A Bozo Phantom pilot strikes again

[JKDSensei]

Yeah, I had mentioned distraction at length in the post above but edited it all out because it was getting too long.

People like that are the problem. Now if it had been 100 feet up and you let it distract your driving shame on you even though he "shouldn't" have been there at 100 feet.

15 feet. That moron needs to be caught. Did anyone get video of the incident? Lots of people have car video recorders these days. Noone posted anything anywhere of that incident?

You have very good vision there fella. To make out his age and facial expression on an overpass traveling down the highway, probably while wearing sunglasses
I doubt I could get all that detail that quick but then maybe I could 20 years ago.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Yeah, I had mentioned distraction at length in the post above but edited it all out because it was getting too long.

People like that are the problem. Now if it had been 100 feet up and you let it distract your driving shame on you even though he "shouldn't" have been there at 100 feet.

15 feet. That moron needs to be caught. Did anyone get video of the incident? Lots of people have car video recorders these days. Noone posted anything anywhere of that incident?

You have very good vision there fella. To make out his age and facial expression on an overpass traveling down the highway, probably while wearing sunglasses
I doubt I could get all that detail that quick but then maybe I could 20 years ago.

Traffic had slowed to about 50 mph and I had absolutely no problem seeing his face, his age, and could identify him. And yes, I was wearing prescription sunglasses.
I'm also able to read banners that have been strung across overpasses.
I can read graffiti sprayed on overpasses.
Whenever a group of people decide to hang out on overpasses with signs protesting this or that, or with signs asking you to "honk if you support ______ (insert favorite cause)" I can actually see their faces! I can tell their gender, age group, and whether they are smiling or angry.
I've even been known to recognize family members on the sidewalk as I speed by!
I don't think I have some uncanny ability to use my eyes.

 

[lawman0210]

OK Steve
So you say you are usually right, but a drone with a weight of say 1130 grams hits a cars wind-shield, when car is travelling at 60 MPH, resultant Kinetic energy about 309 ft/lbs , 9mm bullet traveling at 1124 feet/sec resultant KE 345 ft/lbs, you figure...! ahh it will never happen, is that right..?
Waylander

A drone has a much bigger footprint and would not penetrate to windshield. I 9mm bullet would have a fairly difficult time doing so. Just like a 300 lb man hitting a windshield. He will destroy it but going through the windshield ain't gonna happen

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[lawman0210]

The news sells stories. Not one isn't guilty of over sensationalizing. No one wants to hear about a poodle biting someone but if it's a pit bull the news is all over it regardless of the seriousness of the injury

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Clipper707]

A Phantom wouldn't need to go through a windshield to contribute to an accident.

 

[cshaw]

Thank you for contributing to the general hysteria over personal drones.
If the operator did advise the Love tower, then the flight was probably perfectly legal and within FAA guidelines.

Airport aside, where is your evidence that flying over a freeway is "the wrong place"?

This is what we in the rational world call "Fear Mongering".
Keep the risk of personal drones and model aircraft in perspective.

Today (if this is an average day):
1560 people will die from Cancer
268 people in US hospitals will die because of medical mistakes.
162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.
117 Americans will die in an automobile accident.
98 people in the US will die from the flu.
53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.
46 children will suffer eye injuries.
37 will die from AIDS.
30 people will die in gun-related murders.
3 General Aviation airplanes will crash in the US.
0 people will be seriously injured or killed by a small drone accident.

There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones.

Screaming "HE FLEW OVER A PERSON, A CAR, A DOLPHIN --- WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" doesn't help the perception that this is one of the safest hobbies in the world. People have died from baseballs and golf balls, but not one from a personal drone.

I am not in the least opposed to making owners of these small aircraft operate them safely, but don't imagine an operation is unsafe when there is no evidence to support your opinion.

Thank you Mr Mann. Best post on the topic EVER. scaremongering and what-iffing (is that a word) if rife on the topic of drones. I am a motorcyclist as well and I have enough to worry about with crazy motorists trying to kill me without worrying about someones toy plane hitting me in the face. Face it, these are toys really. I try not to do anything too stupid or reckless but I don't need 1000 doom sayers telling me what should be common sense. I know, the next post will tell me that common sense aint that common but really, do we need to be scared of everything?

 

[GoodnNuff]

A phantom weights what? about 3 lbs?
What did this Seagull weigh?
Google says the average weight of a Great Black Gull (the largest species) is about 3.8 lbs.

My 3DR Solo weighs 3.9 lbs with GoPro and gimbal.
My Yuneec Q500 weighs 3.8 lbs.

There are quite a few larger drones out there as well. A friend of mine recently purchased a Lockheed Martin drone that weighs about 10lbs.

It is not just Phantoms that are flying above us.
But if a gull can do this to a small plane, I don't want to be on board a Cessna that hits even a relatively small Phantom.

 

[JKDSensei]

A Phantom wouldn't need to go through a windshield to contribute to an accident.

As if we REALLY need to be worried about the almost negligible odds of a DJI Phantom or any drone interfering with us while driving on the highway....No "Utopia". Get over it.

Your time would be better spent watching out for texting teens or drunk drivers.

One or two incidents here and there is not a national crisis except to the media and those who actually are against this hobby but parade as otherwise..

The amount of "what-iffing" is out of control.

 

[JKDSensei]

A phantom weights what? about 3 lbs?
What did this Seagull weigh?
Google says the average weight of a Great Black Gull (the largest species) is about 3.8 lbs.

My 3DR Solo weighs 3.9 lbs with GoPro and gimbal.
My Yuneec Q500 weighs 3.8 lbs.

There are quite a few larger drones out there as well. A friend of mine recently purchased a Lockheed Martin drone that weighs about 10lbs.

It is not just Phantoms that are flying above us.
But if a gull can do this to a small plane, I don't want to be on board a Cessna that hits even a relatively small Phantom.

You are 1000's times more likely to suffer a bird strike.
Don't fly.

 

[Buckaye]

Took me a while to read this whole thread... LOL

I think the thing we are forgetting is that it doesn't much matter whether or not the pilot is in fact breaking a law or being reckless, but it is the PERCEPTION of the bystanders/media that determines whether this becomes hysterical or not.

Right now - the public is hyper-sensitive to potential issues with our hobby. As Steve has said - there have been no reports of catastrophic injury or loss of life reported. So - I agree that the hobby seems to be safe to the educated individual.

However, it doesn't matter what a relatively small group of educated individuals think. It does matter what the general public thinks - and right now the media is feeding the general public with info that doesn't shine a good light on our beloved hobby.

I think the OP is saying that flying behavior that can even be perceived as bad for our hobby - probably in fact is doing damage to our hobby. It doesn't matter if any of us think "hey, I don't think this guy was doing anything wrong" because we are not the ones who's perception is at issue.

So I think a lot of these "the sky is falling" posts are being driven by the knowledge that some kinds of flying are more likely to create a negative perception of our hobby than others. Flying over highways, flying over crowds, flying at night, flying near airports - might be legal or allowed - but the general public and/or the media DOES NOT KNOW THAT. And that's the real problem.

So when people say "use common sense" - I think it extends beyond what is actually safe flying - but it extends to what could be perceived as dangerous flying as well. It sucks... because it means we bear the burden of not only being safe flyers - but also being good ambassadors of the hobby and trying to manage perception as well.

I don't see this argument as easy as "look at what this jerk did" vs. "stop buying into the sky is falling" - I think it's a whole wide swath of grey that we all have to be cognizant of.

 

[JKDSensei]

Well said

 

[RodPad]

Took me a while to read this whole thread... LOL

I think the thing we are forgetting is that it doesn't much matter whether or not the pilot is in fact breaking a law or being reckless, but it is the PERCEPTION of the bystanders/media that determines whether this becomes hysterical or not.

Right now - the public is hyper-sensitive to potential issues with our hobby. As Steve has said - there have been no reports of catastrophic injury or loss of life reported. So - I agree that the hobby seems to be safe to the educated individual.

However, it doesn't matter what a relatively small group of educated individuals think. It does matter what the general public thinks - and right now the media is feeding the general public with info that doesn't shine a good light on our beloved hobby.

I think the OP is saying that flying behavior that can even be perceived as bad for our hobby - probably in fact is doing damage to our hobby. It doesn't matter if any of us think "hey, I don't think this guy was doing anything wrong" because we are not the ones who's perception is at issue.

So I think a lot of these "the sky is falling" posts are being driven by the knowledge that some kinds of flying are more likely to create a negative perception of our hobby than others. Flying over highways, flying over crowds, flying at night, flying near airports - might be legal or allowed - but the general public and/or the media DOES NOT KNOW THAT. And that's the real problem.

So when people say "use common sense" - I think it extends beyond what is actually safe flying - but it extends to what could be perceived and dangerous flying as well. It sucks... because it means we bear the burden of not only being safe flyers - but also being good ambassadors of the hobby and trying to manage perception as well.

I don't see this argument as easy as "look at what this jerk did" vs. "stop buying into the sky is falling" - I think it's a whole wide swath of grey that we all have to be cognizant of.

Yep, I thought it was about the public and the media.

Maybe the Bozo is part of this thread?

 

[GoodnNuff]

You are 1000's times more likely to suffer a bird strike.
Don't fly.

Ahh, the seagull video I posted earlier on another thread.
I mentioned there that the average weight of a large seagull is about 3.8 lbs.
Slightly more than a Phantom. A 3DR Solo weighs in at 3.8 lbs, and a Yuneec Q500 weighs in at 3.9 lbs. There are other drones in the sky that weigh significantly more.
Chances of a plane hitting a drone are very slim, but a drone could take out a window in a small plane.
That is a reality. That reality doesn't mean the sky is falling either.

If you are currently 1000 times more likely to hit a bird than a drone, what will happen to those statistics after Christmas, when some estimate a million more drones will be added to the air traffic?

 

[skyeboysteve]

If you are currently 1000 times more likely to hit a bird than a drone, what will happen to those statistics after Christmas, when some estimate a million more drones will be added to the air traffic?

Then the chances increase to the point that a bird strike is only 999.99999999 times more likely than an sUAV strike.

 

[RodPad]

Ahh, the seagull video I posted earlier on another thread.
I mentioned there that the average weight of a large seagull is about 3.8 lbs.
Slightly more than a Phantom. A 3DR Solo weighs in at 3.8 lbs, and a Yuneec Q500 weighs in at 3.9 lbs. There are other drones in the sky that weigh significantly more.
Chances of a plane hitting a drone are very slim, but a drone could take out a window in a small plane.
That is a reality. That reality doesn't mean the sky is falling either.

If you are currently 1000 times more likely to hit a bird than a drone, what will happen to those statistics after Christmas, when some estimate a million more drones will be added to the air traffic?

Yep, I believe it will happen.

Will the real Bozo please stand up!
(Your famous here want to hear the truth)

 

[GoodnNuff]

Then the chances increase to the point that a bird strike is only 999.99999999 times more likely than an sUAV strike.

LOL, good guess.

However I suspect real statisticians have come up with another number, serious enough for the FAA to issue a SFAR to get registration going before Xmas. This hasn't been done (a SFAR issued) since all planes were grounded after 9/11. I think the FAA must be taking this quite seriously.
My Opinion: It will still be a very rare occurrence for a drone and a plane to intersect.

 

[SteveMann]

So I think a lot of these "the sky is falling" posts are being driven by the knowledge that some kinds of flying are more likely to create a negative perception of our hobby than others.

What do you think a lazy reporter will think of our hobby when he Googles a few keywords that leads him to our forums? Something along the lines of "these guys also think their drones are dangerous - look at all the name calling within their own..."

That is why threads entitled "Another Bozo" or "Another Idiot" can hurt the hobby even if the accusation is correct. The press is looking for the negative - we don't need to feed it to them.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Maybe the press would like to see responsible drone pilots actually call out the Bozo's and Idiots among their ranks.
Maybe some in the press will be relieved to see there are responsible pilots aware that their hobby needs to be policed.
Perhaps the press will find that more reassuring that logging on here to see that some members constantly tell other's that there are no laws, only suggestions, inferring that we can fly wherever we **** please whenever we want - since their are no laws.

 

[Buckaye]

What do you think a lazy reporter will think of our hobby when he Googles a few keywords that leads him to our forums? Something along the lines of "these guys also think their drones are dangerous - look at all the name calling within their own..."

That is why threads entitled "Another Bozo" or "Another Idiot" can hurt the hobby even if the accusation is correct. The press is looking for the negative - we don't need to feed it to them.

I can see your point Steve (I really can) ... but the flip side is that a reporter might think "Hey - the general mentality of the enthusiasts is they don't like it when people do something that seems dangerous." My point is, what you are mentioning could cut both ways.

I don't like when people use attention grabbing click-bait headlines for their posts - but then again, I would think most legitimate journalists would recognize them for what they are - similar to "tabloid headlines"

In any case, and I might be wrong, but I don't believe there have been any reports where a reporter has used a forum on UAVs as a source to back up their story, and I would be pretty suspect of a reporter that actually did that. That's the equivalent of using Wikipedia for a peer reviewed journal or a graduate degree paper.

 

[RodPad]

A lazy reporter wouldn't make it to here.