NTSB Rules Against Pirker

Then, stop fear-mongering.
Stop focusing on Pirker's airplane. Stop focusing on Pirker's actual flight. Pirker's flight is irrelevant. Pay attention instead to what this means for the rest of us.

Presenting facts based on years of medical experience to counter your ******** statements that foam will only leave a bruise is not fear mongering. It is reality.
This has little to do with Pirker's flight, but everything to do with safetly when we fly.
I don't care if you are flying a Phantom or a gas powered fixed wing - you need to KNOW what your bird is capable of IF it should ever hit someone in a crowd. You will be liable.
And if you think that foam will only leave a bruise, I don't want you flying. It tells me you have no concept of safety, and absolutely no idea of what your rig is capable of, which further tells me that your own ignorance may lead you to fly dangerously.

I've never advocated that flying should be limited to AMA club flying fields. But I will advocate for common sense and safety when flying in public, and so far several people here have demonstrated a lack of both.

If you continue to fly under the impression that your bird couldn't harm someone, then you are a threat the hobby and all of us who participate in it.
I think it is quite idiotic to view that as fear mongering.
 
SteveMann said:
The appeal by the FAA to the full NTSB board basically declared that for the purpose of FAR 91.13, anything that flies is an aircraft.

Well, not really. Look at the actual wording from the decision:

At this stage of the proceeding, however, we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”?11 We answer that question in the affirmative.

This is very narrow and is focused solely on Pirker's aircraft. They specifically say that they decline to address issues outside that central question.
 
GoodnNuff said:
Hey derrickduff - see all those people killed by baseballs at what was that? 87.5 joules? And a plane at 20 mph will impact at 107 joules? How many joules will 6+lbs of dense foam at 40 mph generate on impact?

And lets go with your hypothesis - "just a concussion." Is a consussion just a bruise Derrick? What are the significant dangers associated with a concussion? What is the recovery time? Does everyone recover? Is there the possiblity of permanent deficits from a concussion?

Honestly people like you flying something over my head worry me. If you think it will just cause a bruise or a concussion, I wonder what steps you will actually take to ensure mine and other's safety when you fly?

It insults me to be called a fear monger, but it is an insult to common sense to think that an RC plane hitting you in the head will just be a little owie you can walk away from.


Wow, from your link above to the magazine article regarding foul balls: It says that 1750 people a year are injured by foul balls.
And this:
"A 6-year-old girl hit by a foul at a Braves game underwent surgery in 2010 after the ball shattered her skull and pushed fragments into her brain. A 7-year-old in Chicago sustained severe brain swelling from a foul liner in 2008. Fouls sent an 18-month-old to a Seattle hospital last season and a 12-year-old in New York to intensive care in 2011."

And that is about 20 joules less than your calculations for a plane at low speed, right?
LOL.

Focusing on trees...

I'm making light of this because of how absurd it would be to say "Ban baseballs anywhere near crowds of people". Yet a UAV with a historically much lower injury chance causes so much fear, especially by the hobby crowd. That's something to laugh out loud about.

Garrock stated because a spaceship was taken out by styrofoam we shouldn't claim styrofoam is safe. I'm simply stating how ridiculous a comparison this and only by using something similar, in this case a baseball can we compare. Yes, baseballs cause injuries but virtually no deaths. Similarly with UAVs Garrock would like us to believe have the potential to cause death but in reality this can only occur in extreme cases. In fact there have been only 2 deaths I'm aware of caused by model aircraft, likely both by combustion model helicopters:

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/tra ... oklyn-park
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2 ... -at-event/

Nowhere have I said I would fly a model craft, especially a fixed wing a high speeds a few feet from people. I'm making no claims to the safety of Pirker's video.
 
BREAKING NEWS JUST IN DRONE STRIKES MAN NEAR STADIUM AND HE LIVES TO TELL HIS STORY

Tuscaloosa police released these images Wednesday as they try to track down the operator of a drone that struck a pedestrian Saturday. The images were pulled from a video camera attached to the drone. (Tuscaloosa Police Department)

TUSCALOOSA, Alabama -- Tuscaloosa police have identified the operator of a drone that struck a man walking near Bryant-Denny Stadium Saturday.

Tuscaloosa police said they recovered a "white Phantom drone" around 2:30 p.m. Saturday in a parking lot on 12th Avenue near Bryant Drive, and are interested in talking with the operator. The drone struck the pedestrian as it was descending from flight.

Sgt. Brent Blankley said the pedestrian was not injured.


http://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/index ... _fo_3.html


He very easily could have been hurt though!
 
Honestly, all of this is completely confusing. It's now a matter of local law enforcement determining a reckless endangerment charge which could result in your arrest - even following the AMA rules. We've seen many cases already, some which are clearly reckless and others no way. With no specifics on what is reckless, expect many over reactions to come for cities to make a point. No question the Pirker video took reckless to a new level in an urban setting. But where does the law say you can't approach a crane, need to stay so many feet from pedestrians, speed limits etc - it does not and most fliers could never know all those limits. This community of hobbyists needs very clear rules and defined no fly zones in a national database. The FAA should be good at that. They need to publish clear regulations as mandated by congress.
 
Seawolf said:
Honestly, all of this is completely confusing. It's now a matter of local law enforcement determining a reckless endangerment charge which could result in your arrest - even following the AMA rules. We've seen many cases already, some which are clearly reckless and others no way. With no specifics on what is reckless, expect many over reactions to come for cities to make a point. No question the Pirker video took reckless to a new level in an urban setting. But where does the law say you can't approach a crane, need to stay so many feet from pedestrians, speed limits etc - it does not and most fliers could never know all those limits. This community of hobbyists needs very clear rules and defined no fly zones in a national database. The FAA should be good at that. They need to publish clear regulations as mandated by congress.

Your correct and i would assure you they are on it. The info released this week was not really for us..its for the civies so they will calm down a bit while the details get figured out.

Anyone who thinks the FAA leaves things the way they are i'd say "You should take a roadtrip down the internets"
 
I'm making light of this because of how absurd it would be to say "Ban baseballs anywhere near crowds of people". Yet a UAV with a historically much lower injury chance causes so much fear, especially by the hobby crowd. That's something to laugh out loud about

Has anyone said to ban baseballs? NO.
Has anyone said to ban drones? NO.
I'm not in fear. I am cognizant of safety. That is all.
People like you who find that is something to laugh about are the type we see in the ER as accident victims, and the type the courts see as litigants.

Garrock stated because a spaceship was taken out by styrofoam we shouldn't claim styrofoam is safe. I'm simply stating how ridiculous a comparison this and only by using something similar, in this case a baseball can we compare. Yes, baseballs cause injuries but virtually no deaths.

No, that is not what Garrock stated. Not at all. He is making the point, as am I, that at that speed, dense foam can cause damages and injury.
And your lying when you say "baseballs cause injuries but virtualy no deaths." Your own link you provided states "USA Baseball study of players from T-ball age to college found 39 deaths among 82.6 million participants between 1989 and 2006." 39 deaths, not "virtualy no deaths as you claim.
And the injuries that baseballs cause (remember, YOU are the one comparing these 5.5 oz balls to 5+lb RC toys) average 1750 injuries a year, such as these:
A 6-year-old girl hit by a foul at a Braves game underwent surgery in 2010 after the ball shattered her skull and pushed fragments into her brain. A 7-year-old in Chicago sustained severe brain swelling from a foul liner in 2008. Fouls sent an 18-month-old to a Seattle hospital last season and a 12-year-old in New York to intensive care in 2011.

“I remember eating a pretzel. It was very sunny so it was very hard to see the game,” said Shlomo “Eli” Shalomoff, 15, who was seated in the first row of the outfield stands at the 2011 Mets game when a foul drive fractured his sinuses, requiring surgery. “Next thing you know, split second, I see the ball, and my head flies back. I remember the blood pouring out in a very uncomfortable way. Then I fell on my side. My mom was screaming.”


When drones are as common as baseballs, I hope people like you aren't flying them.
 
I don't see any medical facts supporting the risk for serious injury. Everyone is speculating as to how dangerous a Phantom/Zephyr can be to innocent bystanders yet there's no medical evidence to support it.

Someone will eventually get seriously hurt. The distribution of probable outcomes grants that eventually there will be fluke extremes. But while we wait for that to happen, baseballs are beaming people in the head daily. Cyclists are maiming themselves and the innocent pedestrians around them. Put things in perspective. Life goes on.
 
You're correct, dense foam can cause damage at 17,000 mph. We'll just agree to disagree that it's a good comparison for objects flying at about 16,900 - 16,980 mph less.

This notion that if you don't know what I know means you shouldn't be anywhere near something I do has got to go. I recently read somebody claiming if you don't know how to assemble a UAV from scratch you have no business flying one. As if a licensed commercial pilot knows how to assemble a 747. Now you state we should all know the exact physics of dense foam, plastic or other UAV materials when the very extremely unlikely event it strikes flesh? Your years of experience in the ER somehow qualify you to fly a UAV more so than me, because I claim it's just as dangerous, if not more so to go to a baseball game than to be near a flying UAV. This is a stretch even for an educated person such as yourself.

Only a fear monger would actually look at 39 deaths out of 82 million participants over 17 years and think anything but virtually none. Somebody in the ER should know better than to say something as ignorant as that. My calculator doesn't even go that low. Your chances of dying on your drive to work are orders of magnitude higher, in fact it's much more safe just playing baseball than doing virtually any other kind of activity according to that stat.
 
DrJoe said:
Fly the AMA's guidelines and your good.
  • Call airports within range
    No FPV without a buddy box
    No loss of LOS
    Avoid flying DIRECTLY over crowds
    No flights more than 400 ft agl
And remember, if you do get busted, it very likely could have been a "fly away", which is out of your control and not reckless. Read these boards and that's a believable story. It sounds like a crap-load of them smash into something, or go out of control or simply fly away and crash somewhere, at least a few times a week.

So if our UAVs are considered aircraft, and we crash or have a flyaway do we have to call them to report it and they'll have to investigate? If so, they are WAY undermanned.
 
SteveMann said:
There is no regulation limiting sUAV's to 400 ft or always in LOS. It's only a recommendation.
The 400-feet maximum altitude is a guideline. Flight within line-of-sight is one of several characteristics listed in a 2012 federal statute which must be present to exempt our birds from FAA regulation. See the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub.L. 112-95, Sec. 336(c)(2).
 
derrickduff said:
You're correct, dense foam can cause damage at 17,000 mph. We'll just agree to disagree that it's a good comparison for objects flying at about 16,900 - 16,980 mph less.

garrock said:
derrickduff said:
100 mph huh? Again, irrational thinking.
So what do you say to this.. from Team Blacksheeps own website:

CLICK: Level Cruise Speed of 85mph

that is a level cruise speed. Ritewing Zephyr Pilots regularly report going over 100mph when they come in for a strafing run.

At that speed with the nose of the aircraft coming to a tip-point, that will transfer all its kinetic energy into one small spot on your face or head. Does not matter what makes up the total mass (styrofoam or cupcakes); it all terminates with the nose-tip of the Aircraft.

I see... you choose to ignore the airspeed facts and instead comment on the low hanging diversion fruit made to another poster (ie the space-shuttle foam comment).
Or, are you still in disbelief that the Zephyr can fly that fast ???
 
EMCSQUAR said:
So if our UAVs are considered aircraft, and we crash or have a flyaway do we have to call them to report it and they'll have to investigate? If so, they are WAY undermanned.

I like this idea! What about requesting a touch and go at LAX. I need to get N numbers!
 
Only a fear monger would actually look at 39 deaths out of 82 million participants over 17 years and think anything but virtually none.

No, no no. You just don't get it. YOU are the person who wants to compare baseballs to RC toys, and then claim that there are "virtually no deaths from baseballs" I'm simply pointing out the fact that indeed there have been 39 deaths in the past 30 years from baseballs, 1750 injuries a year - some serious leaving the victims with permanent brain damage. My career and my ethics insist I deal in facts, that is all I've offered to counter your inane claims is to offer facts.

You post links that show the injury stats.
You did the calculations showing the joules.
And you still are in denial.

Your years of experience in the ER somehow qualify you to fly a UAV more so than me, because I claim it's just as dangerous, if not more so to go to a baseball game than to be near a flying UAV. This is a stretch even for an educated person such as yourself.

Good God you're a reactive twit aren't you? I've never implied that I'm more qualified to fly than you. I've tried to make you understand that I am not fear mongering, but relating my real life experiences from working in trauma centers - I know what a seemingly innocuous object can do when it hits the human body at high speed, whether it's a golf ball, baseball or blue ice from a plane. And you continue to act a fool and deny that the potential for danger is there.
 
I for one am glad to see this ruling come down. I've been reading repeated statements in this forum saying "The federal courts have ruled that it is completely legal to fly drones..." or "... the FAA has no jurisdiction" or similar flawed statements. I've frequently pointed that it was a single administrative law judge (ALJ) in the Pirker case and that I thought his reasoning was flawed and likely to be overturned. Now it has been. Of course, I'm sure there is a route of appeal available from the NTSB ruling, but that would not be available until a fact trial before that ALJ as to whether the flying was reckless. I would be very surprised if Pirker pursues it. The attorney fees involved in such a trial and possible second appeal would almost certainly be greater than the $10,000 fine at stake, and in any event the ongoing FAA rule-making process will soon supersede the current state of the law, so it would be a pointless exercise if the goal were to be to set precedent. Of course I'm not happy that the FAA wields such power to restrict my (our) flying activities, but at least this sets us on the path toward clear rules. We know who's going to make them and what they are leaning toward. That's better than the "anything goes" wild west mentality that seems to have existed until today among some.
 
ianwood said:
EMCSQUAR said:
So if our UAVs are considered aircraft, and we crash or have a flyaway do we have to call them to report it and they'll have to investigate? If so, they are WAY undermanned.

I like this idea! What about requesting a touch and go at LAX. I need to get N numbers!

And a 2-way radio, altitude reporting transponder, a private pilot's license, and prior permission. Great idea!! :lol:
 
I'm just going to suspect it's dangerous to be hit by a Phantom or Zephyr or Aspire -1 etc., until someone volunteers to be hit and proves my suspicion wrong.

Any takers? :lol:
 
N017RW said:
...
Any takers? :lol:

Are you kidding, I can't even stand the pain of a dirty look from my wife.
 
SilentAV8R said:
ianwood said:
EMCSQUAR said:
So if our UAVs are considered aircraft, and we crash or have a flyaway do we have to call them to report it and they'll have to investigate? If so, they are WAY undermanned.

I like this idea! What about requesting a touch and go at LAX. I need to get N numbers!

And a 2-way radio, altitude reporting transponder, a private pilot's license, and prior permission. Great idea!! :lol:

Totally doable! PPL, I could renew but more easily find someone else with it. 2 way VHF radio, check. Transponder, hmmm... I could FSKmod the relative altitude from the Phantom CAN bus over the audio channel on the vTX using a Teensy. Headphone jack on the receiving end to an Arduino converting the value back to digital and adjusting it to ASL using current ATIS reported pressure then passing an analog voltage into a ground based transponder corresponding to the value that would be passed if actually plugged into a transducer. I'd need to elevate the transponder antenna. I'd also need a way to get picked up on primary radar. Maybe drag a radar reflector like one used on a sailboat. Permission, well, if these guys could do it at O'hare...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKvWn317tpU

Obviously, I am jesting. But, if the FAA wants to insist our Phantoms are no different than a Cessna or a 747, they may be opening the door to some undesirable consequences. They're not the same and shouldn't be subject to the same rules.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic