TGIFriday's "Mistletoe Drone" Draws first blood

Status
Not open for further replies.

DBS

Joined
Apr 6, 2014
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
165
Age
56
Location
Ft. Pierce, Florida
:roll:

So here's what they think is a "good idea"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldhEsgcOq9U[/youtube]





And here's a more accurate take on said "good idea"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC96ZNgsNvU[/youtube]



Somebody stop them before it's too late...


resized_the-most-interesting-man-in-the-world-meme-generator-i-don-t-always-come-up-with-a-bad-idea-but-when-i-do-it-s-the-shittiest-idea-yet-a5158d.jpg
 
Re: TGIFriday's "Mistletoe Drone" .... (facepalm)

Still funny. :) Thanks for posting again.
 
Obviously its beyond a stupid idea to fly a blender into peoples faces. But a wonderful thing happened because of this. We now have a actor to play Momma from the movie Goonies.... Anne Ramsey look alike minus a couple years. I have been hoping for Goonies 2 and the cast is willing to return.
 

Attachments

  • goonies grany2.jpg
    goonies grany2.jpg
    48.3 KB · Views: 766
Or the neighbor from Alf that kept saying "keep your pants on" whenever her doorbell rang.
That was her last gig.
 
hunch said:
Or the neighbor from Alf that kept saying "keep your pants on" whenever her doorbell rang.
That was her last gig.

I forgot that. I loved Alf.... she was a great actor. I keep seeing her trying to stuff Chunks hand into the blender. :lol:
 
1) Commercial use (just as much as a farmer using it to further his crop business, even though cash flow is not being generated directly).
2) Wreckless/dangerous operation of an aircraft.
3) Injured bystander.

By now, this owner is probably PRAYING he just gets a $10,000.00 fine. Idiot. This is why we are going to loose this hobby. I'm beginning to think I'll need to bring my Private Pilot's License back to current just so I'll be able to fly my quad when the FAA finishes with stuff like this.
 
Chuck26287 said:
1) Commercial use (just as much as a farmer using it to further his crop business, even though cash flow is not being generated directly).
2) Wreckless/dangerous operation of an aircraft.
3) Injured bystander.

By now, this owner is probably PRAYING he just gets a $10,000.00 fine. Idiot. This is why we are going to loose this hobby. I'm beginning to think I'll need to bring my Private Pilot's License back to current just so I'll be able to fly my quad when the FAA finishes with stuff like this.
The FAA has no jurisdiction over indoor flight, so the commercial use "ban" and recklessness (FAR 91.13) don't apply, and FAA could never initiate an enforcement action here.

Regular old state tort law applies.
 
I think some of you folks should take a moment to read Peter's very factual blog above: dronelawjournal.com

Thanks Pete!
 
petersachs said:
The FAA has no jurisdiction over indoor flight, so the commercial use "ban" and recklessness (FAR 91.13) don't apply, and FAA could never initiate an enforcement action here.

Regular old state tort law applies.

You're absolutely right, Peter. Reading your reply, then reading my post, I feel pretty stupid. My post does look like I'm saying the FAA will attempt some sort of enforcement, but that was not what I meant. I can't help but feel the FAA will see this scenario as justification for applying broader, more encompassing regulation. If there are people willing to do this indoors, there are people who would do this outdoors, and this thought has the potential to drive regulation. This is about people using these aircraft irresponsibly and risking the well-being and safety of others, and this is what the FAA will want to address. While this particular event is indeed not an FAA issue to take action on, I think the scenario is exactly what the FAA and it's rule making will want to address.

As for the $10,000.00 fine, in today's sue-happy world, I simply think the owner is sitting in a potential situation where a cost of only $10,000.00 would be a very fortunate outcome.

Also, to put myself out there and risk making myself appear even more ignorant, I'll say that in my opinion, I believe RC aircraft, multirotor/sUAS aircraft in particular, have taken a quantum leap in not just technology/flight capability, but in application. On top of that, I think the technology and capabilities are going to see phenomenal increases in the near future, as the companies developing them create new emerging markets which can justify the cost of development. I think sUAS technology, and its commercial applications and the markets they are producing are here to stay. I think these markets and capabilities will have to be governed under much more mainstream aviation regulation. However, I worry that scenarios like the one discussed above will provide public support for regulation that has the potential of almost regulating the "hobby" level of these activities out of existence.
 
We all knew how this was going to go!
 

Attachments

  • DA.jpg
    DA.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 416
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.