Anyone recognize this Fine Upstanding Quad Pilot?

These news crew pilots and camermen are slowly witnessing the demise of their profession.

There are news station executives tasking their 'bean counters' to analyse the cost savings of adding a UAV camera platform in each news van. Then training the camerman to operate it.
After all, it can't be cheap keeping an aircrew and aicraft on station 24/7. Not to mention the cost associated with liability insurance, fuel and maintenance.
 
n6vmo said:
These news crew pilots and camermen are slowly witnessing the demise of their profession.

There are news station executives tasking their 'bean counters' to analyse the cost savings of adding a UAV camera platform in each news van. Then training the camerman to operate it.
After all, it can't be cheap keeping an aircrew and aicraft on station 24/7. Not to mention the cost associated with liability insurance, fuel and maintenance.

They have nothing to worry about until the FAA approves flying sUAS at night, over buildings/people/roads, near airports, and near manned aircraft (medevac/police helis). Then add in the logistics of getting a sUAS crew on scene or flying in rain/snow and I think manned news helis have not much to worry about for some time.

For instance, in the LA area a manned heli operating out of Van Nuys airport can be just about anywhere in the LA Basin within 15 minutes. A pilot in a van leaving the station will be lucky to be on the freeway in 15 minutes!!
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

SilentAV8R said:
SteveMann said:
SilentAV8R said:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/faa-investigating-drone-flying-near-news-helicopte/nkYk7/

Not flying a Phantom at least. Serious lack of judgement and really poor flying skills.
There you go again.
Knee-jerk responses like yours does harm to the personal drone community by highlighting the general fear and ignorance of drones.

The fire was over 1,500 feet from the park, BLOS for most mortals. He was reported at around 1,500 feet AGL, again, BLOS. He was flying over unprotected homes, roads, vehicles. When he decided to bug out he did not make a bee line for his position, instead he was flying erratically back and forth of the houses.

But OK, I'm the problem. Got it.

He was "reported" by the guys in the helo at 1500' AGL, but based on his decent and the altitude of the news choppers filming it, I would estimate his altitude between 800'-1000'. Not sure who was there first, but he definitely yielded "right of way" to the manned choppers.

SilentAV8R, you seemed to pour a little gas on your own fire by adding comments like "flying over unprotected homes". What the hell does that mean? I have yet to see a "protected home" that is designed to protect against an aviation accident, but perhaps there is a cottage industry for that on the horizon? Aren't the much larger, fuel-laden helicopters also hovering over the same "unprotected homes?" If they are, and below 1,000' AGL, then they are in the wrong. A 10,000 pound helicopter coming down on top of a house seems a lot more dangerous to me, a layman in aviation safety. Just saying.

And lets talk about those unprotected roads, those poor roads! The cement would be forever damaged if that quad came down to hard on them. But not that helo, right? Oh wait, you meant the vehicles on the unprotected roads? Unless they are a convertible, not much of a danger to injury to the operator. Oh, you mean the quad is a distraction to the vehicle operators? Like birds are, or two hovering 10,000 pound news helicopters who are now not covering a fire but a quadcopter who is covering the fire instead? And lets talk about the erratic flying. He did not seem to ever lose control, instead he lost altitude with a purpose. Why would he need to make a bee-line for his position when he had done nothing wrong? Using the term "bug out" also makes it seem like he was fleeing the scene, which is speculation on your part. He may have wanted to just get low enough to be safe for the choppers and then get back home. If he had been flying LOS (it's a stretch) and dropped down for the choppers and lost LOS, it was a freaking miracle if he even got it back based on your infatuated calculation of his distance in an effort to prove yourself as Mr. Smarty Pant. "Nana nana doo doo, stick your head in poo poo."

You were quick to jump on this guy in your initial post, and you should also take your lumps from the community, like a man, for being hasty and assuming the worst. There's new "ownership" that is probably going to come down on those of us who going to pounce on you for that. So be it.
 
Sure looked like he was bugging out to me. Why all the zig zag flying to get back home? Came close to the guy on his little porch and then almost hit a car. All the while he was watching the chopper. He was either a good pilot or very lucky. Crime of the century. ..no. Foolish. ...yes. If there is a large fire, you know the news teams etc are on their way. Get outta there.
 
LOL. Before starting this thread I knew Steve Mann would be on here! I knew he would be berating the OP for showing this video, and telling the rest of us we are over reacting! Steve, that is all I see you do on here lately is defend stupidity.
 
LuvMyTJ said:
Monte55 said:
Is it a law or just a suggestion that we fly line of sight.
There are no laws yet (aside from government installations, power plants, etc that apply to everything, not just UAV''s in particular) but a set of guidelines that are commonly referred to as laws by the media (the 400' rule is in there). There will be laws on the books very soon. See the AMA link here discussing the proposed laws and send in a comment - http://www.phantompilots.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36652
Whomever wrote that for the AMA probably hasn't read the NPRM.
The bullet points in the template will not apply to hobby sUAVs, so any comments by AMA members using that template will likely be lumped into a single reply from the FAA.

However, the proposed rules do codify AC 91-57 by adding text to Part 101 that does prohibit any FPV by hobby pilots and certificated operators.

§ 101.1 Applicability.
(a)(5) Any model aircraft that meets the conditions specified in § 101.41. For purposes of this part, a model aircraft is an unmanned aircraft that is:
(i) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(ii) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(iii) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Ironically, I don't see any reference to an altitude ceiling. On the other hand, because of the law from Congress that forbids regulating hobby aircraft, the FAA will be able to use a violation of AMA rules as a pretext to prosecute hobby pilots:

PUBLIC LAW 112–95 pertaining to model aircraft
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

This is codified in the proposed rule practically verbatim:

§ 101.41 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the rules governing the operation of a model aircraft that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:
(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

So, there it is - AMA rules = FAA rules as proposed in the NPRM. You bust an AMA rule while flying as a hobby, then the FAA will be able to prosecute you under § 101.41(b).
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

sdtrojan said:
You were quick to jump on this guy in your initial post, and you should also take your lumps from the community, like a man, for being hasty and assuming the worst. There's new "ownership" that is probably going to come down on those of us who going to pounce on you for that. So be it.

Take my lumps like a man??? What an odd thing to say. What the hell does that mean??

I will defend my opinions based on my understanding of the facts, not sure if that meets the standard of taking my lumps like a man or not.

Bottom line for me is that there is zero excuse for any of us to ever fly our aircraft BLOS, around manned aircraft, over the homes, cars, yards, etc. of other people without their permission, or in any manner that poses a risk to others. We fly these things for fun and have no right to assume risk for anyone else. Pounce away.
 
GoodnNuff said:
LOL. Before starting this thread I knew Steve Mann would be on here! I knew he would be berating the OP for showing this video, and telling the rest of us we are over reacting! Steve, that is all I see you do on here lately is defend stupidity.
You will never find a post where I defend stupidity - I seek common sense.
I am unfamiliar with the area or the location, so all I can comment on is what is in the video. As I said, when the drone first appears in the video, it is more than 100 ft from the news copter and descending - rather quickly.
There are no rules in place that would make anything this drone pilot did into a violation. Sure, he was higher than recommended, but "stupid"? He may have flown directly over a person, but the personal drone world didn't vanish in one cataclysmic fatal accident, did it?

So, how am I defending stupidity?
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

SilentAV8R said:
sdtrojan said:
You were quick to jump on this guy in your initial post, and you should also take your lumps from the community, like a man, for being hasty and assuming the worst. There's new "ownership" that is probably going to come down on those of us who going to pounce on you for that. So be it.

Take my lumps like a man??? What an odd thing to say. What the hell does that mean??

I will defend my opinions based on my understanding of the facts, not sure if that meets the standard of taking my lumps like a man or not.

Bottom line for me is that there is zero excuse for any of us to ever fly our aircraft BLOS, around manned aircraft, over the homes, cars, yards, etc. of other people without their permission, or in any manner that poses a risk to others. We fly these things for fun and have no right to assume risk for anyone else. Pounce away.


And fortunately the FAA and the vast majority of RC pilots will agree with you SilentAV8R. In my experience it is this forum only where you will run into the most opposing views when it comes to safety and responsibility. One of the reasons THIS forum has gained the dubious reputation it has among other forums.
 
I'll agree with Steve Mann about one thing, there are no rules or laws that contain any altitude limits for model aircraft. There are none in Section 336 and the ONLY mention of altitude in the AMA Safety Code is the requirement to contact an airport if you plan to fly above 400 feet when within 3 miles of that facility. Line of sight is what rules the day for both the FAA and AMA. You have got to have "eyes on" the model at all times. If you cannot see it it, then you cannot safely operate it. And if you say you can see your quad 1,500 feet away from you then all I can say is you have exceptionally good eyesight. At 1,500 feet my 4-meter gliders start getting difficult to see so I'm a little doubtful of a person who says they can see a Phantom that far away.
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

SilentAV8R said:
Bottom line for me is that there is zero excuse for any of us to ever fly our aircraft BLOS, around manned aircraft, over the homes, cars, yards, etc. of other people without their permission, or in any manner that poses a risk to others. We fly these things for fun and have no right to assume risk for anyone else. Pounce away.
Desert-450x232.jpg
 
I know some like to fly the mission thing and I think that's cool...but not over residential areas. Also some will take the chance with a $2000 setup doing this and think it will be fine while the government can crash multimillion dollar machines a lot more sophisticated than the Phantom. Even LOS doesn't mean nothing will go wrong. For the ones that think some of us are too silly to think that some could be hurt by flying our Phantoms etc .....I'll bet you can't get to a lawyer fast enough if one hits you or your property. Do I think we should live in fear....hell no. You will more likey be hurt by a kid throwing a rock off an overpass into your car. But it can happen.
 
IflyinWY said:
Hey sdtrojan,

Accurate information makes a better point.

Bell thinks this:
Std internal gross wt 5,000 lbs 2,268 kg
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/Com ... 32291.html

I could be wrong, but not as wrong as you.

Okay, I would rather a 5,000 lb helo crash on me than a 10,000 lb'r. Either way, my newly renovated protected home will be just fine.
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

SteveMann said:
SilentAV8R said:
Bottom line for me is that there is zero excuse for any of us to ever fly our aircraft BLOS, around manned aircraft, over the homes, cars, yards, etc. of other people without their permission, or in any manner that poses a risk to others. We fly these things for fun and have no right to assume risk for anyone else. Pounce away.
Desert-450x232.jpg

Yes, because it's only "fun" to fly over people, etc. Right?? Unless you can endanger others without their knowledge or permission there just is no reason to even bother seems to be the popular thinking on this forum.
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

SilentAV8R said:
sdtrojan said:
You were quick to jump on this guy in your initial post, and you should also take your lumps from the community, like a man, for being hasty and assuming the worst. There's new "ownership" that is probably going to come down on those of us who going to pounce on you for that. So be it.

Take my lumps like a man??? What an odd thing to say. What the hell does that mean??

I will defend my opinions based on my understanding of the facts, not sure if that meets the standard of taking my lumps like a man or not.

Bottom line for me is that there is zero excuse for any of us to ever fly our aircraft BLOS, around manned aircraft, over the homes, cars, yards, etc. of other people without their permission, or in any manner that poses a risk to others. We fly these things for fun and have no right to assume risk for anyone else. Pounce away.

Great, enjoy flying in your park, with an absence of unprotected homes, roads, vehicles...

You immediately called this guy an a-hole. Who died and left you in charge. Oh, that's right, you live "behind the orange curtain." Self righteous posts is what I see a lot of times from you. If it's not being flown in a park you seem to disagree with it. I just have seen one too many posts from you like that.
 
And while I am an it, before I get blocked, barred, banned or whatever for having an opinion, I think Steve Mann's posts are informative and generally agree with them. He's the guy I like reading on this forum.
 
Re: Anyone recognize this A-Hole??

sdtrojan said:
Great, enjoy flying in your park, with an absence of unprotected homes, roads, vehicles...

I do, thank you very much!! As you will no doubt continue to support those who willingly place others in danger simply to amuse themselves.

You immediately called this guy an a-hole. Who died and left you in charge.

Sorry, I did not realize I needed to be "in charge" to have an opinion. But while we are at it, who died and left you in charge to tell me to take it "like a man?"

Oh, that's right, you live "behind the orange curtain." Self righteous posts is what I see a lot of times from you. If it's not being flown in a park you seem to disagree with it. I just have seen one too many posts from you like that.

Nothing self righteous about it. Just plain common sense. I've been flying RC for nearly 50 years now and never once felt the need to fly over people, their homes, cars/roads, etc. to have fun flying.Yes, I clearly think flying over people, etc. is foolish. You don't. That's fine. You can call me boring and self righteous and I will continue to think you are selfish, irresponsible and dangerous. And the world spins round and round.
 
I don't fly over people, homes, cars, etc. because it is fun. Whatever gave you that idea? I never called you boring, etc because I don't do what you do, which is try to act superior to everyone because "I only fly parks."

Again, you make assumptions that are not valid. I typically fly open space areas in San Diego County, so once again you don't know me or what you are talking about. Calling me selfish, irresponsible and dangerous on a public forum is tantamount to slander/libel. Am I going to run and get a lawyer and sue your silly old butt? Nope, because I don't think you are worth it.

Now go back to your old age home, take your meds, and play with your grand kids you jerk.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers