Helicopter meet Phantom. Phantom lost
- Thread starter Brojon
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 83
- Age
- 65
I think that one is a hoax. The Helicopter's right foot step is photoshopped out, no exhaust gas distortion and what appears to be a hat hanging on the collective. Also, the shadow of the helicopter doesn't match the surrounding buildings.
Did anyone else read the reports mentioned in the Israel report. How almost all of the reported drones are well over 400 feet, In fact one was at 11,000 feet. It's obvious why drone flyers go so high, just check out the videos on YouTube of "above the clouds" flights. Other flyers are seeing those as a challenge and simply want to post a video showing proof that they had the necessary courage and ability to go even higher. Why aren't these flyers taken to task by any aviation body. Those who fly in restricted zones such as National Parks manage to find out who the person is who posted the videos. Obviously Google hands out their names or at least the name associated with that YouTube account. Why can't the Aviation boys do likewise and book these errant flyers? As long as those videos continue to be posted we'll have flyers trying to go one (1,000 feet) Higher.
As for completely banning "hobby grade" flyers. Just stop for a minute and reflect on who got you in the air in the first place. If it wasn't for those millions of hobby quadcopters you wouldn't be sitting for your 107, mainly because you wouldn't have a quadcopter. The industry simply wouldn't have survived if nobody could buy a quadcopter legally in the first place. No quadcopter manufacturer would have survived without the US market. Therefore nobody would be flying them today if there wasn't that massive market for them. It was the toys which fueled the quadcopter/ drone business and banning them today would force most of them to close down. Get rid of the toys and you'll have nothing but expensive DJI drones to buy. Take away those toy grade drones and there's nothing to fuel the market to tempt those beginners to upgrade. Then again you do have those people with plenty of money who will buy a drone and never intend to get a 107. But they I assume would be in the minority. I believe that if you ban anyone but DJI flyers from flying you'll cripple the industry and that would in turn cripple DJI.
I saw the same in Australia, we had shipments of CB radios coming into the country, perfectly legally and those radios were selling from stores, perfectly legally. The government only jumped on the end buyers. I started out illegally using CB radios, in fact I was the President of one of the biggest CB radio clubs in Australia. The only step up from there was to Ham radio and I sat for that and got my license only because of being involved with CB radio. I figured out how to modify them to make them 10 meter radios and it's those we used when we went on air ans Hams. The quadcopter/ drone is the same as those CBs. It's a stepping stone to better things. If I'd never been involved with CBs there's no way I'd be a Ham today. And the same could be said for the 15 other guys who also took those steps and for the hundreds which followed. The CB industry fueled the biggest jump in Ham radio membership than anything else before it.
If anything business users of drones should be encouraging younger flyers and no doubt a number of them will become 170 flyers. They should also be pushing for laws to govern the drone industry. Getting a license prior to buying a drone is a little backward, what is the beginner going to learn on? Perhaps limit beginners to flying no higher than 100 feet and 300 feet horizontally, roughly the limit of most toy grade drones. To go higher they must have a license. Getting rid of them altogether would no doubt increase the cost of owning a drone and severely limit the market. Could DJI and other business class drone manufacturers survive ?
As for completely banning "hobby grade" flyers. Just stop for a minute and reflect on who got you in the air in the first place. If it wasn't for those millions of hobby quadcopters you wouldn't be sitting for your 107, mainly because you wouldn't have a quadcopter. The industry simply wouldn't have survived if nobody could buy a quadcopter legally in the first place. No quadcopter manufacturer would have survived without the US market. Therefore nobody would be flying them today if there wasn't that massive market for them. It was the toys which fueled the quadcopter/ drone business and banning them today would force most of them to close down. Get rid of the toys and you'll have nothing but expensive DJI drones to buy. Take away those toy grade drones and there's nothing to fuel the market to tempt those beginners to upgrade. Then again you do have those people with plenty of money who will buy a drone and never intend to get a 107. But they I assume would be in the minority. I believe that if you ban anyone but DJI flyers from flying you'll cripple the industry and that would in turn cripple DJI.
I saw the same in Australia, we had shipments of CB radios coming into the country, perfectly legally and those radios were selling from stores, perfectly legally. The government only jumped on the end buyers. I started out illegally using CB radios, in fact I was the President of one of the biggest CB radio clubs in Australia. The only step up from there was to Ham radio and I sat for that and got my license only because of being involved with CB radio. I figured out how to modify them to make them 10 meter radios and it's those we used when we went on air ans Hams. The quadcopter/ drone is the same as those CBs. It's a stepping stone to better things. If I'd never been involved with CBs there's no way I'd be a Ham today. And the same could be said for the 15 other guys who also took those steps and for the hundreds which followed. The CB industry fueled the biggest jump in Ham radio membership than anything else before it.
If anything business users of drones should be encouraging younger flyers and no doubt a number of them will become 170 flyers. They should also be pushing for laws to govern the drone industry. Getting a license prior to buying a drone is a little backward, what is the beginner going to learn on? Perhaps limit beginners to flying no higher than 100 feet and 300 feet horizontally, roughly the limit of most toy grade drones. To go higher they must have a license. Getting rid of them altogether would no doubt increase the cost of owning a drone and severely limit the market. Could DJI and other business class drone manufacturers survive ?
That's exactly what I think should happen as well. If you can't take and pass a simple aeronautical test you stick to the simple ones that can not go into areas that could cause problems. Once you have the credentials you can move up the ladder.
I'd also like Part 107 to be structured so that different types of flight require different levels of certification. The riskier the action the more education/certification the operator needs.
I could be wrong but I don't think anyone in this group is actually wanting to ban hobby flights but many of us have stated that if something happens and John Q. Public quits buying airline tickets etc because they are worried about manned to sUAS accidents they could become banned.
Just my 2 cents.
It doesn't bode well for solving this problem (by testing beginners) though, does it? According to the report, the drone operator was licensed.
Is the system in Israel similar to UK where, as a commercial operator, you write an operations manual which is then approved by the governing body?
The spraying operation, and the survey work were planned (one hopes), and yet it still happened! If anything should be examined, it's the failure (or lack of) any proceedural system - the boring stuff all operators have to do on a daily basis.
Is the system in Israel similar to UK where, as a commercial operator, you write an operations manual which is then approved by the governing body?
The spraying operation, and the survey work were planned (one hopes), and yet it still happened! If anything should be examined, it's the failure (or lack of) any proceedural system - the boring stuff all operators have to do on a daily basis.
Somehow I missed the thing about folks conducting altitude contests or other similar willy-wagging and pee-pee measuring silliness.
But your mention of CB radio and hams struck a chord for me.
Things seem to work a bit differently on this side of the world.
Regulations that prohibit the use of CB radios outside their 11m band, no matter that hams are essentially trusted to build and maintain their own radios. LOL.
A historically deep chasm between hams and anyone who so much as confesses to having touched a CB radio once in their lifetime.
In a way it reminds me of how the AMA had been looking at quadcopters, though they're coming around. Not sure about the members, that is, but the organization has realized it needs to embrace these things. The members I've seen personally seem to act like quadcopter pilots have herpes or something.
We're definitely missing something here.
You're using an awfully broad brush to paint "us" members there. In fact, I belong to a local club that requires AMA to be a member and all 79 members embrace MultiRotors (it's more than just quad copters BTW) and have since day one.
"members I've personally seen" is not a broad brush. It's my personal experience.
I haven't personally seen anyone flying anything bigger than quads either, although I know people who do own and fly them.
But I'm happy to hear things seem better down that way.
I am amazed of the lack of incidents with drones. Look at the # of people who have operator licenses to drive. Some professional and some not. Yet, how many people are killed everyday.
I think what we can all take away from this is that when 3 lb. drones collide with 2-ton helicopters, the drone loses.
We can certainly conclude that in this case, but it's not a safe conclusion in general. If the 3 lb drone hits the windshield or tail rotor, or possibly even the main rotor, the helicopter and the drone may lose. And that could be a lot more consequential for the helicopter pilot than the drone pilot.
Dump truck meets Harley, who looses?
I know, a dump truck doesn’t have an achilles heel like a helicopter does. I still wonder how many bikes are brought down by larger vehicles, or drone vs. aircraft? How about how many helicopters are brought down by birds.
There are groups encouraging bird protection and increased population. There seems to be an increase in Canada geese populations.They are everywhere in town pooping all over the place. There use to be none. Look at how many birds are out there. Maybe there needs to be a design change in rotor protection? What would a flock of geese do to a helicopter?
When it happens, and it will, someone will died. It’s a shame. A shock wave will cross the world and ALL GOVERNMENTS WILL OVER REACT! We need to keep a perspective about it.
Look at how many lives will be saved if we outlaw those bikes. Why do I have to wear a seatbelt and a biker doesn’t? I think they need to wear seatbelts like the rest of us do. Let’s decrease Canada geese populations.
I’m ranting. My point is perspective. What if, what if vs. what is happening. Why don’t we care about other things that are worse?
Your perspective seems a bit skewed by conflating personal risk with third party risk, amongst other things. Risky behavior is often allowed as an essential element of personal freedom, with the caveat that the risk is primarily to the individuals doing the activity. In the case of UAVs a reckless pilot is not risking his own life but rather the lives of others.
I don't know where you were going with the seatbelts on motorcycles thing, but would you really want to be strapped to a motorcycle in a crash? The reason for seatbelts in vehicles is to prevent ejections and keep occupants in the (relative) safety of the vehicle. A rider is already outside the vehicle, and being strapped to it in a crash is going to cause more injuries than it prevents.
Your right.
There was some sarcasm in my rant which can be hard to interpret.
I still think there is some validity to my point about perspective.
There was some sarcasm in my rant which can be hard to interpret.
I still think there is some validity to my point about perspective.
I did detect that. I guess that my main point is really that I don't think that other "worse" things are being ignored, at least in general - there may be isolated exceptions that revolve around amendments to the Constitution.
Well, it's hard to define "win" when - for a real-life example - a Black Hawk required hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of new carbon-fiber blades (not to mention an interruption to its mission) as a result of its collision with a ~$1K DJI Phantom 4.
But I'd be interested to see your validated engineering drawings for a system or device to protect the main rotor blades of all choppers.
And in the end, it's "we" who really lose in collisions like this. The bad publicity does us no favors.
Oh, and FYI, motorcycle riders in most of the 'States are subject to helmet laws. Also eye protection laws and a host of other nanny-state BS from the federal to municipal levels, far too numerous to start listing here. Just puttin' that out there... ;-)
Have fun.
I do appreciate you and your antithetical mind. I have an engineer friend that I have fun with because of his approach to things.( Now this is in fun.) I tell him that he looks so close into things, that he sees the veins of a leaf and misses what the tree looks like. ( I didn't say that he agreed with me) With that being said, I think there is a balance with the engineer being on the detailed, legal end. The other is the step back and what is the general thought, principle being presented.
Here's another one you can fire at me. I think the best engineers are autistic. Such general statements without documentation and facts will get me in a lot of trouble. LOL
I know I am walking on shaky ground. LOL
The roof of my car is my helmet. The windshield is my eye protection. My headrest, airbag and seatbelts are crash protection. Bikes should have airbags and seatbelts. Lol So,why be hard on me if I don't wear my seatbelts? I'm not hurting anyone else. I grew up riding on the running boards of trucks.
And what are your qualifications to determine that seatbelts would enhance the safety of motorcycle passengers?
Bad Andy, yes the old CB Vs Ham operator. In the 70's our Ham population had a massive increase in operators, mostly from the CB fraternity. Without the CB giving us a grounding in RF properties the Ham arena would have been much more sedate than it is now. We were designing and building our own antennas, both mobile and static. It was a natural progression from a one watt walkie talkie to 200 watts PEP on 10 meters. The addition of a large increase in sunspot activity basically gave us world wide communications in between CB channels and above the recognized 27Mhs band. It was a wonderful taster for what was to come. I converted my garage into a school room and a local Ham gave us lessons. 16 of us took part and from memory 14 of us passed and attained the VK2N prefix.
Much the same thing is now happening with quadcopters. Most start off with cheap and nasty sub-$100 toys and slowly climb the ladder through the hobby quads to what generally considered the ultimate, something DJI. The number of young and not so young flyers seeking a used DJI Phantom is staggering and from many countries as well. As far as I've been able to tell, they're not newbies with plenty of money, but flyers who have reached the hobby sector and wish to have a taste of something exotic. They start off picking up a P1 or P2 for $100 to $300 and progress from there. I talk to them all the time and help them with their problems as much as possible. I'm a firm believer in "Handing it on" Many people helped me understand quadcopters and I started designing and building them, if I can help others then I'm happy.
Only last week I purchased my first new DJI craft, a Mavic Pro Platinum and 3 days later I got the goggles to go with it. I didn't buy it to take videos and photos for real estate agent or for anyone else, I got it simply to fly and experience the step up in quality and features other quads don't give you.
As for the willy wagging, believe me it's happening. Find them on YouTube and you'll find those calling the flyer above the clouds an idiot and every other name you can think of. Read the comments at the other end of the spectrum, calling the flyer a hero and a genius for doing something their toys quads can't manage. You can bet your boots many of them will be trying to do likewise, some admit it. I see the main motivation as one of money. Exactly how much someone who gets multi million views receives I wouldn't have a clue, but I'm convinced that's a great incentive. One cloud hopper states below his YouTube video he will delete anyone's comment which he doesn't like. His quadcopter did fall from the sky and he managed to put a story to his video in text which many viewers saw as exciting, it was cleverly made to keep the viewer on the edge of his seat.
That flyer knew what he did was wrong, but that didn't worry him, he certainly made enough excuses about it. He even has a supposedly qualified light plane owner and flyer tell everyone the chances of anything flying into the quad was so remote as to be of no concern. I hate to think how many flyers went out and tried flying high. They don't have to be on YouTube, they pass the videos around with friends and they then pass them on. It's definitely willy wagging and sooner or later something nasty will happen, it has to. When it does you can bet there'll be a rush to pass new laws and you can bet they won't be good news for "anyone" flying quadcopters anywhere in the world. Personally I'm glad I live in the Aussie bush, plenty of room and the land is as flat as a pool table, I can hear a plane or chopper from miles away,
Much the same thing is now happening with quadcopters. Most start off with cheap and nasty sub-$100 toys and slowly climb the ladder through the hobby quads to what generally considered the ultimate, something DJI. The number of young and not so young flyers seeking a used DJI Phantom is staggering and from many countries as well. As far as I've been able to tell, they're not newbies with plenty of money, but flyers who have reached the hobby sector and wish to have a taste of something exotic. They start off picking up a P1 or P2 for $100 to $300 and progress from there. I talk to them all the time and help them with their problems as much as possible. I'm a firm believer in "Handing it on" Many people helped me understand quadcopters and I started designing and building them, if I can help others then I'm happy.
Only last week I purchased my first new DJI craft, a Mavic Pro Platinum and 3 days later I got the goggles to go with it. I didn't buy it to take videos and photos for real estate agent or for anyone else, I got it simply to fly and experience the step up in quality and features other quads don't give you.
As for the willy wagging, believe me it's happening. Find them on YouTube and you'll find those calling the flyer above the clouds an idiot and every other name you can think of. Read the comments at the other end of the spectrum, calling the flyer a hero and a genius for doing something their toys quads can't manage. You can bet your boots many of them will be trying to do likewise, some admit it. I see the main motivation as one of money. Exactly how much someone who gets multi million views receives I wouldn't have a clue, but I'm convinced that's a great incentive. One cloud hopper states below his YouTube video he will delete anyone's comment which he doesn't like. His quadcopter did fall from the sky and he managed to put a story to his video in text which many viewers saw as exciting, it was cleverly made to keep the viewer on the edge of his seat.
That flyer knew what he did was wrong, but that didn't worry him, he certainly made enough excuses about it. He even has a supposedly qualified light plane owner and flyer tell everyone the chances of anything flying into the quad was so remote as to be of no concern. I hate to think how many flyers went out and tried flying high. They don't have to be on YouTube, they pass the videos around with friends and they then pass them on. It's definitely willy wagging and sooner or later something nasty will happen, it has to. When it does you can bet there'll be a rush to pass new laws and you can bet they won't be good news for "anyone" flying quadcopters anywhere in the world. Personally I'm glad I live in the Aussie bush, plenty of room and the land is as flat as a pool table, I can hear a plane or chopper from miles away,
Similar threads
