NTSB Rules Against Pirker

[PsychopathRC]

I don't need to be hit by a Phantom to require a doctor. This topic has left me needing psychological assistance.

 

[garrock]

That's one of the benefits of being classified as an Aircraft by the FAA. The classification brings with with it Federal preemption and it makes interfering with a flight operation (I.E. shooting down a drone) a federal offence (18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities).

The FAA wants to call our drones "aircraft" then we will take the positive that goes with it.

Things that make you go ... hmm.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

Not buying this apples to oranges comparison. And besides, this is not safety/extent of injury debate as has been repeated numerous times in this thread. It's a discussion of the ruling.

And Deathcode, if you think treating RC planes as real planes is a good thing, I have no idea what to say. Applying the same rules to a Phantom as those that apply to a 747 is laughable.

So if a 747, Cessna, piper cub, 737, bell 206, etc was flying in a similar manner as the guy in this video that would be equally acceptable? Size and purpose of the aircraft shouldn't matter, reckless is reckless and negligent harm (or property damage) caused by the recklessness should be treated the same in court regardless of how many people he COULD have hurt. This "ruling" (I do debate whether a regulatory agency has the authority to "rule" on anything without laws in place) isn't about whether all drone pilots are irresponsible, and drones should be outlawed, it's about whether or not there is any way to hold accountable people that choose to fly their "hobby aircraft" like jackasses. All that has happened so far is the courts decided that the FAA/NTSB has the power to seek prosecution against UAV pilots if the current rules are broken. It doesn't mean they are sending the Gestapo to throw us all in prison. Realistically we as a community should distance ourselves as far as possible from this kid, and absolutely discourage flying like that. People like him really will ruin it for the rest of us. Until solid rules are issued, and laws are in place we are going to continue seeing people being held to the standards that manned aircraft pilots are held to, my best advice; don't fly recklessly, and if you do don't hit anything/one. UAV's aren't going away, and drones aren't gonna be outlawed.

For those truly interested in damage an object can do to the human body, Google any trauma journal and you will find hundreds upon hundreds of fact based studies on the topic. Its far better than guessing. Someone said something about a baseball "stopping your heart." There are lots of things that are lethal secondary to chest trauma (pericardial tamponade, hemo/pneumothorax, aortic dissection, to name a few) not saying it's impossible I just think sudden cardiac arrest caused by blunt force trauma is likely the exception rather than the rule.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

Interesting. So I assume that technically baseballs, frisbees, paper airplanes, etc. would also be included. Once in flight, those objects are under the jurisdiction of the FAA and not the local municipality.

If a drone were to take off and land legally, would a city have no jurisdiction over anything it does while it is flying?

The NTSB held, "an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small." Given that very broad definition, it is arguable that it includes baseballs, frisbees and paper airplanes. If that argument is successful, a local municipality would have no say in the flight activities of those objects as it would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA.

I know, it sounds absurd because it is. I've not heard of any local regulations or ordinances that are specific to the flight activities of baseballs, frisbees or paper airplanes. I've only heard of and seen regulation of ground activities, (e.g. no ball playing, no frisbees, etc.).

And yes, if a drone were launched, landed an operating from a ground location that was not "off limits" per the local municipality would have no say about its overflight.

Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.

 

[petersachs]

So if a 747, Cessna, piper cub, 737, bell 206, etc was flying in a similar manner as the guy in this video that would be equally acceptable?

I would say if that were the case, no, it would not be acceptable. They are manned, full-size aircraft and could not possibly fly non-recklessly in the manner of this flight.

Size and purpose of the aircraft shouldn't matter, reckless is reckless and negligent harm (or property damage) caused by the recklessness should be treated the same in court regardless of how many people he COULD have hurt

Size (in my opinion) should matter. An Estes Proto-X (below) weighs in at 4 oz. The NTSB ruling applies to this tiny craft. I do not find that to be logical; it's laughable.

his "ruling" (I do debate whether a regulatory agency has the authority to "rule" on anything without laws in place) isn't about whether all drone pilots are irresponsible, and drones should be outlawed, it's about whether or not there is any way to hold accountable people that choose to fly their "hobby aircraft" like jackasses. All that has happened so far is the courts decided that the FAA/NTSB has the power to seek prosecution against UAV pilots if the current rules are broken.

Actually the very narrow holding of the NTSB decision is that anything that flies, manned or unmanned, large or small, are "aircraft" that subject to FAR 91.13 (recklessness), and that's it. The decision did not go beyond that. Of course, no regulation will cure the "jackass" problem. At best it would provide a legal tool to enforce against those who fly recklessness (if only they could be found).

my best advice; don't fly recklessly, and if you do don't hit anything/one. UAV's aren't going away, and drones aren't gonna be outlawed.

I agree entirely, and you are correct, they are not going away or being outlawed.

 

[petersachs]

Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.

Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

Size (in my opinion) should matter. An Estes Proto-X (below) weighs in at 4 oz. The NTSB ruling applies to this tiny craft. I do not find that to be logical; it's laughable.

If that tiny "aircraft" breaks a window, or causes a driver to swerve into oncoming traffic on I-10 and kills, hurts, or causes damage, then absolutely the pilot should be held to the same standards. I'm not saying it's 100% applicable and rules should be more specific, but currently they are not and we are held to a "higher" standard. The problem (in my opinion) is that pilots are trained and certified by the agency that enacts and enforces the laws. "We" are not, therefore how can "we" be held to "their" standards? Now with that being said does it make us all reckless because aren't we technically flying an "aircraft" without a license? It's a fine line, and we should tread carefully when faced with the potential for liability. Truthfully we need our own lobbyists, and shouldn't rely on other non-interested parties and court rulings to due our fighting for us.

Actually the very narrow holding of the NTSB decision is that anything that flies, manned or unmanned, large or small, are "aircraft" that subject to FAR 91.13 (recklessness), and that's it. The decision did not go beyond that. Of course, no regulation will cure the "jackass" problem. At best it would provide a legal tool to enforce against those who fly recklessness (if only they could be)

I know but what I'm saying is the courts upheld their authority to decide such things.

 

[petersachs]

If that tiny "aircraft" breaks a window, or causes a driver to swerve into oncoming traffic on I-10 and kills, hurts, or causes damage, then absolutely the pilot should be held to the same standards.

At 4 ounces, less that 2 inches wide and plastic, I personally don't think any of that would be physically possible with this craft, but perhaps someone should fly one full speed into a pane of glass to see what happens.

I know but what I'm saying is the courts upheld their authority to decide such things.

Yes, the NTSB (which is an Administrative Court not an Article III Court) has decided that. Of course, the Court of Appeals (an Article III Court) can toss that decision if the case is appealed and it disagrees with the NTSB, and Congress can also legislate to do away with any court's decision.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

At 4 ounces, less that 2 inches wide and plastic, I personally don't think any of that would be physically possible with this craft, but perhaps someone should fly one full speed into a pane of glass to see what happens.

Sadly I am not as versed on physics as I would like to be, but I do know there exists an equation that can determine exactly the amount of force an object traveling at a given speed can and does have. I learned it in paramedic school when we learned about trauma and force and all that stuff (the equation wasn't all that important when applying it to street medicine, so I didn't retain it, it was more of an example of how much damage can occur at relatively low speeds). Anyway if you applied said problem to a 4oz "projectile" meeting a car windshield at 70mph (plus the speed of the "aircraft") then there is bound to be potential for damage. Lol, again I'm not saying it is an absolute just that it's possible, hell I've seen blades of grass stuck in bricks after tornados. I think we kinda agree with each other, just have a bit of a different stance. Never fear though, knowing the interwebs as I do, there's a guy out there that knows the equation I mentioned, and I'm sure we will both be getting a physics lecture in 3...2...1... lol

Yes, the NTSB (which is an Administrative Court not an Article III Court) has decided that. Of course, the Court of Appeals (an Article III Court) can toss that decision if the case is appealed and it disagrees with the NTSB, and Congress can also legislate to do away with any court's decision.

On this we agree, and it's far from over!

 

[PsychopathRC]

At 4 ounces, less that 2 inches wide and plastic, I personally don't think any of that would be physically possible with this craft, but perhaps someone should fly one full speed into a pane of glass to see what happens.

Done (With a Hubsan Q4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7nQgtK ... e=youtu.be

:lol:

 

[aggiesrwe03]

At 4 ounces, less that 2 inches wide and plastic, I personally don't think any of that would be physically possible with this craft, but perhaps someone should fly one full speed into a pane of glass to see what happens.

Sadly I am not as versed on physics as I would like to be, but I do know there exists an equation that can determine exactly the amount of force an object traveling at a given speed can and does have. I learned it in paramedic school when we learned about trauma and force and all that stuff (the equation wasn't all that important when applying it to street medicine, so I didn't retain it, it was more of an example of how much damage can occur at relatively low speeds). Anyway if you applied said problem to a 4oz "projectile" meeting a car windshield at 70mph (plus the speed of the "aircraft") then there is bound to be potential for damage. Lol, again I'm not saying it is an absolute just that it's possible, hell I've seen blades of grass stuck in bricks after tornados. I think we kinda agree with each other, just have a bit of a different stance. Never fear though, knowing the interwebs as I do, there's a guy out there that knows the equation I mentioned, and I'm sure soon we will both be getting a physics lecture in 3...2...1... lol

I'll be that guy, because Google is my friend, and I brought it up!!

P.S. This might as well be written in Japanese because all I read is "math, math, math math, math, math math math."

Newton’s second law of motion. Force (f) equals mass (m) multiplied by acceleration (A) or deceleration (D). That looks like this: f = m X A or f = m X D

Lets look at one last law and then talk about what all these equations mean to us when we’re trying to predict the potential for damage or injury. 4) The law of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy (KE) always equals one half the mass (m) multiplied by velocity squared. For you visual folks, this one looks like this: KE = 1/2m X v^2 If we want to figure out how much energy is moving around with an object, we need to find out how much it weighs and divide that weight by two. Then we need to figure out how fast the thing is moving and multiply the speed by itself. Then we need to multiply those two numbers together. It’s easy. You can do it with a hand calculator. What we see when we start playing with the numbers is that, when we’re talking about moving energy, speed means way more than weight. Speed has a dramatic and exponential affect on the energy carried by moving bodies.Here’s an example. Let’s say you’re driving around at 30 MPH in a Toyota Sienna. Strait off the dealers floor, it’s going to weigh about 5,600 pounds. (A quick apology to the entire metric-using world…this is an American blog.) Our kinetic energy equation is going to look like this: KE= 2/5,600 X (30 X 30) or KE = 2800 X 900 or KE = 2,520,000 So our Toyota is carrying around some energy for sure. 2,520,000 units of kinetic energy is about 84,000 foot pounds of force that all need to go somewhere when our Toyota hits a tree or a parked school bus. Now let’s try the equation two more times. First let’s double the vehicles weight, then let’s double its speed. OK, let’s switch out of the Toyota and try a Dodge Ram 3500. This baby comes off the showroom floor at a whopping 11,000+ pounds. Now our equation looks like this: KE = 2/11,000 X (30 X 30) or KE = 5,500 X 900 or KE = 4,950,000 Good to know. We almost doubled our vehicle weight and we also almost doubled our amount of kinetic energy. So vehicle weight has a constant effect on kinetic energy. Twice as much weight means twice as much energy to absorb or disburse. Now let’s get back in our Toyota and double the speed. Our equation is going to look like this: KE = 2/5,600 X (60 X 60) or KE = 2800 X 3600 or KE = 10,080,000 Wow. For the record, that is exactly four times the kinetic energy. So, for every time we double an objects weight, we get a proportional doubling of the kinetic energy moving around. For every time we double the same objects speed we get four times the amount of kinetic energy moving around. For the record, our Dodge Ram traveling at 60 MPH would be carrying 20,160,000 units of kinetic energy or 673,000 foot pounds of force. That’s 8 times more energy than the Toyota Sienna had at 30 miles per hour. What does all this mean to us? It means that weight is important, but speed really is king. Consider how much the moving object weighs, but really pay attention to how fast it was traveling. The same is true for falling people or objects that fall on people. How much the falling object weighs is important. How far it fell is very important. This also applies to people. A 180 pound man who strikes his steering wheel at 30 miles per hour will have to absorb 81,000 units of kinetic energy with his body. The same man traveling 60 miles per hour will need to absorb 324,000 of those units. That could make for two very different calls. This is definitely something worth keeping in mind as we consider the three collision rule. What is the three collision rule you ask? We’ll talk about that next. - See more at: http://theemtspot.com/2010/10/24/unders ... i6IFf.dpuf

Yeah yeah yeah "move it to another thread, this one is about the ruling". I get it....

 

[aggiesrwe03]

At 4 ounces, less that 2 inches wide and plastic, I personally don't think any of that would be physically possible with this craft, but perhaps someone should fly one full speed into a pane of glass to see what happens.

Done (With a Hubsan Q4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7nQgtK ... e=youtu.be

:lol:

http://youtu.be/M9tyjAFm67k

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[ianwood]

Done (With a Hubsan Q4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7nQgtK ... e=youtu.be

:lol:

Oh the horror! So reckless!

The FAA and NTSB would like to investigate the crash of your [ 747 / Cessna / Phantom / Hubsan Q4 / Frisbee ] (choose one). As pilot in command, we believe you may have operated this aircraft in a haphazard manner. We believe your actions posed a risk to property, people, animals, bugs and single celled organisms. Remember, for us, size does not matter. Please report to your local field office for cognitive reprogramming.

P.S. While you may think this took place outside of the National Airspace System (NAS), we at the FAA have recently reinterpreted the definition of the NAS to include all matter, normal or dark, solid or gaseous throughout the known universe.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

Done (With a Hubsan Q4)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7nQgtK ... e=youtu.be

:lol:

Oh the horror! So reckless!

The FAA and NTSB would like to investigate the crash of your [ 747 / Cessna / Phantom / Hubsan Q4 / Frisbee ] (choose one). As pilot in command, we believe you may have operated this aircraft in a haphazard manner. We believe your actions posed a risk to property, people, animals, bugs and single celled organisms. Remember, for us, size does not matter. Please report to your local field office for cognitive reprogramming.

P.S. While you may think this took place outside of the National Airspace System (NAS), we at the FAA have recently reinterpreted the definition of the NAS to include all matter, normal or dark, solid or gaseous throughout the known universe.

Don't forget drug screen, BAT (breath alcohol test)!

 

[PsychopathRC]

Oh crap! I better go into hiding! :lol:

 

[Foosy]

Laws will change.
Here is an idea for a new definition of an aircraft: any device that can fly further than 100m or higher than 20m from the launch point.

This can easily eliminate all the devices that are making people paranoid about regulations.

 

[aggiesrwe03]

Laws will change.
Here is an idea for a new definition of an aircraft: any device that can fly further than 100m or higher than 20m from the launch point.

This can easily eliminate all the devices that are making people paranoid about regulations.

are you suggesting we limit the powers of government? BLASPHEMY!!!

 

[CarlJ]

The damage is done, the die is cast, and we're seeing the very begins of what is sure to be a very regulated hobby. People liken flying quads to playing golf in terms of risk to the general public, but they forget that golf is only permitted in designated areas.

The only thing I find surprising about this, is that you guys are surprised.

 

[petersachs]

Sadly I am not as versed on physics as I would like to be, but I do know there exists an equation that can determine exactly the amount of force an object traveling at a given speed can and does have. I learned it in paramedic school when we learned about trauma and force and all that stuff (the equation wasn't all that important when applying it to street medicine, so I didn't retain it, it was more of an example of how much damage can occur at relatively low speeds). Anyway if you applied said problem to a 4oz "projectile" meeting a car windshield at 70mph (plus the speed of the "aircraft") then there is bound to be potential for damage. Lol, again I'm not saying it is an absolute just that it's possible, hell I've seen blades of grass stuck in bricks after tornados. I think we kinda agree with each other, just have a bit of a different stance. Never fear though, knowing the interwebs as I do, there's a guy out there that knows the equation I mentioned, and I'm sure we will both be getting a physics lecture in 3...2...1... lol

I learned the same thing in EMT school. I don't recall the formula either. Someone will likely chime in with it. I think we agree in the manner you describe as well.

Yes, the NTSB (which is an Administrative Court not an Article III Court) has decided that. Of course, the Court of Appeals (an Article III Court) can toss that decision if the case is appealed and it disagrees with the NTSB, and Congress can also legislate to do away with any court's decision.

On this we agree, and it's far from over!

Agreed.

 

[bobbycwall]

Actually I have heard of laws in some places that include airspace as property for example a business or land owner can claim ownership of 20 feet above the highest point of their structure. Which could constitute trespassing if one flew in that area. That's an extreme circumstance, and pretty rare but it's possible, and that would be enforced locally.

Common misconception. The last time this issue was visited was in 1946 in the Supreme Court (US v. Causby). The Court held that "a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That's pretty vague and the issue will surely be revisited again and again over the years, but "aerial trespass" at this time is defined by the old Causby case.

So you're saying the State of Oregon's law about this is invalid? I find that hard to believe. Legistlative Counsel is not full of dumb people. See section 837.380
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills ... rs837.html