Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GoodnNuff, Nov 20, 2014.
View and discuss the safety...
Nothing to discuss that guy among many others like him is why the FAA is going to put a hurting on this hobby .
There are some here who are convinced the most damage Pirker could have done is cause a bruise had he hit a pedestrian at that speed. Foam you know.
It helps to keep in mind he was flying with a foam RC plane, not a quadcopter. With that said, the only parts of the flight that I have a problem with are flying under the walkways and flying around the helipad. Certainly not worthy of a $10,000 fine.
Yup it was a foam plane, Dense EPO foam with a 5.5 foot wingspan and a weight of about 5 lbs, plus 2 lbs of batteries.
This what a 5 lb balsa wood plane does when it impacts a parked car. Not much difference between EPO foam and balsa wood.
Wow, that's pretty impressive. That was a balsa plane with electric motor?
Pirker uses a delta wing style bird. Which is how he got some of the vertical climb shots.
IMO, to fast of a bird to really sell the campus.
From this video, one can gather that the FAA created a list of reasons for the charges just to make it sound worse than it was.
Wonder what the FAA would do or say if a dozen quaders descended upon that same campus and literally invaded it?
I know I'd be one of them.
Gas motor I believe. The photo is from RC groups. Here is the thread if you care to look:
I was trying to find a photo of a large dent in the hood of a truck that I saw recently. It was also from an RC plane, but not as much damage as this photo shows.
Such accidents are very rare, but I think we all should be cognizant of the potential for damage and injury our rigs are capable of when they fail at high speed.
Reading the RC thread, it's a gas powered A/C. Looking at the damage to the hood and the splinters all over the windshield, it appears to be a full-power dive into the car. The "bullet" hole is probably the engine. The fender appears to be fiberglass.
You buy the make and model of A/C that Pirker was flying, and I'll be your test dummy.
so not a phantom then. i'm not sure how the current FAA rules are going to sit when/if the likes of amazon get into drone deliveries?? i also read or saw somewhere that someone is developing a system where by if you press a panic button a drone turns up and films whats going on or can bring emergency meds to patients. there are lots of 'good' ideas that drones can play a part in and something has to change to get these ideas off the ground so to speak.
On another note, regardless of the heated debate over how much damage the plane can do I agree with others that the most unsafe portions of the fight are under the walkways. I for one would never want to see this type of flight accepted as "ok" to do without a controlled environment, and sadly if there are people who have opinions that feel it is ok then the entire debate over regulation must happen as the differing of opinions is so broad that both sides beliefs must be heard. Unfortunately I am sure that means history will repeat itself then with the over regulation of the hobby as the general perception of fpv models (umm I mean aircraft now ) especially "drones" is so skewed that the people who will end up making those regulations will not have the real world knowledge to make a fair assessment.
No one can know what precautions Pirker took except Pirker and his lawyers. So much speculation is made about the severity of injury from a flight like Pirker's or how much damage a Phantom could do and most of it is without supporting facts.
I accept that a Phantom could do some harm and in an extreme case, it could cause a serious injury. But I think that the risk of injury is low and the risk of serious injury is extremely low. I base that on my own assumptions. I could explain why I think that but I'd just be repeating myself. But, like everyone else, I have no hard facts to support my case. I am speculating like everyone else.
Mix in a lot of sensible precautions and I think the risk profile is much less than many other activities humans undertake or coexist with everyday including cycling, baseball, golf, or even crossing the street.
I think somehow because these are powered machines that fly through the air, are called drones and "some bad apples could ruin it for everyone", people get carried away with the perceived likelihood and extent of potential mayhem and assume the only place they are safe enough is in a cow patty on the edge of town. I respectfully disagree.
Add up all the babies and toddlers who have choked to death on little plastic toys in the last 20 years and it's probably in the thousands just in the U.S. alone. Yet, every year I see lots and lots of new little plastic toys on the store shelves that can plug up a kid's trachea and send him/her to an early grave --- and nobody is screaming to ban little plastic toy parts from our world.
To date, NOBODY in the United States has ever died from a direct hit by a civilian UAV. There have been reported injuries, but 99% of these are superficial flesh wounds that only require stitches and some antibiotics. No serious maiming or lifelong injury has ever been reported. Facts are facts.
The drone industry is growing at an exponential pace and there aint a God **** thing any paranoid citizens group or Congressman can do about it. They can all suck me sideways. :lol:
Steve, I have seen a video of Pirker's bird. I have a hunch it would blow apart if it came down full throttle on any surface.
The photos above showing the damaged car? Well that's why you should never own a fiberglass car.
300,000 automobile fatalities each year
Fine for running a red light $150
0 hobby drone fatalities
Fine for flying $10,000
Some thing is out of whack!
IMHO no one's life was put at risk by the Pirker flight. It was poor judgement to fly under the walkways while traffic was flowing. Such stunts should only be done under controlled conditions like the movie industry does-block off the street. If you cannot control the risk, then don't do it.
Why not just get liability insurance? Pretty sure most local RCA groups have collective deals with insurance co's.
Doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, but in the rare case you do trash someone's windshield, both parties can stay calm.