are exempt, but model rockets, freeflight models, javilins and cabers still count. What matters is that the human intervener is "within or on" the aircraft, so I don't think this is possible with most RC models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:53
|
|
