FAA is a bunch of

Nice mild mannered rant but there's the flaws in the arguments.

University of Virginia did not hire trappy to do the video. It was Lewis Communications. Not sure if any UVA people knew about the flight or when where and how it was to be conducted. So all the argument in that direction is kaput.

He ignores the fact that at least 4 times he flew right over the heliport at the UVA hospital. That can be a busy heliport. Plenty of emergency flight in and out of that pad. The heliport is continuously attended and the unicom frequency 123.05. Did he notify them he would be conducting his diving operation or over filghts? (I've flown critically injured into hospital heliports. Usually a high speed approach, you don't need to be hitting of dodging a RC airplane on final)

Once trappy entered the realm of part 91 airspace .... he's in the game. He's flying for hire in controlled environment. That's where they nailed him. His flight path and proximity to people and vehicles FPV with no line of sight puts him into something other than hobby guy having fun.

In an effort to NOT regulate hobby RC flight the FAA issued advisory circular 91-57 way back in 1981. In that they acknowledged that model aricraft can at times pose a hazard to full scale aircraft in flight and persons and property on the surface. and basically the advisory says hey, if you guys follow certain standards, there will be no problems from us (government) go have fun.

Operate away from populated areas. away from noise sensitive areas. Stay away from spectators until the model is flight tested and airworthy. Stay below 400 feet. if within 3 miles of an airport, notify the operator or air traffic facility . Give right of way to full scale aircraft.

Simple ... worked for over 30 years. Now we're in a new paradigm, fresh technology and price bring more operators and apparently a healthy lack of good sense. If he was wanting good video for commercial purpose why not use one of his quads, hover through line of sight get quality video and speed it up if he wanted? Were the high speed passes needed? did he need to pass pedestrians high speed within a few feet? Pass in front of an in sight of vehicles I think not. He wanted to show off what a hot dog he is, put it on you tube and sell products and elevated his status. He screwed up in so many ways, the only way to describe it is piss poor judgement. The guy is making a living off of this business. It is his business to promote sales do the videos and pick up a contract or two where he can. By putting people and property at risk other than his own to advance his own self interest he crossed a line and that brings in the FEDS.

I like the video guy xjets he's been around. But he's in error about several things which are the basis of his opinion and I'm sure if explained to him he'd change his opinion a bit.
 
AC91-57 is clearly stated to be an advisory. It is not regulatory, "...encourages voluntary safety standards for model aircraft operators...". Voluntary safety standards, not mandatory nor regulatory standards. I think that is much of Trappy's attorney's stance on this case, the FAA is overstepping their current regulatory enforcement responsibility based on an antiquated advisory. AC91-57 is 32 years old, promulgated before cell phones, consumer GPS systems and most consumer FPV systems. If anything the FAA is neglectful for not developing regulations consistent with current consumer technology that can and may interfere with commercial aviation.

My initial reaction to this discussion was, sounds a bit like protectionism for a pilot's union to require a license for a toy operator who is charging a fee for aerial photography when flying responsibly using "voluntary safety standards". Another successful lobby helping forge regulations.
 
An Advisory Circular is just that an advisory. No one needs to comply with anything that's advice including what's written here. That said, a sudden increase in what may be perceived as reckless operations and safety concerns of non-participants WILL lead to regulation where none was required before.

My initial reaction to this discussion was, sounds a bit like protectionism for a pilot's union to require a license for a toy operator who is charging a fee for aerial photography when flying responsibly using "voluntary safety standards". Another successful lobby helping forge regulations.

That's just it .... Trappy ignored the "voluntary safety standards" and departed from common sense placing people and property at risk. Maybe he was on the radio with the heliport, I don't know but I really doubt it. Maybe the woman crossing the street signed a release giving permission to fly past her at head height, 5 feet away at 40 knots. I don't know but I doubt it.

What he was fined for:
By reason of the above, you operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. By reason of the foregoing, you violated the following section(s) of the Federal Aviation Regulations: Section 91.13(a), which states that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

I think the court will find that it stopped being a hobby with a toy and became a job with a tool once he accepted compensation for the activity. Another thing is he's a foreign national. Aren't we all up in arms about people coming here and working without permits? I dunno know maybe I'm just old and illogical. But you can't have it both ways.
 
OI Photography said:
Here's a well(poorly?)-timed monkey wrench to throw in to this mix: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... rison?lite

I'm surprised it's taken this long!! Either that, or this is the first time anyone has been caught, or the police have been dumb enough to broadcast the idea to the world.

Given the current autopilots, they were clearly amateurs if they were close enough to be spotted rather than doing the whole thing via FPV.
 
justsomeguy said:
ToddSmi said:
I don't think anyone including the FAA cares about what happens to his copter. The concern that some have is related to the potential risk to the property or health of someone else that could be caused by his copter.

There was absolutely no risk to property or the health of someone else from his copter.

@justsomeguy -
Simply stated, you're wrong. The video speaks for itself.
 
Oh it won't stop there I've thought of many uses for a drone that I'm sure some idiots are going to try and screw things up for the rest of us, Wouldn't be surprised at this point that they will make them illegal to fly altogether! I still think the FAA should only have jurisdiction over a certain level of air space and local laws can enforce the rest like the case in Texas where the guy took photos of that pig farmer, They decided that it was okay to take pictures of someones property as long as you where over 200 feet!
Does this mean if I make a paper airplane and a friend bet me $20 I would throw it into a crowed of people so he can see who it will hit and it does he thinks it's cool and pays up I'm braking the FAA regulations for flying an UAV for payment? Is this only talking about aerial pictures being sold? Does paper not count? So many gray areas. I don't care if I have to pay for a license if I was going more then a couple hundred feet but for them to say I cant fly around a home owners house or property and take pictures for profit is stepping on our rights if we have any more in this country!
 
QuadHopper said:
Justsomeidiot posts:

Let me buy you a clue:

There was absolutely no risk to property or the health of someone else from his copter because HE WAS NOT FLYING HIS COPTER.

That video was captured with a powered glider. Not a copter.

Get it?

Ohhh. So a powered glider hitting a child in the head is far safer and less damaging than a quadcopter hitting a child in the head!

Got it!

The vehicle doesn't matter, it's the actions that are in question. Poor judgement, IMHO.
 
QuadHopper said:
Justsomeidiot posts:

Let me buy you a clue:

There was absolutely no risk to property or the health of someone else from his copter because HE WAS NOT FLYING HIS COPTER.

That video was captured with a powered glider. Not a copter.

Get it?

Ohhh. So a powered glider hitting a child in the head is far safer and less damaging than a quadcopter hitting a child in the head!

Got it!

Quadhopper, how dare you question the almighty! JustsomeGod has spoken from on high. "Let me buy you a clue" is enshrined in Holy Writ
 
Are you familiar with EPP Foam Gliders or just presuming?

I am.
I'm also familiar with EPO and EPS foam gliders.

Tell me what you think a foam glider travelling at 35 MPH would do when it impacts a child riding a bike at 15 MPH?

Just curious what you think.
 
That 2.5 kg of foam at 40kts has about 421 foot pound of energy. Care to volunteer for a head shot?
 
Has anyone considered developing and recommending a set of standards, training and certification process? In political circles a group called ALEX writes their own laws and passes them directly to members of congress. It works for two reasons: 1: congress people can be somewhat clueless on a lot of issues and 2: everybody gets lazy and likes having somebody else do the drudge work for them. The same factors could apply to the FAA in some measure. I'm sure they're getting some amount of pressure from pilots who don't like the idea of competition for aerial photography. Then there are the "don't change things" portion and the "if I don't make a commitment I can't be wrong" group. In the end, there will be an accident, like the UAV that crashing into a crowd at a sports event, that will cause somebody in Congress to stage one of those "hearings" and the FAA will have to respond... With something. Anything. Or some lobbyist will write a law for them.

It might be better if an organized group with first hand knowledge saw the need for self-regulation and the creation of a realistic set of standards and perhaps a voluntary certification process. "Such a group" could also enlist the support of tech-friendly legislators and start the push from our side first. Promulgation of education and standard practices could also serve to prevent the kinds of incidents that could lead to the FAA and local governmental bodies creating drastic regulations... like trying to make it illegal to even own a UAV in one instance. -- (It turns out there are several such "large organizations" including UAVSI, RTCA, just to name two)

That set of standards could also serve as a basis of understanding for any local or state governmental units who see the need to respond to public concern about safety and privacy. (It is my understanding that may be in progress)

There is also a growing backlash against use of "drones" by the police, but there have also could have been incidents where a UAV has been put to use to save lives, such as aiding in search and rescue. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vowfpS--rj0#t=476)

If anybody else sees it this way I can continue with my suggestions and ideas (Apparently not).
 
Tyrohne said:
Hank Reardon said:
Are you familiar with EPP Foam Gliders or just presuming?

I am.
I'm also familiar with EPO and EPS foam gliders.

Tell me what you think a foam glider travelling at 35 MPH would do when it impacts a child riding a bike at 15 MPH?

Just curious what you think.

when did the foam impact an innocent child riding on the helipad? it's called a straw man fallacy.

I too am curious what you think the impact would do to a child, Tyrohne. You didn't answer the question posed to you...
That is called deflection.

You think a child getting injured by an RC plane/copter is a straw man fallacy eh?

Let Google be your friend, Tryohne:

https://www.google.com/#q=child+injured+by+RC+plane

check it out...
 
Tyrohne said:
Oddly, googling "child injured by EPP (or leave it out) foam glider" returns no incidents. But keep on shifting the playing field...

Well obviousely we can now arrive at our conclusion:

Tryohne can't find evidence of a foam glider injuring an innocent child (nor a guilty child for that matter) on the interweb, thus foam gliders are completely safe to be flown over school yards.
 
Tyrohne said:
And you should google "child injured by car while riding bike". There's a few more hits. And presumably they were all hit by (gasp!) licensed/sanctioned by the state drivers. Crazy I know.

So your logic is that since some kids on bikes still get hit by cars even though the drives had licenses, there's really no need to license drivers in the first place, or to expect drivers to avoid risky situations?
 
I'll type real slow so you can keep up:
Thanks Pete, I appreciate that.

Trappy flew on the University of VA for hire using an EPP Foam Glider. He's an experienced pilot. I saw no children on bicycles. If you want to stop flying your vehicle for fun or only fly in the sticks, far from humans, good for you.
No, I just want people to employ common sense. Or develop some, as the case may be...


Do I think a child can be injured by a glider? I think a child can be INJURED BY ANYTHING. I have a scar under my chin from a popsicle stick that was wielded by a slightly hyperkinetic cousin. Your imagined child can be injured on the freaking bike he/she was riding if he/she was impacted by one of those hundreds of cars I saw in that video. And you should google "child injured by car while riding bike". There's a few more hits. And presumably they were all hit by (gasp!) licensed/sanctioned by the state drivers. Crazy I know.
Let me make sure I understand your point:
Since children can be injured by popsicle sticks, bikes, and cars we shouldn't worry about RC toys hurting them and there is really no need to take precautions or fly safely?
Got your point.

Are you so obtuse to think we should run through life cocooned in bubble wrap? You don't have to answer that, I've seen the bulk of your posts and critical thinking doesn't seem to be a strong point.
LOL, because "kids get hurt all the time, so what if they get hit by a flying radio controlled object, that is just a hazard of childhood" is such a great example of critical thinking...lol.
And you call me obtuse.
 
no sir (or ma'am as the case may be), I'm just making sure we keep on point. And I do think EPP Gliders are as safe to fly over "school yards" as anything else.

And you also believe that the way to change laws is to continually break them, i.e. flying in national parks or other places where SUAVs are curently illegal. I just went back and read some of your previous posts.

I get it.

You keep telling us you're an idiot, and we're listening.

And you are just dumb enough to think each time you throw the phrase "straw man" out there it somehow validates your
opinions.
 
Hank Reardon said:
no sir (or ma'am as the case may be), I'm just making sure we keep on point. And I do think EPP Gliders are as safe to fly over "school yards" as anything else.

And you also believe that the way to change laws is to continually break them, i.e. flying in national parks or other places where SUAVs are curently illegal. I just went back and read some of your previous posts.

I get it.

You keep telling us you're an idiot, and we're listening.

And you are just dumb enough to think each time you throw the phrase "straw man" out there it somehow validates your
opinions.

+1
 
Tyrohne said:
Gotcha, chief. You don't want to talk about Trappy's flight. You could have said so way back.

Pay attention. That is exactly what we are talking about - Trappy's flight. It was dangerous.
You argue that because it was a foam plane, there was no danger.

Trappy was flying a Ritewing Zephyr, a powered glider that weighs about 4.5lbs once equipped with batteries, radio, motor, and other components.

The Super Cub is a small parkflyer foam airplane with a flying weight of 1.57 lbs, less than a third of the weight of Trappy's foam glider.


If any of you are interested in the type of damage a 1.5lb foam plane can do when it falls from the sky, check out these photos and the actual video of the impact:

http://supercubclub.proboards.com/thread/4312
As you can see from the dent in the car, that impact against a child's head, or an adult's head for that matter, could very possibly be fatal. Or leave them blind. Or in a vegetative state for the remainder of their life from the closed head injury.

IMO, anyone who thinks that it is safe to fly foam planes over people, cars, or buildings is simply not thinking.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers