Good points. Also looks like there's a stadium in the background - Unless there was an MLB, NFL, or Div 1 sporting event there, no problems with flying there.

Biggest issue I see is that he's inside class B airspace I suspect....a big no-no.

So if it's not specifically prohibited by statute, it's o/k to do? Say it ain't so Doggy. He flew in a city, he flew over people, he flew over steets, and flew over moving vehicles. How much more reckless can the guy get. I know that's not something you would do, nor would I.

LoL...that's the only issue you see, class B? Did you miss the rest of the video? Or the second one? Would you do any of those things with your helis?

Look at the Chart that covers the Class "B" air space over Brooklyn it encompass JFK Newark and Laguardia airports but Brooklyn lies on the outer circles of all three air ports. Now did he inform any of these air ports he was going to fly Probably not and depending where is was probably not within 5 miles of any of the 3 airports that constitute the Class "B" airspace.

Zoom in on the NY area and note that Brooklyn airspace is not right under the inner circles of any of the 3 airportshttp://www.iflightplanner.com/AviationCharts/

I only commented on the airspace thing. If indeed it's class B, then that's pretty much a show stopper.

U would make a very bad witness for the Prosecution of this case.

First ...Why can't U fly "In A CITY"? Second: Look again, He did not fly over any person (Close to but not over them). Third: Did not fly over an "Occupied" street. Fourth: Did Not fly over any Moving Or Occupied Vehicles. Case Dismissed .
Yes not a great choice of area but no laws were broken ... Do U think he was an AMA member or had his Federal License Much less had either Number or other required Info on his Quad. Now that would be Illegal if in fact he did not have the Proper Paperwork. Just like a full Scale plane can't manage to get off the ground with out the 5 pieces of paper or placks Required by the FAR's to be onboard.

Objection your honor, permission to treat the witness as pedantic? :p

Doggy, are we looking at the same videos? In the first one, at the 1:12 point, he's clearly flying over a city street. I see you tried to qualify the street as not "occupied", but that's irrelevant. It's a freakin city street in Brooklyn NY....c'mon. Oh, would that huge city bus that drove by 1:38 qualify as "occupying" the street? And yes, he flew right next to two other people (and didn't have the best control) who I doubt gave him permission to do so.

2nd video....flies right over the street, and then a car at 1:16, did you miss that? That really busy stretch of multi lane road on the right, that's Route 27, Ocean Highway. Just a 10 second flyaway...away!

C'mon, the class B issue aside, the guy is reckless and an accident waiting to happen. To say nothing of his poor editing skills, and the music selection. I expected better from a Park Sloper (not that kind, the NY kind). And he'll be the first one to whine about "not knowing what I was doing was wrong "Why am I being made an example of" as he cries into his craft beer and artisanal mayonnaise. Look him up on that site under his name, check out his other doozies. These two are tame. "Rooftop Shenanigans" is another aptly and ironically named one.

C'mon now, I need some righteous condemnation of this less than "traditional" RC pilot....any takers? :rolleyes:

I'm going to trust your reports on the videos - I don't have time to watch them right now. But if what you say is true, then whether he's legal or not, he's an accident waiting to happen. To get at the legal side of things, it would depend upon whether they're done under part 101 or 107 (for the sake of the argument I'm going to assume both are in effect - knowing full well that is not the case until later in August - assuming it happens). I think it's probably a tad more difficult to hold him to a "guideline" under 101, but probably not impossible.

I'm not a fan of either part 101 or 107 operators flying over participants, unprotected spectators, cars on roads, etc. I say crush the guilty.

I had to really try hard to watch them again...so I feel ya! LoL.. 99% of the time these flights that people put up result in no problems, no downsides, other than the nasty music they attach to them. BUT..the more they gamble, the more they risk. And so far, the few that have been busted all whine and complain, almost never accept that what they did was wrong or even close to dangerous. I think they should all be held accountable, commensurate with their actions. I don't want the FAA or local agencies throwing the book at them, a measured response is fair depending on what the did, but some of them really need to feel the pain of criminal charges or high fines.

C'mon now, I need some righteous condemnation of this less than "traditional" RC pilot....any takers?
Yes He is stupid but U can't prosecute, Fine, and Jail "Stupid". and that's what started this whole thing ... The world would be a lot better off if we could Fix Stupid.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by franklin_m http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/imag...post-right.png
I'm going to trust your reports on the videos - I don't have time to watch them right now. But if what you say is true, then whether he's legal or not, he's an accident waiting to happen. To get at the legal side of things, it would depend upon whether they're done under part 101 or 107 (for the sake of the argument I'm going to assume both are in effect - knowing full well that is not the case until later in August - assuming it happens). I think it's probably a tad more difficult to hold him to a "guideline" under 101, but probably not impossible.

I'm not a fan of either part 101 or 107 operators flying over participants, unprotected spectators, cars on roads, etc. I say crush the guilty.
Just think if these guys posted Videos from a flying field (If they even fly at a field) of nothing but Corn Fields or Soy Beans. Who would watch them Much less cratike them. 2 guys at our field did just that attached a small recorder camera to a small plane flew up and down the corn rows hopeing to spot a downed plane. Had to up load the video to a lap top and look for the plane after the fact "No FPV" 90 percent of the time U had NO idea of where the heck the video was looking at in reference to our position. Not very interesting But very very Safe.

http://www.gizmag.com/airbus-drone-a...pection/44373/

irony!

Wa, wa, wa, what?

As long as you make sure you are not flying over pieople I see no harm. I don't recall it being illegal to fly over a street. Heck when my club lost its field in the 70's, one of the spots we flew from we took off and landed on a city street. It was a partially developed property we had permission to fly from but the street was owned by the city or county, but nobody driving on it but us. I also recall people flying from I 75 north of Atlanta before it was opened.

Ya, I'm sure these people who had MR flying next to them, and not over them didn't think any harm would come to them either. Flying "over" people is the new metric for safety, cars don't count?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ace-DRONE.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nt-review.html

http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...meraman-video/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ng-ground.html

Seriously? It'd probably rather get hit with a falling one that sliced up at body/face level.

You can talk about what "used to be" back in the 70's and indicate what you feel is safe or not, the fact is what he was doing was reckless and if one of those passing people complained, or his quad lost control and went a street and caused damage, he would have to explain his actions to a cop, and probably face some charges.

Car's do count, we never flew over cars or people. empty streets do not count.

If just don't cut it. What IF he had hit a flying saucer would that make him all bad?
If, one of the biggest worlds in the English language along with IS as in
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

IS this horse Dead yet? Is the Guy Dumb "YES" his he predictable? Nope.

What you did then and what people are doing now, and being held accountable now are two different things. Back in the 70's polyester suits, bellbottom pants, and Schlitz beer were all the rage. Now, I think it's a felony to be caught with any of those things.

Folks get charged for what they DO, not always the resulting action. The po po can charge as they see fit, and then let the perp fight it out in court. Think Pirker would have been so lucky had he not been given a free defense?

By any reasonable standard, what he did was reckless, and the more he does it, the more of a chance he has of getting in trouble, or causing injury/harm. No skin of my nose, although it certainly could be if I was traveling in the area, below him of course, not beside him.

Gee, if empty streets don't count, how about really empty street, and forests?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...e90014582.html

Now let's see what evidence they had that he interfered. If they have it, and it can be proven, I hope they make him pay dearly.

Not at all the same thing.

Becasue of the Pirker case I don't think the FAA is going to worry much about cars or even people from injury or damage from a small drone. Airplanes are a different story.

really, isn't an empty street and empty street, you said so yourself?

And yet the FAA's reason in part for bringing the case against Pirker was for doing exactly that....flying over people and cars.