FAA Regulations--Please Read

[Buzz313th]

Nice digging... Ok, your right, I concede.. It wasn't a Pitts it was a Copy of the PittsS1.. But you got pretty **** lucky considering There aren't many of those flying...

Here's a better link about the accident

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=09297f57-c002-4cfe-bb12-f27463ccf586

It goes into better details regarding what led up to the accident. Looks like the Airport Wasn't Closed and failure to communicate on the event staff resulted in the SA 750 Pilot not knowing the runway wasn't clear even though he announced he was on final.

Outa curiosity, are you a Pilot Steve?

 

[GoodnNuff]

There's no tail number, no FAA accident/incident report, there's conflicting reports of the aircraft make and model on different forums, so we simply don't know.

And it simply does not matter either.
Unless of course you just want to win the pissing contest.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I still can't find the accident report in the FAA database, but SUAS News (link) seems to know more.

The FAA report:-
On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, N28KT, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport (CO12), Brighton, Colorado.
​

Not a Pitts.

Ahh, but in your quest to prove that you were correct about the biplane, you've also proven you were wrong about the damage it caused. And the damage that was caused was the topic of the original argument.

Thank you.

"...substantially damaged..."

So a 25 to 30 lb RC plane can cause substantial damage to a plane.
Now if you will just stop arguing that a Phantom falling from the sky and hitting a person in the head is no more damaging than a nerf ball...
;-)

 

[SteveMann]

Good catch on the Aero-News site.

 

[SteveMann]

Now if you will just stop arguing that a Phantom falling from the sky and hitting a person in the head is no more damaging than a nerf ball...;-)

I never said that - I said that a falling Phantom may result in bruises and minor lacerations, yes, but serious injury, no.
The AR Parrot is the nerf ball.

 

[Buzz313th]

The NTSB report has some interesting stuff in it..

The SA750 Pilot reported that he executed a Go around after realizing he wasn't set on a good approach and states he decided to turn "Smoke" on for added visibility...

During his second approach to runway 12, he felt that his approach speed was fast, and the airplane was not aligned properly so he added power, turned his smoke on to increase visibility to the radio controlled airplane operators, and announced that he was performing a go-around.

Looks to me like he was doing a fast low approach with smoke on to show off..


Also, the midair with the model aircraft caused some serious damage to the wing of the SA750.. I'm glad the pilot was skillful enough to get it landed without further incident.

The FAA inspector who examined the bi-plane reported that lower left wing was crushed aft to the main spar. A six to eight inch tear was noted in the upper left wing fabric, and damage was noted on the leading edge of the left aileron.

Thats a big tear in the skin of the upper wing, A crushed lower left wing to the wing spar and damage to the leading edge of the aileron..

Thats enough to bring a plane down...

Personally, I think the SA750 pilot was screwing around, he looked way too fast to be on final approach transitioning to a missed...

Interesting.

 

[Buzz313th]

I never said that - I said that a falling Phantom may result in bruises and minor lacerations, yes, but serious injury, no.
The AR Parrot is the nerf ball.

A phantom falling at terminal velocity with engines off and hitting someone in the head? How about props spinning at full power and hitting someone?

What do you consider "Serious Injury"?

What about a 10 prop drone like a S1000 carrying 11kg camera and gimble? The Batteries?

Could you take a good thump in the melon by a phantom at Terminal Velocity?

 

[GoodnNuff]

Steve, if you are ever in the Seattle area I would love to have your help in conducting an expirement.
Directly above our ED (emergency department) entrance is a 4th floor window that I can unlock and open. If you stand directly below (conveient to the ED - I can even arrange to have the paramedics on standby) I will drop my phantom 2 with gimbal, gopro and FPV setup directly on your head.

After we can go fly our drones over Elliot Bay or Snoqualmie Falls then enjoy some local brews - that is if you are physically able after being hit in the head with a drone.

 

[SteveMann]

CFR 49, § 830.2Definitions.
Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

 

[mad in nc]

WOW.... this thread is now 9+ pages and govman hasn't been seen or posted since Fri afternoon...

What are the facts? He summarized the FAA's NPRM filing and public postings.....

and since then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Buzz313th]

CFR 49, § 830.2Definitions.
Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

Lol, I knew you were going to throw down the FAAs definition.

 

[GoodnNuff]

If anyone cares to google the facts you are more than welcome to verify them:

In 2003 a 14 year old girl was hit in the head and killed by a 38 oz electric RC plane - an Acrowot was the specific model. She and her family were walking across Dartford Heath in Kent (UK) near an RC field when the accident happened.

So I guess we do know that an RC plane can both cause "substantial damage" and not only "serious injury," but death.

We just don't know if a drone of the same weight could cause the same damage or injuries...

 

[SanCap]

You mean this one:

Here is the NTSB report on what was considered an incident http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20100819X52836&key=1

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

• The radio-controlled airplane operator’s decision to maneuver his airplane outside of the designated operating area, resulting in a collision with a bi-plane. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a formally designated spotter."

 

[Buzz313th]

Nice find...

Still scary to me that the Runway was active and the RC guys were allowed to play right next to the runway.

 

[SanCap]

Nice find...

Still scary to me that the Runway was active and the RC guys were allowed to play right next to the runway.

I agree with the active runway comment and allowing people to fly RC equipment. I also noticed many people walking around the runway while aircraft were preparing to depart the runway. That is a huge cluster F%$#

 

[Buzz313th]

I agree with the active runway comment and allowing people to fly RC equipment. I also noticed many people walking around the runway while aircraft were preparing to depart the runway. That is a huge cluster F%$#

Yeah it is...!!!

 

[Buzz313th]

Well I'm not surprised as CO12 is a private strip..
http://skyvector.com/?ll=39.9852115842495,-104.70824822902385&chart=109&zoom=1

Nice community field..
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9825456,-104.7037565,822m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[SteveMann]

If anyone cares to google the facts you are more than welcome to verify them:

In 2003 a 14 year old girl was hit in the head and killed by a 38 oz electric RC plane - an Acrowot was the specific model. She and her family were walking across Dartford Heath in Kent (UK) near an RC field when the accident happened.

So I guess we do know that an RC plane can both cause "substantial damage" and not only "serious injury," but death.

We just don't know if a drone of the same weight could cause the same damage or injuries...

Here's the news report on the accident GoodNuff is referring to (link).
I never said it would never happen, just that it is extremely unlikely. Yes, this is one of the four cases of a death by R/C model aircraft that the FAA mentions from time to time. Four deaths, worldwide, over fifteen years is tragic but it in no way validates the "Sky is Falling" hyperbole by users on this forum. The three others are from model helicopters performing aerobatic exhibition flights.

Remote Control Helicopter Kills Operator In Lucerne (link)
Baby dies after radio-controlled helicopter goes rogue at event (link)
Man Dies In Horrific Remote-Controlled Helicopter Accident In NYC Park (link)​

What I have said, consistently is:

There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time using these small aircraft, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, 100,000 hours in the General Aviation fleet would include at least one fatality.) Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?
​

I am not saying that a serious accident can't or won't happen. It probably will in the future, but the fear of personal drones is hugely overstated.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Here's the news report on the accident GoodNuff is referring to (link).
I never said it would never happen, just that it is extremely unlikely. Yes, this is one of the four cases of a death by R/C model aircraft that the FAA mentions from time to time. Four deaths, worldwide, over fifteen years is tragic but it in no way validates the "Sky is Falling" hyperbole by users on this forum. The three others are from model helicopters performing aerobatic flights.

What I have said, consistently is:

There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight time using these small aircraft, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury). It is a safety record that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. (According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, 100,000 hours in the General Aviation fleet would include at least one fatality.) Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?
​

I am not saying that a serious accident can't or won't happen. It probably will in the future, but the fear of personal drones is hugely overstated.

And I've never taken the position that the sky is falling.
If I've sounded that way, it is not my intention.
However I do take exception to your belief that a drone hitting somebody is just going to cause a bruise or a laceration that may need a band-aid. Or that a plane hitting a drone will do nothing more than scratch the paint.
I know that a drone, even a Phantom sized drone has the potential to cause severe damage. I think the chances of someone getting killed are quite insignificant. If we fly safely and use common sense. We shouldn't fly over people until we know how to fly. We shouldn't fly near airports regardless of our skill. And we should respect the 400 ft level in urban or populated areas.
I think our chances of being involved in a drone related accident, as a victim or a pilot, are several hundred times less than our chances of being hit by lightening.

But I think it is irresponsible to imply, by the lack of any record "severe injury," or serious accidents, that drones don't have the potential to cause either.
There is enough evidence that objects of similar mass can cause injury, blood, mayhem...etc. for most people to not even question what harm a drone could do.
And there are enough naïve people flying drones now to fly recklessly and without caution simply because they think their Phantom couldn't harm anyone, nor interfere with another aircraft.

So yeah, I think we should all fly knowing that we could really do some harm if we fly stupid. But that in no way means that I think the sky is falling or that the future of private drone ownership is doomed.

 

[SteveMann]

But I think it is irresponsible to imply, by the lack of any record "severe injury," or serious accidents, that drones don't have the potential to cause either.

I never said they didn't have the potential. I have said that it hasn't happened yet despite hundreds of thousands (possibly over a million worldwide) of flight hours.