Bill Fearheller

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Bill Fearheller last won the day on May 5

Bill Fearheller had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

1 Follower

About Bill Fearheller

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/13/1947

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To all the recreational flyers out there, This effort by the FAA to have all drones identified while flying reminds me of "register your gun" laws that have been creeping forward year after year. They go after the gun and settle for the size of the magazine this year, and next year they come back for the gun again. "They" never quit. It is the right to fly in your back yard that they will eventually go after. They want to make deliveries to your back yard. Tell me how they can do that and stay under 400 feet without flying over all your neighbors back yards. If they fly down the street and over the top of the house to the back yard, they will have to violate flying over moving cars. This BVLOS business is rampant with unsafe flying and the potential for drones and cargoes falling out of the air. Knowing my drone is in the air won't get me out of the way. That will only happen when I am not allowed to fly. The proposed Remote I.D. rules are the blueprint for getting rid of club fields. It is the creeping rule that doesn't allow for the start up of new fields or the replacement of fields that get closed for whatever reason. "They" are a patient master. Be well and stay safe, bf
  2. I have problems with statements and articles that ascribe false reasons for UTM. Right now as I write this, drones are already integrated into the national air space. This is accomplished by confining them with current regulations to areas that are not populated to a great extent by manned aircraft. UTM is not about drones and aircraft. It is about my drone and UPS's drone in the regulated and relegated airspace that UPS wants for themselves. That is only a problem when they don't want to keep an eye on their drone like I'm doing with my drone. Hence...THEY are the problem, not me. They should absorb ALL the costs of the integration within that air space with no preference shown just because they are willing to pay fees to the government. Put them in the 100 feet between my drone and the manned aircraft operating altitude. WHAT, that's not safe?!! Well wait until drones or cargoes start falling out of the sky from mid-air collisions that are bound to happen from BVLOS operations. Especially with the tethered cargoes hanging down from drones that are not in view of a pilot. How many telephone wires, electric lines and small branches are hit every day by drones flying within sight now? Let me take a few minutes to climb down of this high-horse and you all be safe out there. bf
  3. And Yet more learning. Thank you Dave. I find that as I age, I am missing more and more details. I don't know if that is caused by age or just doing too much. I suspect both. bf
  4. This has been a learning experience for me so ... Be well and fly safely, bf
  5. My comments on the Remote I.D. NPRM was (I thought) well written and descriptive of my thoughts on the issue. What I didn't know was the "character limit" that comments were limited by and after writing my pre-assembled comment into the record, I found I was 5300 or so characters over the limit. I cut out every bit of explanatory or clarifying words or phrases to get down to the limit which I accomplished with 33 characters to spare. Problem...That turned my arguments and suggestions into mush (my opinion). Question...was I limited to only one comment submission? bf
  6. What can the Chinese learn from drones that they can't get from Google Earth, YouTube and the internet? There are too many government workers with far to little to do, so they dream up these schemes to give themselves something to email each other about. bf
  7. Av8Chuck, I find this ruling interesting. I think that the responses we are getting from politicians are caused by a need for the politicians to respond to voters that have complained about someone flying a drone in perceived danger to kids, animals, or in general other park users. I know I make an effort to keep far from kids because of their attraction to drones, and I don't want to have them around unsupervised because they get in my way. I still think it will take an organisation that sues governments and wins to stop the harassment of pilots. I have penned a response to the FAA on the i.d. rule they purpose, and I would like to get it to you and others to get input about it. Could I post it here and have you read it. I am not skilled at writing, but I feel strongly that the FAA is trying to ban us and shift the costs for that banning to us. I am totally opposed to the use of the internet for any part of the i.d. rule, and I am more opposed to private companies acting as middlemen. Let me know if that would be appropriate to use this forum to air my thoughts and receive comments. If so, do I just "drag my file" to attach it, or would it be better to write my response out and post it here for comments? Thank you, Bill Fearheller
  8. To Whomever, What would be the response to a drone flying over the park? How about 100 drones? I can launch from dozens of places without being in the park. Anyone out there that wants to organize a flyover? It would have to be done within the laws we all know and respect. Sooner or later we will have to start organizing into a group large enough to get the politicians respect. bf
  9. I find it interesting that your "places to fly in Denver" were not in Denver. Bill Fearheller
  10. I am waiting to see how well it works instead of reading about. Those of you out there that are getting these first few units can help by posting video of the drone working. Can hardly wait. bf
  11. As a drone flyer, I cannot do anything about these laws imposed by local government by myself. We as a group need to find a politician at the federal level that will go to bat for us. Does anyone know who that might be? bf
  12. My bad...didn't sound like that. For clarity, you (collective) are saying you cannot determine that any rules were broken from looking at the video...I'm saying (not collective) that the pilot knows if rules were broken, and just because you can't be caught or convicted, doesn't make it a smart thing to do and it reflects badly on all drone pilots. It will also sooner or later cause the rules to be more restrictive or bans to be imposed in more places than they are now. Guess we are both right...'nuf said. bf
  13. Interesting argument. FEW INCIDENTS!? If I fly my drone under 400 feet altitude at the end of the active at Jefferson Co. Airport, there will be few incidents. Most aircraft are more than 400 feet in the air by that time. Should I do it? As far as getting approvals are concerned, I didn't see in the article that permission was sought. I thought that was what we were talking about. If approval is received, then there is no controversy. I would be interested in parachute systems and a light for operation after dark, but I'd run out of places to put them on my Mavic 2 pro. I think I will stay as I am and fly legal as much as it pains me to do so. Be safe out there and have fun, bf
  14. Also point of knowledge: How long do I stay a "NEWBIE" ?? I generally resist labels.
  15. I would assume that the altitude restrictions have been exceeded here at some time or another. Count the number of floors on the buildings he/she is even with and multiply by 11. (I know about flying over and around obstructions (buildings) of 400 feet away) The footage is outstanding, so now I'm fairly certain others will now do these types of flights in cities everywhere. Sooner or later there will be a problem and the reaction will be to ban drones in cities...See Denver, Colorado. bf