cj_rumley

LOL! Maybe that should be a poll.

NorfolkSouthern

How about asking him if he had a background check and if his evil black drone is registered with the ATF? Or, maybe you could summon Dianne Feinstein to tell him he was in possession of an "illegal assault quad copter"?

Killing him would have ruined your day and his, plus it would result in some legal complications. But at least you would get free room and board for life.

JW0311

According to this thread he is a sociopath. Perhaps I would have been sent to prison, yes, but I would have saved the rest of society from a great evil. I was hoping to get some thoughts on how to mitigate the risk in this type of situation. Instead of out right banning it. Surly we put our heads together and come up with a reasonable solution.

James

JW0311

John, I can't argue that there was obvious danger posed to others in this situation but I also noticed that the crane operator was moving steel beams around at what i considered break neck speed. Also posing a danger to the very same people as he was close to the construction fence. My point is I think that you and others here would be better equipped to come up with ways to mitigate the risk VS. the FAA. Sorry, I don't trust them.

James

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Hey bloke, you are welcome to manufacture any evil position for me that makes you all warm and fuzzy since you have made it clear you only want to troll and attack to derail our discussion's rather than have a rational conversation.

I have repeatedly and clearly stated the distinction between hobby and commercial operations which makes me again wonder if we need to get you a translator. Unless you want to contest those previously stated differences your latest question puts you in the troll column and I think that is being gracious to you and your kind.

As for your inflammatory and bogus "question" about by standers, it totally ignores that there is a substantial difference between standing, sitting, or simply being near a model flying field and being UNDER a flying model. Do your people (COB) not have rules about how and where models are flown? When was the last time you were UNDER a flying model?

Here is an example or two for you since you seem to be either incapable of rational thought or need some comprehension aid. If I throw a discus near you, you are a bystander. However if I drop one on you, you are NOT a bystander. It is almost like being at a shooting range. If you are next to the shooter, but behind the line of fire, you are a bystander. If you are next to a shooter and firing a gun, you are a participant. However, if you are down range near the target when the shooting is going on, you are NOT a bystander but you may be an unwilling participant.

Please explain how you see flying a hobby sUAV OVER the head someone without their knowledge is right, safe, and great.


James killing that guy would have opened a whole can of worms for you, but telling him you are calling the local authorities and the FAA and DOING JUST THAT would have been proper. The FAA does need to know that there ARE ways this technology can be used safely and from what you are saying I suspect this guy may have taken a much safer approach than Trappy, and that is notable.

The difference is that the crane operator is behind the fence and those at risk take that chance by virtue of employment though OSHA might have had a word of two about what you reported here. The question is was your quad guy, and his equipment, inside or outside the fence.

Hmmm....

I don't think leaving this stuff to local definitions is going to help the 'industry' as much as having (gulp) the feds develop regulations about usage, skill sets, and equipment standards that are nation wide would. I don't love the FAA, in fact much the opposite having been threatened more than once with violations for following the regulations! Unfortunately think that would have a better over all result than the patchwork of various state regulations like those managing doctors, lawyers, and pharmacists. Bad enough that we will still have local interpretation of the regs...<shudder>

JohnShe

So you can't tell the difference between a professional crane operator and a hack flying a toy around?

Sport_Pilot

Obviously it does because the judge said so. They must write regulations for sUAV, and those below 400 feet are in a special class.

JW0311

Professionalism is an individual trait and since I don't know the man I cant speak to whether he was a professional or not. The "hack" did show concern for the others around him as he moves his craft so he would not be directly over anyone. My interest is in coming up with some reasonable safety measures to put in place while these things are operating. Not interested in throwing insults back and forth.

James

Sport_Pilot

IMO it was a hard hat area and what he did was perfectly safe. There should have been signs around stating it was a construction site and hard hats were required.

JW0311

Jim, This gentlemen was flying outside of the construction fence. I see your point about assumed risk with the crane. Perhaps your right about nation wide standards as much as it pains me to say it. Maybe idealistic on my part but I would think that those who operate in the rc aviation field would be better suited to putting together safety measures than the FAA. I thought that by throwing the subject out there maybe some one would have some ideas. My bad.


James

cj_rumley

James,

In your description of what you observed in this particular instance, you offered some thoughts as to what might have made it better.

I think you hit on some reasonable measures that would not be overly restrictive yet probably adequate in the particular situation. It was a construction site, which would typically be controlled access and identified by barricades and signage as a "hard hats only area." If the construction crew were alerted to presence of the drone and the possibility of it falling so they would not be alarmed by it to point where their reaction might cause injury, or possibly opt to take cover while it was overhead. Falling debris is a known hazard at such sites, and they are accustomed to avoiding being hit by it. I don't think the drone would be outsized in comparison to the normal hazards they face on the job. Most importantly it happened in a closed are where no innocent bystander should be, and the situation is comparable in that way to a model airplane field.
FAA has discussed having several sub-classes of sUAV based on mass, those at the bottom of the scale to be less restricted. Perhaps they will also moderate restrictions based on the character of the flyover areas where they will be allowed to be operated (again not unlike model aircraft). I have read that they already are more permissive regarding sUAV operation over ag acreage, for example.

cj

JW0311

Maybe that is the answer. Signs stating UAV's in operation and hand out hard hats.

JohnShe

Maybe you live in a fantasy world. I think you should have your tinfoil cap refitted.

JohnShe

Have you read the decision? The judge let the guy off because there were no regulations covering the situation. The guy walked on a technicality that had nothing to do with your 400' misconception.

JW0311

But..........it fits good the way it is. As far as fantasy land.......you have no idea my friend.

James

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Somewhere in all this mess was some discussion along the lines of "not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"

A simple observation and a even simpler "point". Its relevance stands on its own merit...plain and simple. Not sure why a simple point can't be made a just accepted for what it is...

JohnShe

Well, in a hair splitting sort of way you are kinda close to the mark. But we were only using servos as an example. In fact, as far as I know, there are no life expectancy specifications for any critical mechanical, electrical or electronic components used in the model aircraft industry. Although I may have read that some of the microturbine manufacturers do provide a recommended maintenance cycle. But, that may be because they sell to the military as well as the hobby industry.

bogbeagle

Do I understand you correctly? You appointed yourself as some sort of Safety Guardian, with a mind to intercede and "bring down the forces of Law and Order upon the head of the malefactor".

And yet ... strangely ... the pilot was invited to fly there; and the "people concerned" apparently weren't concerned. (I'm assuming that the building workers weren't rushing about, screaming at the horror of it all.)

bogbeagle

OK, then.

So, do you maintain that it's OK for a commercial outfit to fly over people? .... provided that the outfit has met with your approval in respect of equipment and personnel?











BTW, in my experience, being directly under a flying model is quite a safe place.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I realize its was an example, albeit a very poor one in this particular case and I also understand the need to use such goofy examples to make a case against FPV... especially as any use we are discussing here.


Now, hopefully, maybe we've dispensed with all the silly little side dishes... Back on point...If I am not mistaken, Trappy had permission to video the campus...that should be enough info for most intelligent people. The judge in this case did the right thing...that should be "case closed"...but of course I realize the same idiotic mindset that brought these charges against him are too idiotic to respect that...carry on...

bradpaul

So if the electronic components of a FPV multirotor are critical to operating one safely, then why are the multirotor and FPV forums on this site, and other sites, filled with threads on component failures and fly always? Even if only a small percentage of the problems were valid it would be enough for the FAA to recall/ground a full scale component.

How about the infamous NAZA fly away, fiction or fact? What would the FAA do if that component was used in a man carrying vehicle?

Yet some here still advocate hobbyist equipment is OK for commercial use even flying over crowds of uninformed people..........................

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Can you please point to any post where someone here said such a thing? I missed that somehow.

bradpaul

Ahhhh..... the old "go do some research for me" response......... No, you can do your own, thank you.

Sport_Pilot

JW, I don't think they are paying attention.

Sport_Pilot

That was only part of it, the other part was that this was, according to the judge, a model airplane not interfering with full scale operations.