Anyone recognize this Fine Upstanding Quad Pilot?

That was my point(s).

There's no context in this video. Just like other infamous videos in recent decades you only see the end of the 'event' not what led up to it which MAY explain the outcome.

Assuming the airspace is as 'johan' indicated... the multirotor may have been there first.
The news choppers only saw it, or at least taped it, descending if I recall correctly.

Now the operator sees full-scale a/c and bugs out of there.

Exactly what any responsible operator should do.

Kinda changes things, IF TRUE.
 
N017RW said:
That was my point(s).

There's no context in this video. Just like other infamous videos in recent decades you only see the end of the 'event' not what led up to it which MAY explain the outcome.

Assuming the airspace is as 'johan' indicated... the multirotor may have been there first.
The news choppers only saw it, or at least taped it, descending if I recall correctly.

Now the operator sees full-scale a/c and bugs out of there.

Exactly what any responsible operator should do.

Kinda changes things, IF TRUE.

I agree, it does seem that the pilot did descend and leave the air space when two helicopters were in the area.
We don't know how long the 3 of them shared the same air space - it may have been as short as the video makes it seem, or it could have been much longer, we don't know.

However this was a big fire that shut down one of the major highways for several hours. Big news. Now most of us in this area would have enough sense to realize that a fire this big is going to attract at least two of the local news station helicopters, as well as the DOT's small copter to report on traffic reroutes, and we would stay out of the air space.
Most of us would fly below the 400ft level ADVISED by the FAA.
And I'm not sure if he is in restricted air space or not. Not sure where the pilot launched from, however the scrap yard is 5.2 miles from McChord Field (Air Force Base's airport) as one drives. The air field is much closer as the bird flies, within the 5 mile limit I'm quite sure.

Both the pilot and the cameraman from Chopper 7 place the drone at 50 feet above their blades, and then say it flew even closer to the Channel 4 helicopter BEFORE Chopper 7 turned, started filming him, and he quickly fled.
This happened two days before the one year anniversary of the KOMO news helicopter crash, killing both the pilot and the cameraman, which explains why there was such a reaction from those aboard the news copters.

When I hear aviation expert John Nance (google him if you don't know who he is) on the local news telling people how dangerous this stunt was, I put a lot more veracity in his statements than I do cadre of hobbyists whose collective aviation experience amounts to strapping a camera on a drone and flying it out of the box.

I also find comparing reactions from this forum to that of RCGroups forums to be very interesting. Not one person defends nor excuses this pilot's flying, nor do they react like this is the end our hobby. They just agree it was not safe, not smart, and potentially very dangerous.
 
I don't see this being a "stunt" until all the facts are known. If the quad operator went up into the air after the helos were there, then I would qualify this as a "stunt." Other way around, then not a "stunt." The KOMO chopper accident was not related to a quadcopter operating in the area, so I'm not sure that is relevant to the conversation. I think what the video does show is either the pilot or camera operator (hopefully the latter) has a short attention span and is attracted to shiny objects like a largemouth bass.
 
Good post GoodNuff. And keep in mind that the FAA was already aware of the incident and video before it was posted anywhere. Not the end of our hobby, just one more nail in the coffin We seem hell bent on providing them ample evidence that we as a community cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment. So when we say we do not need to be regulated, they simply point to this video and the endless other similar, and worse, examples and say "We beg to differ."
 
Also, this fire isn't even news worthy. Sorry, must have been a slow news day to get 2 helicopters airborne to cover it. Woe is me, this guy single handedly killed the quadcopter hobby/industry. Give me a break.
 
sdtrojan said:
I don't see this being a "stunt" until all the facts are known. If the quad operator went up into the air after the helos were there, then I would qualify this as a "stunt." Other way around, then not a "stunt." The KOMO chopper accident was not related to a quadcopter operating in the area, so I'm not sure that is relevant to the conversation. I think what the video does show is either the pilot or camera operator (hopefully the latter) has a short attention span and is attracted to shiny objects like a largemouth bass.

Semantics...I won't argue my choice of words.

No, the accident a year ago had nothing to do with this drone, why would you even think I was implying such nonesense?
What I am explaining is the reaction of the crew to a dangerous situation one year after another dangerous situation killed two of their co-workers - which most certianly could affect their thought proccesses that day and justify their reaction to seeing a quad 50 feet from their aircraft. I assumed most readers would understand the point...

I'm not sure this sophomoric comment is relevant to the conversation: "I think what the video does show is either the pilot or camera operator (hopefully the latter) has a short attention span and is attracted to shiny objects like a largemouth bass."

However it does make it clear you've never piloted anything bigger than a shoebox. A crucial part of piloting, especially a helicopter, is to be very aware of your surroundings at all times. How silly of you to think that a helicopter pilot flies with tunnel vision.
 
sdtrojan said:
Also, this fire isn't even news worthy. Sorry, must have been a slow news day to get 2 helicopters airborne to cover it. Woe is me, this guy single handedly killed the quadcopter hobby/industry. Give me a break.

Saying something as insipid as "Woe is me, this guy single handedly killed the quadcopter hobby/industry" is nothing more than a childish retort, a knee jerk reaction. I've never uttered such words - so don't try to put them in my mouth.

And now you're an expert on what is news worthy eh?
So a major fire within miles of a heavily used air force base is not news worthy?
A fire that shuts down one of the few main North to South ateries in the region isn't news worthy?
Funny.

But let's say you actually know what is newsworthy and what isn't in a region over a thousand miles from you, what does that have to do with how safe or unsafe this drone flight was? ?
 
sdtrojan said:
Also, this fire isn't even news worthy. Sorry, must have been a slow news day to get 2 helicopters airborne to cover it. Woe is me, this guy single handedly killed the quadcopter hobby/industry. Give me a break.

Um, the manned helicopters were covering a large fire, which IS newsworthy in many places. And nobody is saying he single-handedly killed the hobby. But what he did do, is provide ample evidence that despite all the recent awareness on safety, the NPRM, media coverage, and internet coverage and discussion, he STILL exercised poor judgement in flying where and how he did. Which only makes the point for both the FAA and the public that we are nothing more than a bunch of petulant children who only care about flying our toys. It further damages an already less than stellar reputation for our hobby. So no, he did not single-handedly kill the hobby. But please explain to me how you see that he did anything except harm our reputation??
 
1) I just don't see a major fire here, sorry. I live in an area that has endure several major wildfires encompassing thousands of acres, destroying hundreds of homes. So, by comparison, the fire in this story is a non-event. If it was a threat to the base, I am sure mutual aid agreements with McChord are in place to allow them to come help fight it.

2) Even mentioning the KOMO copter crash in this thread brings it into the conversation and stating that the reaction from the news choppers was heightened due to the anniversary date of the crash seems (to me) to infer something other than mechanical failure brought it down. I don't even think the full NTSB report is released yet. Yes, it's tragic that those men lost their lives and their families suffered the loss of sons, husbands, and fathers, so please don't think I am not sensitive to that. But if the pilots who seem to be chasing a drone with their camera are skittish to fly based on a single hazard in the air, then maybe they are in the wrong line of work?

3) The woe is me comment was not for you, it was for SilentAV8R.

4) I just don't see anything unsafe happening in this flight. A guy had his drone up over a fire (probably thought he'd make a couple bucks with the video to TV news), copters showed up, he landed. End of story. What I saw in the video was an aircrew of a manned aircraft acting silly about a drone that was doing his best to leave the area.
 
sdtrojan said:
1) I just don't see a major fire here, sorry. I live in an area that has endure several major wildfires encompassing thousands of acres, destroying hundreds of homes. So, by comparison, the fire in this story is a non-event. If it was a threat to the base, I am sure mutual aid agreements with McChord are in place to allow them to come help fight it.

2) Even mentioning the KOMO copter crash in this thread brings it into the conversation and stating that the reaction from the news choppers was heightened due to the anniversary date of the crash seems (to me) to infer something other than mechanical failure brought it down. I don't even think the full NTSB report is released yet. Yes, it's tragic that those men lost their lives and their families suffered the loss of sons, husbands, and fathers, so please don't think I am not sensitive to that. But if the pilots who seem to be chasing a drone with their camera are skittish to fly based on a single hazard in the air, then maybe they are in the wrong line of work?

3) The woe is me comment was not for you, it was for SilentAV8R.

4) I just don't see anything unsafe happening in this flight. A guy had his drone up over a fire (probably thought he'd make a couple bucks with the video to TV news), copters showed up, he landed. End of story. What I saw in the video was an aircrew of a manned aircraft acting silly about a drone that was doing his best to leave the area.

Again, you are over a thousand miles away, you aren't familiar with the area, transportation routes, etc., so your opinion on whether this fire was newsworthy is nothing more than an opinion.

And while you are allowed your opinions, your constant defense of them does nothing to boost your credibility.

Again, I trust John Nance's expertise over your "opinions."
 
sdtrojan said:
1) I just don't see a major fire here, sorry. I live in an area that has endure several major wildfires encompassing thousands of acres, destroying hundreds of homes. So, by comparison, the fire in this story is a non-event. If it was a threat to the base, I am sure mutual aid agreements with McChord are in place to allow them to come help fight it.

OK, but again irrelevant. You are not the editor or newsroom manager and it is not your call. Perhaps they should hire you as an advisor to tell them what is newsworthy or not.

3) The woe is me comment was not for you, it was for SilentAV8R.

Which I responded to. So please answer me. What good has this fellow done for our hobby by briging such negative attention to us??
 
SilentAV8R said:
sdtrojan said:
1) I just don't see a major fire here, sorry. I live in an area that has endure several major wildfires encompassing thousands of acres, destroying hundreds of homes. So, by comparison, the fire in this story is a non-event. If it was a threat to the base, I am sure mutual aid agreements with McChord are in place to allow them to come help fight it.

OK, but again irrelevant. You are not the editor or newsroom manager and it is not your call. Perhaps they should hire you as an advisor to tell them what is newsworthy or not.

3) The woe is me comment was not for you, it was for SilentAV8R.

Which I responded to. So please answer me. What good has this fellow done for our hobby by briging such negative attention to us??

I'll answer you with a question: "What harm has he done?" Other than some chopper camera operator getting his panties in a bunch and a ***** for getting video of the drone and operator like he's some kind of freaking Nazi war criminal, I don't think he did any damage. Again, what I see was he acted responsibly when he realized there was other air traffic. Also, I don't even think the helos made any adjustments as far as altitude or position in an effort to avoid him that I am aware of. To me, that would be a tell-tale sign he was reckless. So I will disagree with you on him damaging the hobby. Those news chopper cameras are very capable of getting those shots at a much greater distance, so any threat to their safety would have been mitigated with a change of location if they felt so endangered.

My opinion and yours will never meet on this probably due to the orange-colored tint on your glasses, and now is where you will call me reckless and dangerous...blah blah blah...

You really bore me.
 
What harm has he done?

Let's look at what is happening in the UK, where such laws are already on the books:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/18/dron ... _truncated

Read the article and pay close attention to the last sentence: "To better enforce the use of drones, the House of Lords EU Committee has already begun debating tougher rules for drone ownership in the UK. It could mean drone owners are put on a register, making them easier to identify, and asked to broadcast when they wish to fly."

Perhaps you can connect the dots.
Perhaps not.
 
I could care less what they do in the UK (no offense, guys in UK) because their laws don't affect me, and the FAA has shown that they do not let the regulations of other countries dictate how they decide to regulate US airspace.

I can connect dots just fine...hey, there's a trashcan on fire in Spokane...better get a chopper there ASAP.
 
LOL, no, it appears you can't connect the dots.
They took you all the way to a trashcan fire in Spokane.

This is no longer a debate.
I won't continue fueling your insulting retorts.
Ciao.
 
GoodnNuff said:
LOL, no, it appears you can't connect the dots.
They took you all the way to a trashcan fire in Spokane.

This is no longer a debate.
I won't continue fueling your insulting retorts.
Ciao.

Thanks, you just gave me more free time in my day for SilentAV8R now
 
This is nothing more than a news organization doing exactly what it is that they do. And that is taking mostly mundane events and glorifying them then presenting the result as 'news' in an effort to further their for-profit enterprise.

If you want evidence of this, you need not look further than some of the text in the article in the posted link.

If helicopters strike anything, like birds, they can easily fall out of the sky.
Ok lets think about this for a minute. First of all, this is most definitely not true. Helicopters can and do take lots of crap through the blades and keep right on ticking. But if we were to assume for a moment that this statement was actually true, then wouldn't the more relevant actual news story be about how the FAA is putting the general public in grave danger by allowing aircraft to operate which 'can easily fall out of the sky'?

I don't begrudge the news media trying to make a living. But this is nothing more than another example of them taking something that wasn't any more newsworthy than a car stopping at a railroad crossing because the lights started flashing and the gates came down, and trying to turn into a dramatic scary news event involving these dangerous drones.
 
sdtrojan said:
GoodnNuff said:
LOL, no, it appears you can't connect the dots.
They took you all the way to a trashcan fire in Spokane.

This is no longer a debate.
I won't continue fueling your insulting retorts.
Ciao.

Thanks, you just gave me more free time in my day for SilentAV8R now
Hopefully because you want to send SilentAV8R a fruit basket because I am sure you are familiar with the posted guidelines, more specifically this bullet point...
●Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Excessive sarcasm, belligerence, insults, profanity, anger, offensive comments about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and national origin, are not acceptable.
Carry on. ;)
 
johan said:
This is nothing more than a news organization doing exactly what it is that they do. And that is taking mostly mundane events and glorifying them then presenting the result as 'news' in an effort to further their for-profit enterprise.

If you want evidence of this, you need not look further than some of the text in the article in the posted link.

If helicopters strike anything, like birds, they can easily fall out of the sky.
Ok lets think about this for a minute. First of all, this is most definitely not true. Helicopters can and do take lots of crap through the blades and keep right on ticking. But if we were to assume for a moment that this statement was actually true, then wouldn't the more relevant actual news story be about how the FAA is putting the general public in grave danger by allowing aircraft to operate which 'can easily fall out of the sky'?

I don't begrudge the news media trying to make a living. But this is nothing more than another example of them taking something that wasn't any more newsworthy than a car stopping at a railroad crossing because the lights started flashing and the gates came down, and trying to turn into a dramatic scary news event involving these dangerous drones.

Thank you! Finally someone with some common sense weighs in. Any reference to common sense was made in a non-belligerent, sarcastic, insulting, profane, angry or offensive manner and in no way implies others who have responded to this thread lacks common sense. It's just Johan is dead on the money.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31