bipedalist Posted February 13, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 13, 2015 People tell me that they are going to fly it around at 4000 feet AGL. Not likely a BF could throw that high. On the opposite side of the coin, not likely they can image a BF well enough to learn much from that altitude either. With the current critical look at drones going on, they could very well develop it then not be able to fly it. A national news channel the other day listed all the near misses with drones around major airports. It is illegal to fly a drone above 400 feet right now but airliners are having near misses at 3000 and 4000 feet. A drone in a engine could crash an airliner. I do not know how they expect to get authorization to fly the Falcon at the altitudes they plan to fly it. They obviously do not know that it takes years to get the FAA to rule on anything. And when the FAA learns what it is supposed to be looking for, they will put the request in their never decide file. Safety is my biggest concern too. It sounds as if they are starting the Falcon Trekking Team on the ground first without mention of the clearances they need to jump to the next step of FAA clearance and permitting. Since Meldrum as of today has begged off most of Facebook due to these higher obligations I would imagine something is in the works in this regard before long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Sunflower Projectile throwing could be a problem at low altitudes and at the ground station/tether point.Testing the animal population will be interesting. Bears enjoy some plastics and the envelope will have a 'smell'. How will the avian group respond to this trespasser into their home airspace? A gaggle of geese pooping all over the envelope? Will the corvids tolerate this? What will the ravens do? I have watched a raven steal food out of the talons of a bald eagle. Very intelligent ( smarter than apes ), very calculating and capable of abstract thinking. Very common birds will do 'mob attacks' on hawks and eagles. I am curious about the raven--airship behavior. I'll take the ravens. Even at 4,000 feet above the ground, it will make a lot of noise. Very good points, this will be interesting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Aaaaaaaaaaaaanyway... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/10/31/fanged-deer-pops-up-in-afghanistan-60-years-after-its-last-appearance/ "The researchers report that the deer were difficult to spot, and couldn't be photographed." Then this didn't happen. If an animal doesn't get photographed, it does not exist. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) William Barnes brought up the fact that since the study is under a university, Idaho State, via Meldrum, this allows them to fly the heights discussed without any other approval, I would think that it will be treated as an aircraft, vs a drone. This will have all the flying lights of an aircraft and my guess is that it will be tracked by the FAA radar. I do not know what flight ordinances they will have to follow, and what notifications they might have to communicate, but this is not simply a drone being launched by some yahoos in the woods, even if they fit that description to a large extent. Does anyone recall the Monster Quest episode, the second trip to Snell Grove Lake by Meldrum and team, they land, unload a freaking crap load of stuff, proceed to rig the woods around the cabin in every way imaginable, and then the cabin itself with more cameras than an average day at Disney World, that is how I define Yahoos. Any Sasquatch in that area would have laughed itself at the extent they went to pre warn it of their intentions. I like to watch this episode purely for it's comedic value, then after all that they wind up 100 miles south looking in some berry patches. all that equipment left behind...That is how it comes down, but I find this absolutely hilarious! Edited February 13, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Forgive my self indulgence with this diversion, but I am more excited about this being their home base for part of the summer. That being Hackberry Island. If you look at the map below it is pretty secluded with marsh all around, then very shallow lake which can only be reached by canoe. You can get there now on foot right? Or just wait a couple more days with this cold snap to harden the ice all the more. I know your theory is summer based but you could explore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 William Barnes brought up the fact that since the study is under a university, Idaho State, via Meldrum, this allows them to fly the heights discussed without any other approval, I would think that it will be treated as an aircraft, vs a drone. This will have all the flying lights of an aircraft and my guess is that it will be tracked by the FAA radar. I do not know what flight ordinances they will have to follow, and what notifications they might have to communicate, but this is not simply a drone being launched by some yahoos in the woods, even if they fit that description to a large extent. Does anyone recall the Monster Quest episode, the second trip to Snell Grove Lake by Meldrum and team, they land, unload a freaking crap load of stuff, proceed to rig the woods around the cabin in every way imaginable, and then the cabin itself with more cameras than an average day at Disney World, that is how I define Yahoos. Any Sasquatch in that area would have laughed itself at the extent they went to pre warn it of their intentions. I like to watch this episode purely for it's comedic value, then after all that they wind up 100 miles south looking in some berry patches. all that equipment left behind...That is how it comes down, but I find this absolutely hilarious! Ive seen that same episode, i ageee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 13, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Ive seen that same episode, i ageee Idaho State has no authority to regulate or authorize aviation operations. None. If Falcon was manned then it could be treated as just any other aircraft of the same type and class and as long as it complied with FAR's then it could do anything any other aircraft does. But as I understand Falcon is unmanned and remotely controlled as such has to comply with applicable laws related to drones and RPV's. WITHOUT WAIVER THAT IS 400 AGL. Any waiver from those laws requires specific FAA approval for each such operation. The only ones that can get around this FAR stuff is the military because it already has special use airspace and waivers to operate in that airspace. 4000 AGL is below radar coverage in most mountainous areas and BF habitat. So the statement about radar coverage is not true either. Additionally even if it was in radar coverage, there is no way to establish radio communications with a controlling van on the ground with ATC controlling agencies, because the same limits for radar coverage are even more restrictive for radio contact. Many times at low altitude in the Western US you are out of radio and radar coverage for long periods of time even on an IFR flight plan. I tried to talk to Meldrum about this stuff one time and he basically did not want to hear it. That attitude will kill the program. He obviously has not talked to people who know anything about aviation. And as a professional aviator for over 38 years I know a lot about that. Edited February 13, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catmandoo Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 The poofy bag is classed as an "airship", not 'aircraft'. Airship---utility. Yes same navigation lights as an aircraft. Nice anti-collision strobe too, colored aviation white. SWWASAS, what color is your anti-collision strobe, red or white? Has anyone had experience with backscatter of airborne navigation lights into camera systems? Who has the contract to supply helium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 14, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) FAA Airmans information manual: "Aircraft. Devices that are intended to be used for flight in the air, and when used in air traffic terminology, may include the flight crews. Included in that are the categories of airplane, rotorcraft, glider,and lighter than air. With respect to class or subdivisions of category lighter than air, they are airship and free ballon. Aircraft as I used it is an all inclusive term that includes everything that flies. With few exceptions FAR.'s apply to anything that flies. An airship is an aircraft by definition. Not sure what your point is. My anti collision strobes are white. What color are yours? I have experience with back scatter with both FLIR and visual wavelength TV with military aircraft. In some high humidity situations it can reder them unusable. If you are involved with the Falon project you need some expert help that you do not seem to be getting. Edited February 14, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catmandoo Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 SWWASAS Rest assured, I am not, never will be associated with any aerial platforms. I do not have anti-collision strobes. I was just curious if yours is red or white. Thanks for the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) I am not sure what William Barnes was stating then, because he indicated they could fly the "thing" at the heights discussed because of it being under a University, this was discussed recently in one of the interviews on MonsterX or Cryptologic, I forget which show. I am just taking what he said, and yes I believe I meant "airship", but whatever the case he made it sound like he had special permissions not granted to the average drone flyer. My assumptions were misguided I guess regarding how it's flight would be treated or observed by radar, and I thank SWWASAS for that correction. So is he misrepresenting the project, or is it that we just need to do a little more looking into what he claims are those special permissions afforded the project under the "university research" designation the Falcon Project will operate under. To answer an earlier question about researching the Hackberry Island nearby, I need to make sure I can make a safe river crossing on the ice, which can be very dicey to say the least, so I have to wait for better ice, or simply take my chances. When open water occurs I can canoe or kayak to the location as I have both of those crafts as well as a fishing boat, but it is so mucky and shallow I think I would do the Kayak route. I will film the occasion and see what I come up with, probably a dead end, but it sure sounds good on paper. Edited February 14, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 14, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) The only person I have talked directly to about the Falcon project was Meldrum himself and that was some time ago. He did not seem to have understanding of the FAA issues or the technical issues involved. Those things are basically homework and if not done properly they could complete the device and never be allowed to fly it. The FAA takes years to rule on waivers to rules. Idaho State might make them at least look at requests, but the process takes more time than anyone can imagine. Recent bad press about drones will only make things worse for getting the appropriate permissions. I wonder if they are aware that the remote pilots of drones that operate in controlled airspace are required to either have a pilots license or have annual training in the Federal Air Regulations. As someone else here pointed out, it is pointless to have cameras pointed straight down in forested areas because all you will see is the tops of trees and nothing underneath the canopy. FLIR as I mentioned, and any one that has a hand held FLIR can attest, you cannot see through trees. There are times where FLIR images are obscured by near fog while visual light cameras see better in the same conditions. Certainly all the technical and permissions aspects can be overcome with enough money and time, but will that expenditure be worth a low resolution image that probably cannot be differentiated from a human at the altitudes they propose to use? I wish them luck but predict that within a month they will be retrieving the tattered remains of the airship out of trees someplace. Edited February 14, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 14, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Early on in the Falcon Project William Dranginis consulted about the optics, thermal imagery and gyroscopics as i remember. He left the project but I can tell you as a Defense contractor or employee and security/surveillance consultant he would have fully briefed Meldrum/Barnes on the technical parameters of required flight characteristics and permits required. If he did not I can't believe it wasn't because he didn't know of the hoops to be jumped through. It would be great to hear it from him. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cryptologic/2015/01/15/episode-35-william-dranginis--bigfoot-encounters-technological-research Edited February 14, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) But what if a well aimed rock brings the whole thing down????? I've heard how far and strong the rock throwing abilities are of the hairy people. Well a hot air balloon at 300 ft is safe. I dare any animal or human to throw a rock of any size or type that far upwards against gravity. It's a moot point anyway. Edited February 14, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) I will go an locate the portion of the podcast that William speaks on the present topic and return with a link and the time frames, it might not shed any light on the question or it might answer it, concurring with SWWASP he stated that will not be using the drone over heavily forested areas, but broken areas where it can see to the forest floor. Better yet I just wrote William personally with some of these questions, hope he will write back soon and I can better inform the forums of the situation with the FAA permissions, and the intended uses of the airship. Edited February 15, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts