Are you missing a Phantom 2 in St. Louis?

Ozzyguy said:
Omg. Just curious what you guys would think if I threw a 1.3 kg brick from a neighbouring building at the skyscraper. Of coarse 1.3 kg can do damage. A couple of hundred gram bullet can kill someone. Imagine how quick the government would adversely react if that had fallen on someone's windscreen and caused a fatal accident? People need to grow up and have A more responsible attitude to our hobby. Already the in australia these are being sold with a copy of the regulations. This is the first step in prosecuting people. You can't use the ingnorance excuse.

Troll.
 
GMANNZ said:
"Pidgeon crashes into 30th floor window, lands on balcony reaping untold death and destruction all over the mid-town USA ... FAA now in hot pursuit of suspect with light fluffy hairline and single claw foot after "Gerald the piebold feathered terrorist" was last seen flying off into the sunset" this **** is getting funnier than South Park :lol:

LOL dunno why but reading that made me think of this:-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dexQhvczVeM[/youtube]
 
We can debate "drone" incidents endlessly on this and other forums, but it matters not one whit. As has been proven time and again, perception very often trumps reality. Whether or not a mild mannered, DJI bladed, Phantom can or can't do physical damage to some person or thing (if such could even be proven one way or the other) is immaterial. If the general public thinks they're a threat (damage, injury, or privacy), it will impact our hobby in some negative way. Incidents like this are not helpful, regardless of how harmless we may judge them.

As has already been reported in several incidents, public figures seize upon these incidents. Perhaps they're genuinely concerned, perhaps not. But if there's something garnering coverage and they can see a way to tag along, they're on it. And what better than a drone "incident"? "Drones" already conjure up a negative image, and the folks who participate in this hobby (or enterprise) are a minuscule number compared to the (voting) public at large. So if public figures sense they can get a lot of support while only pissing off an extremely small number of people, what do you think they're going to do? Even the most noble among them cannot ignore the fact that they need support in order to continue to do their "good work".

I'm not advocating any position here. I'm just making an observation about the reality of the situation. We can not debate away the impact of these incidents, and to think they won't have an impact on public policy is just kidding ourselves.
 
Visioneer said:
We can debate "drone" incidents endlessly on this and other forums, but it matters not one whit. As has been proven time and again, perception very often trumps reality. Whether or not a mild mannered, DJI bladed, Phantom can or can't do physical damage to some person or thing (if such could even be proven one way or the other) is immaterial. If the general public thinks they're a threat (damage, injury, or privacy), it will impact our hobby in some negative way. Incidents like this are not helpful, regardless of how harmless we may judge them.

As has already been reported in several incidents, public figures seize upon these incidents. Perhaps they're genuinely concerned, perhaps not. But if there's something garnering coverage and they can see a way to tag along, they're on it. And what better than a drone "incident"? "Drones" already conjure up a negative image, and the folks who participate in this hobby (or enterprise) are a minuscule number compared to the (voting) public at large. So if public figures sense they can get a lot of support while only pissing off an extremely small number of people, what do you think they're going to do? Even the most noble among them cannot ignore the fact that they need support in order to continue to do their "good work".

I'm not advocating any position here. I'm just making an observation about the reality of the situation. We can not debate away the impact of these incidents, and to think they won't have an impact on public policy is just kidding ourselves.

This is exactly my point. Some people think we have to go hide on the fringes because there is an insatiable appetite to demonize drones. I believe we need to do just the opposite. We need to be out in public, in areas with other people flying our Phantoms responsibly, safely and with ample consideration for others. We need to demonstrate through our actions that these thing aren't the death machines reported on the news. They don't murder kittens, spy on your neighbors' kids, report to the NSA, or kill people by falling out of the sky!

If flying multirotors is banished to the edge of town and beyond where no one will ever see them, then they become all those things. They become a technology pariah.
 
Yep. That's exactly what will happen if people keep doing idiotic things like posting their 2000 feet altitude runs in YouTube giving ammo to the pubic and fuelling their fears and concerns. This aircraft probably was not being flown responsibly. How many responsible flyers out there have accidentally crashed into a skyscraper?
And thanks windsheer for identifying yourself as a troll. I see by your post count that that is likely.
Some basic tips to make sure people don't fly into building.
Fly line of sight.
Have a spotter if flying FPV
Give people and property a wide berth.
Happy flying.
 
You can always trust an Aussie, no damp places for Trolls to hide under :)

Some people have no fear when it comes to these flying things, they do terrify me thinking what could go wrong, I think it should continually be said out loud.

For me I don't go out of site or even nearly, as for going up I set a limit that I can see all 4's

Knowledge brings awareness and that has bred fear, I don't know how this PV2 survived me in the first week or how I didn't maim someone.
 
I think we need to take every opportunity to educate people. Instead of fobbing people off when they approach us flying, we should have an open and honest chat with them. Explains want thEy can and can't do and how you fly responsibly. This will help with public perception. That way the public can associate them with another human.
I was at my sons soccer game on Saturday and a phantom 2 over flew all the fields. Came from somewhere out of sight. You should have heard the negative comments. Had that person just turned up and asked permission and been at the field controlling it there it would have gone a long way. So many people were assuming it was some paedophile. I had to explain that I own one and that the field of view is so wide the operator would have to be way lower to
Identify any of their Children. No one had a problem with the older gent with a DSLR with 500mm zoom lens. That was because he was there in person. If he was in across the street he would have copped it. So be approachable and accountable.
 
ianwood said:
This is exactly my point. Some people think we have to go hide on the fringes because there is an insatiable appetite to demonize drones. I believe we need to do just the opposite. We need to be out in public, in areas with other people flying our Phantoms responsibly, safely and with ample consideration for others. We need to demonstrate through our actions that these thing aren't the death machines reported on the news. They don't murder kittens, spy on your neighbors' kids, report to the NSA, or kill people by falling out of the sky!

And an excellent one it is! We do occasionally see a "good" incident reported. Of course, as with most human endeavors, bad news gets more notice than good news (unless it's a slow news day). I'm not sure how we create good news situations but I certainly never miss the chance to let folks know I have a "model aircraft", the precautions I take, and point out that in a group of any significant size the "bell shaped curve" kicks in, and there are going to be a number of folks involved who just don't get it. I imagine my "promotion" has shaped the attitudes of my friends, and an occasional acquaintance ... though probably more so because they already know me than from any great pitch I can deliver. The fact that they also know I've been in and out of RC for many years likely helps too - they readily accept that I'm not up to no good, it's just another one of my "toys".

I don't believe that posting incidents is a bad thing ... it may help some readers better understand the kinds of things that are liable to upset the public, but "debating" whether or not a given incident should or shouldn't upset the public is pointless. It's pretty clear from most such reports that it already has upset someone.
 
If the FCC or any other agency REALLY want to know who owned this thing it would be easy. I mean the thing does have a serial number, and DJI knows which distributor they sold it to, and who bought it, registered the warranty and app. As a retired LEO it would be a piece of cake to track down the owner, so he can't hide if they really want to find him, but as there was no damage or anyone hurt I doubt they will take the time and effort. Was the pilot irresponsible to fly in a densely populated area, IMHO yes, but he paid a steep price... he lost his bird.
 
Re: "First major airline almost hits a drone"

w0by said:

Yes, and almost every news outlet has a photo of a copter when the "drone" was an model F-4 Phantom jet plane, not our phantom quads. Hey, I read it in the news it must be true.

THIS drone is what the jet encountered. Model airplane doesn't sound as scary as drone though. Must misuse the term drone. That will sell papers.
1399675331000-phantom.jpg
 
This is precisly why we should start distancing ourself selves from the word drone. Drone is a blanket term for surveillance aircraft.
It has massive negative connotations. When we make the distinction of being model quadcopters all of a sudden people are thinking of a toy instead of those people out there that tend to wear aluminium foil hats thinking that the government is monitoring the the implants that the aliens stuck up their asses. :lol:
It's why I have a bug bear about people calling them drones. The general public are fearful of drones from images on the news of them in used in war zones. Impersonal machines(virtual robots in most peoples minds because they rarely see the human operator) taking out human beings on the other side of the planet.
 
Ozzyguy said:
This is precisly why we should start distancing ourself selves from the word drone. Drone is a blanket term for surveillance aircraft.
It has massive negative connotations. When we make the distinction of being model quadcopters all of a sudden people are thinking of a toy instead of those people out there that tend to wear aluminium foil hats thinking that the government is monitoring the the implants that the aliens stuck up their asses. :lol:
It's why I have a bug bear about people calling them drones. The general public are fearful of drones from images on the news of them in used in war zones. Impersonal machines(virtual robots in most peoples minds because they rarely see the human operator) taking out human beings on the other side of the planet.

I'm 100% with you, OG. I'm constantly "correcting" people when the call my Phantom a drone.

"What is it, then?" they ask.

"A quadcopter, or quad. Or droid," I tell them. "Drones have missiles and kill people; this is only armed with a camera for making YouTube videos."

Once I mention YouTube, they usually smile and wave to the camera.
 
ianwood said:
dkatz42 said:
FWIW, controlled airspace through most of the area starts at 700' and the floor in the area is nowhere higher than 1200 feet. I assume you're talking about Class B airspace, but Class E is still Controlled Airspace.

I only glanced at the chart but if E starts at 700 there then it too is irrelevant. Not that E is a big deal.

SilentAV8R said:
So you are equating this to being no different than some kid throwing a ball over a neighbor's fence? No harm, no foul?

Yes. Maybe slightly more serious than a ball over a fence but only marginally. It certainly isn't the egregious malfeasance being portrayed in the media and oddly perpetuated here. Show me imminent harm or foul and I may change my mind.

And for those that think that whoever caused this incident played into the hands of the media and the FAA by flying where they did, I would argue that you are playing into their hands even more by perpetuating this idea that a 1.3kg remote controlled toy is inherently dangerous.

Egregious malfeasance? I had to look that f***er up before i could read on.... LOL
 
Visioneer said:
We can debate "drone" incidents endlessly on this and other forums, but it matters not one whit. As has been proven time and again, perception very often trumps reality. Whether or not a mild mannered, DJI bladed, Phantom can or can't do physical damage to some person or thing (if such could even be proven one way or the other) is immaterial. If the general public thinks they're a threat (damage, injury, or privacy), it will impact our hobby in some negative way. Incidents like this are not helpful, regardless of how harmless we may judge them.

+1 I'm sure everyone has also heard of prohibition, proliferation of tobacco, and the criminalization of marijuana. We live in an *** backwards society, not because the people are dumb, but because they readily believe what Uncle Sam tells them to believe. Two of the three have been attributed to annual deaths, only one out of the three have been proven to be beneficial for little kids and old people alike. We've paid taxes to fight a bogus war on weed that should have been studied. I don't smoke weed, I don't even drink. I'll smoke a cigarette once in a while but every time I do, I find it ironic how I'm able to smoke while it's criminal for anyone in my state to produce marijuana medicinally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciQ4ErmhO7g

The FAA is out to get every flying thing in the sky and they know the word DRONE is the way to go. If enough constituents are corralled into drone-fear-mongering, what will happen?
 
Re: "First major airline almost hits a drone"

BZNCREW said:
Yes, and almost every news outlet has a photo of a copter when the "drone" was an model F-4 Phantom jet plane, not our phantom quads. Hey, I read it in the news it must be true.

THIS drone is what the jet encountered. Model airplane doesn't sound as scary as drone though. Must misuse the term drone. That will sell papers.

Neil Cavuto just did this. He had a story about near misses with airliners, and this incident was one of them. Of course, as he and his guest talked, there was video rolling of several different types of quads.
 
Ozzyguy said:
This is precisly why we should start distancing ourself selves from the word drone. Drone is a blanket term for surveillance aircraft.

I have stopped using the word "drone". I use the term "quad" instead. "Quadcopter" to people who wouldn't know what a quad is.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers