astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Was this post meant to be sarcastic?

I didn't see anything wrong with that flight. The pilot even corrected the bystander when he asked if he was flying a drone by saying, "Nope, just an RC model airplane"

Astro

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

"Not sure if this is going to work, looks sort of sketchy, there's that guy on my runway". Does this appear to be a safe and reasonable place to fly? Public beach, members of the public meandering around, right next to a pier full of people, and a busy roadway (that the pilot drove on while playing with his phone).

The pilots name: The troublemaker. LOL. You can't make this stuff up. In the words of many a pilot...perhaps those that Mike continues to call "idiots"....what could possibly go wrong?

I guess my tolerance for risk and potential problems is much lower than his. To each their own. Given the scrutiny this hobby faces now, it doesn't look like a good move. I can only imagine the outrage if that guy was flying a DJI Phantom and it was shot out of the air, rather than his traditional fixed wing aircraft. I can hear the cheers now.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

He didn't appear to break any AMA or FAA rules, so I do not know what your beef is with this flight.

Remember the Whole Park Flyer program that was rolled out and funded by the AMA? Isn't this the type of flying that program advocated and embraced?

Well, I guess you'll have to keep on imagining, because it wasn't and it didn't. Why do you keep on with the what if's? Kinda like what you call, "doom and gloom", right?

As far as it being a DJI and getting shot out of the air. This is a perfect example of what separates "traditional" from Drone. Don't you think there would be much more likelihood of public outrage about this guys flight if he were hovering a DJI over the bikini-clad sunbather while filming, or at the pier, hovering over a fisherman's head, or a couple that were trying to have a quiet moment to themselves? In this instance, he was out to enjoy a flight (for the pure enjoyment of flying) at a public park that was provided by the public for all to enjoy, whether it be flying, sunbathing, fishing, surfing, etc.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

This is one that I have to agree with Astro on. He was primarily flying over the water, not over people.I didn't see anywhere in the vid where he was over the pier so, again, I didn't see him doing anything that would warrant a call to the police. HAD he been flying a MR, someone may have complained IF he was hovering and shooting someone/something in particular. Since his plane couldn't hover and take video of one location, it wasn't the invasive nuisance a MR would have been perceived to be

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Like I said, his tolerance for risk is much higher than mine. Flying "mostly" or "primarily" over the water or sand isn't good enough. Loss of control by the pilot either by dumb thumbing or radio glitch was still possible, and there was a pier full of people and a busy road close by. As for it being a public park available to all, well....most if not all at this point have banned RC aircraft for obvious reason, the risk factor. This was a beach. Can the nitro guys show up next?

It's a safe bet that folk here would be howling (and one calling the pilot a "moron" or "idiot" as is common now) if this had been a DJI Phantom that lost control and injured someone, or caused an accident. Between that and the guys name of "troublemaker", the anti drone folks would have a field day.

Again, folks are free to do as they see fit, in this specific scenario I wouldn't have flown there and I'm fairly certain most folks here wouldn't. I doubt Franklin would! It seems to me that the standard is different here because it's a fixed wing aircraft rather than a MR.

flyinwalenda

My Feedback: (5)

Aside from the guy sounding a bit like a Ca. dolt , I agree that his flying style in that video really was not that bad. He did not fly over the pier, he did not fly over the beach/over people's heads,, he flew out over the water and there were no boats.
I suppose he could have found a more secluded part of the beach to fly from .....or could he?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I think the fact that he would need to find a more secluded spot to fly at would be the first red flag that maybe this isn't the best place to fly at all. Again, we see videos like this where a MR is flying and folks are up in arms about the potential safety issues, but this involves a fixed wing aircraft, so exceptions can be made, it's "mostly" safe.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Actually, you said, "Another one of those irresponsible drone pilots giving the hobby a bad name." Just more of your spin. If you don't like the AMA rules, maybe you should do something to advocate change, instead of calling a fellow flyer, "irresponsible" and accusing him of giving our hobby a bad name when, in actuality, he was flying well within his rights and within the law.
LOL, Just like your tolerance for risk, your definition of a pier full of people is hilarious! I saw a grand total of FOUR people on that pier!! Just more spin.
Actually, public outrage about flying activities in public places was more born from privacy issues of hovering drone camera platforms than anything else. A MR drone hovering overhead with its multiple blades buzzing like a macerator is far more daunting to the general public than a fixed-wing foamy that the operator has a chance of steering from danger if something should go wrong. Your "obvious" reason is just one of a multitude of reasons, NOT the OBVIOUS reason. More spin.

More "ifs" and spin. I prefer to deal in the facts, not some fictional, imaginary scenario.

Again, we are all bound by AMA and FAA rules. If YOU don't like it, fine. You are free to fly within whatever margins of safety you are comfortable with, just don't project evil on those that fly within the rules. Nice subtle spin on your assumption that people don't seem to have an issue with this particular instance because it is fixed vs. rotor. A MR pilot would have been completely within his rights to operate his MR in the same manner this fixed wing pilot did and I would have stood up for his right to do so as well, BUT as was evidenced, one bystander did seem concerned that he was flying a "drone". Based on my experience, a MR operating in this same location very well may have stirred a little more public concern and public ill-will toward "drones". This is a perfect scenario of how the public separates "drones" and "traditional" in their minds and brings unnecessary scrutiny and regulations to "traditional" modeling operations because of one certain discipline of RC. Helicopters and jets have NEVER threatened to change the way traditional aircraft are regulated, why should MR and drones?

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

FACT? Where was this identified as a fact? You're really reaching now, even for you! The FACT is, he flew at a public location, and the rest of the nearby public went about enjoying their activities without any outrage. Where is the problem? Only in your spin!
You are actually helping to prove the point I have been making for many years now! the main reason our hobby has come under scrutiny is due to public perception of drones (no matter how uninformed or unrealistic they may be). You can make this about a drone vs. fixed thing on these forums all you want, but the reality is in the eyes of the non-hobbyist public and in this instance it was the non-hobbyist public that simply didn't seem to be bothered by the fixed wing. No harm there. If the public had an issue with a MR operating there, would you call them haters, or would you take a step back and recognize their right to be alarmed (no matter how unfounded there concerns may or not be) and finally understand how and why we face the scrutiny and regulation we have in recent years. I have been trying to say all along that it is not my (or the others that have been labeled as MR/drone haters) "dislike" (I really don't have a dislike for them) for drones that has caused me to advocate for "traditional" activities, it is the FACT that the public sees them differently (no matter how unfounded their concerns may or may not be) and that fact is what has caused a knee-jerk reaction and regulation of the vast majority of modelers to have to fight to retain the right to operate as they have for many years because of the few who choose to operate their craft in a way that causes public outrage.

Astro

N410DC

Though I personally would not have flow there, I cannot see where he violated any laws, or FAA or AMA regulations/guidelines (assuming that the local government had no regulations that banned model aircraft on the beach.) He pointed the aircraft away from everyone before takeoff, and virtually all of his flying was over the water. I did not see any swimmers in the water, but swimmers may have been difficult to see in the video. Unless there was a fast crosswind, I might have chosen to land parallel to the shore, to avoid hitting anyone if I had to abort the landing, but it does not look like there were any people directly in front of the aircraft's approach path. Bottom line: This guy could have flown in a far more dangerous manner. Instead, he thought ahead, and took a few reasonable safety precautions to minimize the danger towards others.

The pilot did seem to make a point of aiming the camera towards the sunbather in the bikini, but one could possibly argue that she did not have an expectation of privacy at a public beach. Again, it may not be legal, but it's not something I would have done. At least not without her permission.

franklin_m

But wait. Aren't you the one who's saying everything is fine, that we'll keep flying in the future as we always have? If the hobby is under scrutiny as you now appear to believe, then it seems the future isn't quite so certain as you've said earlier.

franklin_m

And what part of that is not true? Last time I checked, seems they're selling millions of drones and people seem to be flying them w/o instruction (so that part's true). And also it seems there's ample youtube and other video showing them flying them at places other than clubs, so the statement about incentive would seem to be true as well.

Seems to me, he's looking at the world as it is and not as some hope it would be.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

The camera he pointed toward the sunbather was his cell phone camera, not the one on his plane. Nothing that anybody with a smart phone hasn't done or will do in the future. Nothing of RC specific relevance there.

Astro

franklin_m

I was ok with it until around the 7 minute mark where he seemed to be flying close to or over non-participants.

Of course, to me this is far worse, and it happened at AMA field:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQH1Fny_U4I

franklin_m

Oh, and what about this one? Turbine waiver holder advertising 259 MPH (59 over AMA limit), overlying roads with vehicles, major highway, occupied parking lots, golf courses, etc.

So much for the argument that "AMA members are not the problem."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYecj5jYCIA

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

lol.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Astro[/QUOTE]

Right? Just some good old fashioned locker room talk. Everyone with cell phone captures videos of girls in bikinis without permission and shares it online, and if they haven't, they will in the future.

#noteverybody

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

A great example of the current national debate process, at least from one side. The best defense is a great offense. The "sure, but look at what XXX does, did, or will do". Use examples that are not even appear relevant to the issue to try to distract and avoid the obvious issues.

Because a crashed airplane at a field, and a plane flying fast at a field is exactly on point with someone flying at a "mostly" and "primarily" safe public beach.

I'm thinking you wouldn't have flown like that at the beach though right?

Sport_Pilot

We always knew the jet jocks were a bad lot. We should vote them out of the AMA!

Ok, but not me. They did it. Made me say it.

franklin_m

Just pointing ample bashing of what are likely non-AMA members, I wanted to be fair and point out much more serious issues with behaviors of likely AMA members and the readily apparent failure of self regulation. While I do not disagree that non-AMA members can be a problem, I also do not agree with the statements out of HQ and others indicating AMA members are not the problem. It wasn't difficult at all to find examples where they indeed are - and based on the aftermath (brush fire in populated area requiring helicopter and ground based efforts to extinguish), and openly violation of several AMA safety code items (overflight of that highway interchange, speed limit violation, etc.), AMA members are indeed part of the problem.

What's concerning is that AMA doesn't appear to agree, nor do they appear inclined to take action to enforce their rules. As long as the money keeps coming in, they're content to bury their heads and pretend this kind of behavior by AMA members doesn't exist.

franklin_m

Yeah, open and unashamed violation of AMA's 200 MPH limit. Overflight of busy highway interchanges, overflight of occupied parking lots etc. - pretty big deal when the sUAS is of that kind of size and speed.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Uh oh...have I been caught here, foiled by my own earlier words? Nah...I said that, absolutely. But you might have forgotten the context though, that happens sometimes around here when points are trying to be made, amiright?

Not only is the hobby fine, it's doing fantastic. I'll go out on a limb to say, never better! Can I make a suggestion? I highly suggest and recommend going to a flying field in the near future. I think flying in a field by yourself has given you a false sense of what is going on with this hobby right now, I really do. Go to a local AMA club, perhaps one that you didn't belong to previously. Look up the next event that's going on (easy to do via the AMA website, or RCG or RCU, or that "rag" called MA ( ) Looks like there's 5 events going on this month in PA, at least per the MA pages (142) for those mags not currently being used to line bird cages. Of course more informal events may be going on that were not advertised. Don't want to be outside in this weather, no biggy, look for the free flight guys who have fun fly competitions or just general flying indoors. They are out there.

The hobby is alive and well, vibrant and exciting, and growing everyday. Of course the hobby has more scrutiny now than before, I don't think a single person has said otherwise. The FAA becoming more involved in our hobby is evidence of that. But what exactly has changed again other than the registration? Nada.

You made a personal choice to quit your club for economic and social reasons. So yes,things have changed for you, because you wanted it that way. I don't know anyone in my state, or the two other states where I'm a member of a club that has been forced to change the way they fly. I think the fields in DC even opened back up didn't they?

I see you shifted to the other technique of...well....the future isn't quite so certain. Another well known and often times used technique to question and worry about the future. With regards to the hobby itself, this has been going on for quite some time, with virtually nothing of substance and/or concern having come to fruition. Yet, the future remains to be seen...it appears to be in doubt. Maybe. Is anything really certain? Should we just give up?

I don't operate on that level of cynicism and doubt, it's just wasted energy imo. Yes yes, bring on the sheeple and rose colored lenses characterizations, yawn. I was at more than 10 different fields this year in 4 different states, and almost as many events. Sure, some had more participants that others, one event I flew a demo at had over 10,000 people come through that day....I think I can say without a doubt the hobby is alive and well. Lots of great events, lot's of great flying, lot's of different categories of flights, and of course the interest in the AMA continues to increase as well, yet another year of positive growth.

Someone flying recklessly and causing injury or harm isn't good, regardless of what they fly.

rcmiket

Wonder who got the bill for the equipment needed to put that out..................

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If only everything worked perfect all the time. Here are just a few recent examples I could have used to show why flying on a public beach was not advisable, they would have been as relevant as yours regarding the turbines.

If you spend any appreciable time at a club, you will find that planes crash. I was told when I started flying, every plane has an expiration date, we just don't know what it is.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/politi...s-crash-cause/

https://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/2...in-water-play/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...been-grounded/

https://www.navytimes.com/story/mili...vada/87965692/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/15...ct-safely.html

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07...t-orig-bpb.cnn

init4fun

Hi Astro ,

I have said this before , exactly what your getting at here that the public has such a negative image of mulitcopters as being "spy drones" that any multicopter is looked on with suspicion by the public whereas anything fixed wing doesn't get that same kind of negative reaction . I too believe if that were a multicopter and if it was hovering near the sunbather that it would have been taken as being a "peeping drone" by the young lady and the surrounding folks , even if it was a multicopter being flown without a camera ! And yes the fixed wing gets the free pass of being "just an overgrown kid's toy" because the media hasn't taught the public that my PT-17 could be peekin in their windows at any given moment . It sure wasn't us fixed wing flyers who gave the public the negative image of multicopters , and yet so many times I see it being portrayed as a "drone VS traditional" thing when the problem with their image lies squarely with them themselves . The next time someone catches my ol Biplane hovering outside someone's window taking pictures then they can blame us fined wing pilots , my strong suspicion being that the next news story of an RC aircraft being caught doing that will be a multicopter and not a biplane .