FAA fine against drone photographer dismissed.
#402
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
"this means that if I identify a failure *I* get the chance to plant the airframe "
Oh, really.
So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?
Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"
It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.
Do I understand you correctly?
Oh, really.
So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?
Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"
It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.
Do I understand you correctly?
Last edited by bogbeagle; 03-28-2014 at 02:54 PM.
#403
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"this means that if I identify a failure *I* get the chance to plant the airframe "
Oh, really.
So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?
Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"
It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.
Do I understand you correctly?
Oh, really.
So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?
Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"
It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.
Do I understand you correctly?
Side one, our hobby side, uses less than perfect equipment. To reduce hazard we operate under a set of rules that requires us to fly away from spectators, structures and other items of significant value. As a result, we ameliorate the low quality of our equipment by flying over empty fields.
The second side of the coin, commercial Drones, wants to fly by a different set of rules. These operators expect to fly over people, structures and other items of significant value. In order for then to operate safely, Jim & I believe that their equipment must meet a much higher standard that our hobby toys. This Stanford requires known levels of reliability.
#404
My Feedback: (3)
Jim and I discussed and agreed on the reliability issue. First, Bob, there are two sides to the coin here.
Side one, our hobby side, uses less than perfect equipment. To reduce hazard we operate under a set of rules that requires us to fly away from spectators, structures and other items of significant value. As a result, we ameliorate the low quality of our equipment by flying over empty fields.
The second side of the coin, commercial Drones, wants to fly by a different set of rules. These operators expect to fly over people, structures and other items of significant value. In order for then to operate safely, Jim & I believe that their equipment must meet a much higher standard that our hobby toys. This Stanford requires known levels of reliability.
Side one, our hobby side, uses less than perfect equipment. To reduce hazard we operate under a set of rules that requires us to fly away from spectators, structures and other items of significant value. As a result, we ameliorate the low quality of our equipment by flying over empty fields.
The second side of the coin, commercial Drones, wants to fly by a different set of rules. These operators expect to fly over people, structures and other items of significant value. In order for then to operate safely, Jim & I believe that their equipment must meet a much higher standard that our hobby toys. This Stanford requires known levels of reliability.
Dennis
#405
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#406
My Feedback: (3)
"this means that if I identify a failure *I* get the chance to plant the airframe "
Oh, really.
So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?
Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"
It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.
Do I understand you correctly?
Oh, really.
So, when your servo fails, it's you who decides where the aeroplane goes, is it?
Anyway, at least you came clean and admitted that you still fly models, despite your claim that .. "Generally, not a single hobby servo measured up to a reasonable level of time under load"
It makes no sense that you use equipment which does not meet a "reasonable" level of reliability ... and yet you purport to be a champion of safety.
Do I understand you correctly?
I clearly stated that I get to decide where the airframe is going when a servo fails. So again the question, why are you pretending to be stupid? Is that your best?
One of the differences between commercial applications and hobby applications is over people or not, and the most important is visibility. Almost all the sUAV stuff can (and frequently is) flown out of the visual sight of the 'pilot' but ALL hobby stuff is to remain (at least in the US due to AMA Safety Code issues) in the pilots sight. Many sUAV operators have (and probably will continue to - until some serious blood is let) flown over people. As several have posted some sUAV's have flown in what most certified pilots know as 'controlled airspace'. This is prohibited by our COB, but commercial operators are not 'ruled' or guided by the COB. Note that I am not opening the argument about less than 400 feet, that is an entirely different made up issue by another just looking for something to pick a fight over and misdirect the thread.
Please tell us if we need to get you a translator to explain the above to you in whatever language you call your native tongue.
#407
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
I see what you actually said.
Our stuff does not provide a "reasonable level of reliability" ... but, you are going to use it, anyway.
I'd like to see you argue that in court, when your 20lb model has just stoved in someone's rib-cage.
What difference does "visibility" make, when you have lost control of the model as a result of equipment failure?
The "controlled airspace" argument is a red-herring. No-one is defending those who do that, afaics.
Anyway, there is no legislation prohibiting the passage of free-flight models through controlled airspace ... should free-flight be banned/regulated?
What about children's toy planes? You could definitely "have someone's eye out" with one of those. In fact, it's arguably more likely that an injury would occur, when children/adults are using stuff like that.
I don't need a translator. I can see perfectly well that you want to impose your version of "safety" upon other people; but, that you feel a whole lot less comfortable when your own practices are questioned.
Our stuff does not provide a "reasonable level of reliability" ... but, you are going to use it, anyway.
I'd like to see you argue that in court, when your 20lb model has just stoved in someone's rib-cage.
What difference does "visibility" make, when you have lost control of the model as a result of equipment failure?
The "controlled airspace" argument is a red-herring. No-one is defending those who do that, afaics.
Anyway, there is no legislation prohibiting the passage of free-flight models through controlled airspace ... should free-flight be banned/regulated?
What about children's toy planes? You could definitely "have someone's eye out" with one of those. In fact, it's arguably more likely that an injury would occur, when children/adults are using stuff like that.
I don't need a translator. I can see perfectly well that you want to impose your version of "safety" upon other people; but, that you feel a whole lot less comfortable when your own practices are questioned.
#408
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Out of interest, I just calculated the energy available in a 10 kg airframe, travelling at just 40 mph ... it is slightly greater than the energy in a bullet from a .44 Magnum.
Increase the speed to 60 mph, and you have more energy than a .50 SW. ... a little less than a 7.62 x 51.
A 5 kg model, at 40 mph, has more energy than a .45 ACP. (about 25% more)
A 1 kg quadcopter, travelling at 20 mph (is that a reasonable speed for an out-of-control quad?) ... has the same energy as an airgun pellet (13 ftlbs)
What sort of models do you fly, Mr. Branaum?
Increase the speed to 60 mph, and you have more energy than a .50 SW. ... a little less than a 7.62 x 51.
A 5 kg model, at 40 mph, has more energy than a .45 ACP. (about 25% more)
A 1 kg quadcopter, travelling at 20 mph (is that a reasonable speed for an out-of-control quad?) ... has the same energy as an airgun pellet (13 ftlbs)
What sort of models do you fly, Mr. Branaum?
Last edited by bogbeagle; 03-28-2014 at 11:23 PM.
#409
Thread Starter
I see what you actually said.
Our stuff does not provide a "reasonable level of reliability" ... but, you are going to use it, anyway.
I'd like to see you argue that in court, when your 20lb model has just stoved in someone's rib-cage.
What difference does "visibility" make, when you have lost control of the model as a result of equipment failure?
Our stuff does not provide a "reasonable level of reliability" ... but, you are going to use it, anyway.
I'd like to see you argue that in court, when your 20lb model has just stoved in someone's rib-cage.
What difference does "visibility" make, when you have lost control of the model as a result of equipment failure?
This was a model airplane, and was NOT set up for FPV. It may have contained the same amount of energy as that 44 magnum bullet, but who knows. Its total weight was just over 5 pounds.
#410
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 3 years ago, I was flying a .40 sized pattern plane. I got it to "three mistakes high" to check its stall characteristics, and noted that it did not have a tendency to tip-stall, yet still required a good rate of speed when landing. I was about ready to do another test, but when making a turn I totally lost control of the plane. There was no input, and this was with a 2.4 ghz Spectrum. It was headed straight DOWN. This was at a legally sanctioned AMA field, and I still had my AMA membership at the time. That pattern plane crashed right in the middle of a school playground. Fortunately, that school was closed for the weekend, and no kids were out playing. It was traveling at roughly 90mph when it nose dived between a swing set, and a sand box.
This was a model airplane, and was NOT set up for FPV. It may have contained the same amount of energy as that 44 magnum bullet, but who knows. Its total weight was just over 5 pounds.
This was a model airplane, and was NOT set up for FPV. It may have contained the same amount of energy as that 44 magnum bullet, but who knows. Its total weight was just over 5 pounds.
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
#411
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: York, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Your 5lb, 90mph model had equivalent energy to a 7.62 short ... about 2000 Joules.
http://youtu.be/IIFkLAgGy6w?t=10s
http://youtu.be/IIFkLAgGy6w?t=10s
#412
Since I have seen an abundance of hair splitting in this thread already, allow me to say that there simply is no such thing as "a legally sanctioned AMA filed."
AMA does not sanction, approve, legally recognize or in any other manner or means grant any approval of an RC flying site. AMA Sanctions contests/event and charters clubs, but they do nothing with respect to flying sites. They do have a set of recommended flying site set up guidelines, but there is no requirement that they be followed.
AMA will offer a club a policy which provides the site owner with primary liability insurance for a fee, but all you need to do is send the money and tell them who the owner is.
And for anyone who feels that even a small foamy airplane presents zero safety concerns I wonder if you would be willing to allow such a model aircraft to be flown into the face of one of your kids, or yourself for that matter?
AMA does not sanction, approve, legally recognize or in any other manner or means grant any approval of an RC flying site. AMA Sanctions contests/event and charters clubs, but they do nothing with respect to flying sites. They do have a set of recommended flying site set up guidelines, but there is no requirement that they be followed.
AMA will offer a club a policy which provides the site owner with primary liability insurance for a fee, but all you need to do is send the money and tell them who the owner is.
And for anyone who feels that even a small foamy airplane presents zero safety concerns I wonder if you would be willing to allow such a model aircraft to be flown into the face of one of your kids, or yourself for that matter?
#413
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, after all this talk about failure rates I think I better start flying quad copters and doing FPV. At least they don't have servos and linkages to fail like inferior "regular" models do.
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
#414
My Feedback: (3)
Electronic components also have failure rates. The camera, transmitter, receiver and any other, more or less, pure electronic component can fail unexpectedly. Ideally, the components in certified commercial drones will have identified failure rates and required maintenance cycles. As a general rule, toys, that we fly for recreational purposes, don't.
That last couple of sentences seem to be beyond the comprehension of some foreigners who have no business in an AMA forum but want to pick fights. Since some think these FPV things are so very safe, I think it is a great idea that think they should all have to take a foamie at full throttle in the face, of the face of their children. Then they can personally attest to the rest of the world being wrong.
Flying in the wind today was . . . interesting!
#415
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, after all this talk about failure rates I think I better start flying quad copters and doing FPV. At least they don't have servos and linkages to fail like inferior "regular" models do.
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
When I see you do this, I may accept that your convictions about reliability of RC model equipment are for real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw
#416
Thread Starter
Man, after all this talk about failure rates I think I better start flying quad copters and doing FPV. At least they don't have servos and linkages to fail like inferior "regular" models do.
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
One of my favorite Giant Scale airplanes has more than a thousand flights on it and I fly it for demonstration at full scale events often... Is there any one here that I can send the list of components of that aircraft to so they can tell me how many more flights I have before typical failure? Thanks
They know not what they do...just paving the road...
Drones often get a bad rap that they don't deserve. Here is an illustration: A 12 gauge duck hunting shotgun can have the same power as a fully-automatic 30 caliber machine gun with a full 30-round magazine, if the right ammunition is used: 00 Buckshot, for example. Yet, that shotgun and ammo is just as legal as a .22LR lever gun, which packs only a fraction of the energy of the 12 gauge. A quarter-scale Extra 300 packs many times the amount of energy that is contained in a 2 pound quad copter flown FPV. Yet, there is little talk about regulating the quarter scale Extra while everybody wants to attack the what is essentially a 2 pound foamie with a camera. I find this rather interesting. A bad battery or faulty receiver can make that Extra wonder off for quite a distance beyond the flying field.
#417
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quarter-scale Extra 300 packs many times the amount of energy that is contained in a 2 pound quad copter flown FPV. Yet, there is little talk about regulating the quarter scale Extra while everybody wants to attack the what is essentially a 2 pound foamie with a camera. I find this rather interesting. A bad battery or faulty receiver can make that Extra wonder off for quite a distance beyond the flying field.
#418
Thread Starter
OK, how about unintentionally, like when a faulty battery is used or when a receiver mysteriously decides to reboot in the middle of a stunt? I've seen that happen, too. This one was a 50cc Yak, and it made a continuous loop, almost hitting one of the club members, until it finally buried its self about 20 feet away from a busy road.
#419
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
That last couple of sentences seem to be beyond the comprehension of some foreigners who have no business in an AMA forum but want to pick fights. Since some think these FPV things are so very safe, I think it is a great idea that think they should all have to take a foamie at full throttle in the face, of the face of their children. Then they can personally attest to the rest of the world being wrong.
Flying in the wind today was . . . interesting!
That last couple of sentences seem to be beyond the comprehension of some foreigners who have no business in an AMA forum but want to pick fights. Since some think these FPV things are so very safe, I think it is a great idea that think they should all have to take a foamie at full throttle in the face, of the face of their children. Then they can personally attest to the rest of the world being wrong.
Flying in the wind today was . . . interesting!
#420
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, how about unintentionally, like when a faulty battery is used or when a receiver mysteriously decides to reboot in the middle of a stunt? I've seen that happen, too. This one was a 50cc Yak, and it made a continuous loop, almost hitting one of the club members, until it finally buried its self about 20 feet away from a busy road.
FWIW, I have dissed Boggie's input re reliability - he probably drives a British car, so what the heck could he know.
#422
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I see you do this, I may accept that your convictions about reliability of RC model equipment are for real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75ESD9PBOw
#423
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really, who said that?
#424
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm...I haven't made any statements of my convictions about our toys reliability...Just pointed out how quad copters, even with FPV have less mechanical things to go wrong...Its already been widely stated, by others, they are easier to fly...so easy in fact, many say you can just buy one and start flying and having fun immediately. But what the hey, lets keep throwing FPV under the bus....We all know "those" people that fly FPV are the dregs of society...there needs to be some law against them!
#425
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon, man - you know I have spoken out on several occasions advocating AMA acceptance of FPV with reasonable rules, that is the same rules everyone else is expected to comply with, no more and no less. Once again, this thread isn't about FPV, it is about flying what are physically the same as our model airplanes outside of traditional/accepted model airplane flying venues.