Search Results for : drone

The aviation industry — led by a flock of alphabet member organizations — is clinking champagne glasses over the “defeat” of ATC Privatization. To some observers, this looks like a case of contented naval-gazing. Meanwhile, another development made the mainstream news today. It may not be reported in the aviation press.
Most of the above-referenced alphabets fought the battle — ostensibly against the airlines — over access to the air traffic control system that means so much to those flying, say, their Cirrus SR22 Turbo from Chicago to Washington, DC. IFR support from ATC may be somewhat less vital to recreational flyers.
While sport aviators also go cross country and a few employ the IFR system, most of us who fly for fun probably spend more time knocking around the airspace close to home, spotting fun things on the ground, giving short rides to friends, or pairing up with our flying buddies to trek off to a pancake breakfast or for a too-expensive hamburger.

I realize that for some readers I may be swimming upstream when I write about drones (or UAVs or RPVs, or whatever). First, many of you simply don’t care; your passion is for manned flight and I completely understand. Second, some of you see real danger to your manned flying due to a growing drone population. Those who guess the future think more than a million units will be sold this holiday season. Third, we have the matter of privacy. Probably like you, I don’t like the idea of some government agency or even a snoopy neighbor being able to peer into my yard against my preference.
This article presents a somewhat different, somewhat nuanced view of drone development and the reasons are financial, which may not be how you’ve seen this issue. Consider that FAA is — compared to most aviation businesses — an absolutely enormous organization. It has an annual budget of more than $15 billion and around 50,000 employees.

I have a confession to make. I … have a drone (with a nod to Dr. King and his “Dream” speech). No, I have not abandoned my love of flying inside the cockpit; far from it. However, in my role as an aviation journalist and with my goal of creating great content, I wanted to explore the new realm.
I believe we can capture great video, for example, of airplanes taking off in ways not possible with either ground-based cameras or via air-to-air photography. Love them or hate them, drones can produce certain images that are simply not possible any other way. Plus, I wanted to investigate and learn about this new range of aircraft.
My primary goal is to take my drone to airshows and, after securing permission from the show organizer, use it to give you a better perspective. When it can be used safely, a drone should allow more intriguing viewpoints of Light-Sports, light kits, or ultralights during take off and landing.

The good news is that most pilots I’ve interviewed — with a few outspoken exceptions — think drones are fine. Some are openly enthusiastic. Indeed, major drone seller Atlanta Hobby said their most effective advertising ever was on Barnstormers, an online source frequented by pilots (the sort that fly from inside the aircraft). This article will try to cast additional light on the new drone rule, FAR Part 107, that was announced over last weekend and gained wide coverage.
I contacted a subject matter expert who happens to be a longtime friend. Cliff Whitney is the fellow that first talked me into starting ByDanJohnson.com way back in 1999. Much earlier we met through a mutual interest in hang gliding and have remained friends ever since. Today, Cliff runs a multimillion dollar enterprise that sells … well, things that fly (but with the pilot not inside). He remains an active pilot that enjoys flying several airplane types so he gets it from a pilot’s perspective.