idiot flies drone above Vancouver airport

[DrJoe]

I don't understand why some people can only concentrate on being argumentative. Have the last word if you like, Pixelninja. I'm a hypocrite, chicken little, angry neighbor having, poor pilot that flys either too low or not high enough, all the while remaining white knuckled and terrified; according to you. Congratulations, you've added so much to this safety thread. I suppose we should just all shut up and wait for your sage words before we dare to speak, and make sure that if we do, we don't offend you, King Troll.

Talk to the hand from now on, troll
Troll:
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

 

[Visioneer]

I would hope that one of the regulations/rules that come out is a requirement for liability insurance

That's a very interesting notion that really hadn't entered my mind. Of course I have homeowner's, an umbrella policy, and secondary flight insurance, so it probably wouldn't.

Realistically, I suspect such won't happen. In my state, as most, liability insurance is required for cars, trucks, motorcycles; but not for mopeds. While it's true they can't inflict much damage on their own, they can certainly trigger a huge accident. Same could probably be said for bicycles but, again, no insurance required. Guess the powers that be figure the likelihood is small and most folks have liability coverage as part of their homeowner's or renter's coverage. Still there are many folks without any coverage.

A second related thought - it's surprising but there are people who think because insurance is not required for some activity, they can't be held responsible for their actions in that activity. :shock:

 

[Visioneer]

For interested readers ... a post in this thread claimed that another poster's suggestions came from "incredibly risk-averse AMA geriatrics whose idea of safe Phantom flying is on the extreme Chicken Little end of the risk spectrum and colored by the risks associated with many other types of RC flying". The poster apparently knows little about the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) regards their familarity with multirotors. The last several issues of their magazine have all carried articles on multirotor copters; the April, 2014, issue had a hexacopter on the cover; and the AMA and AUVSI led 33 organizations in calling on FAA to expedite rulemaking for UASs (http://02b954f.netsolhost.com/docs/Join ... _Final.pdf - interesting list of signatories BTW, hardly folks who aren't qualified). These are facts, not opinions.

 

[steveeds]

Being this has been a learning thread it occurs to me 200ft minimum is a very good idea and one I'm guilty of disobeying, I will set that as a goal on take-off. I spent yesterday over the water with no trepidation, a fool and a quad can be helped.
Going "as high as you can" because you can is another foolish enterprise. We must all do these silly things with our new toys, it's what boys do, even at 50+

 

[F6Rider]

I live in litigation happy California so the idea of liability coverage should the unexpected happen is of some importance to me. I joined the AMA primarily to have the excellent coverage provided under their umbrella policy. To my surprise there is an AMA flying club not far from me with a very nice facility. Are there some 'older' pilots there... of a certainty, but most of them can fly rings around me, and I dare say some 'other' poster on this thread. Helicopters the size of 'Radio Flyers', multi-engined fixed wing aircraft modeled after WW2 AC's, and plenty of custom built hexecopters and even a few 'quaint' little Phantoms. (as a new acquaintance called them :lol: ) One of the reasons they fly so safe is the many thousands of $$$ in those birds, I know I would not want to crash one, I would cry for a month. Another reason is a 30-50lb AC doing 45-70 MPH can do some SERIOUS damage when it hits. I had a lot of fun talking shop, visiting, and looking at all of the various AC, it was nice to see entire families enjoying the day and each other.
Do I fly within all of the guide lines, most of the time, but I live in an area where there is plenty of places to fly where there is nothing to hit except a deer or coyote (actually chased one of those with the phantom, well, I did say most of the time) so it is easy to be safe. I don't know if the pilot was on this board or not but some time ago a fellow 20 miles from me was night flying over some guy's barn and the owner took a shotgun and fired on the AC, missed it but that can happen. (even with a shotgun).
I can tell you one thing, if your 'drone' falls out of the sky and konks someone you had better have a darn good lawyer and/or a whole lot of money, because you will be in court. You do know that if your drone lands on a neighbors property he is under no obligation to return it.

 

[twodips]

After growing up in litigious CA and having been sued before I've decided it was/is better to be safe than sorry. Checked with homeowners insurance and it's covered for loss/damage and "some" liability depending on where you're flying I'd guess. Joining the AMA again to access their many resources and am also going to purchase a business policy @2 million aggregate in case I decide to film for someone. Business insurance quote was for less than $180 per year so it's cheap and I can provide a liability rider to cover wherever I want to fly.
If I want to film an event I can approach the organizer with the assurance that they are indemnified and by doing so I'm much more likely to get a positive response.

Just my thoughts....

 

[F6Rider]

After growing up in litigious CA and having been sued before I've decided it was/is better to be safe than sorry. Checked with homeowners insurance and it's covered for loss/damage and "some" liability depending on where you're flying I'd guess. Joining the AMA again to access their many resources and am also going to purchase a business policy @2 million aggregate in case I decide to film for someone. Business insurance quote was for less than $180 per year so it's cheap and I can provide a liability rider to cover wherever I want to fly.
If I want to film an event I can approach the organizer with the assurance that they are indemnified and by doing so I'm much more likely to get a positive response.

Just my thoughts....

Now there is a smart Pilot. A pilot friend started a business filming construction sites (as well as any other site he can get paid for) and incorporated it, but he mentioned an insurance cost of around $2000 a year, but he does have 4 AC and an employee, and is covered up to 5 million.

 

[Visioneer]

You do know that if your drone lands on a neighbors property he is under no obligation to return it.

According to the AMA's counsel, that is not correct (see http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/2012 ... orsDOC.pdf - excerpt below). Although enforcing this is another issue, if your neighbor refuses to return your property, you have recourse to involve the authorities. Of course, by doing so you are effectively admitting to trespass ... so the possible trade-off would be penalty for trespass vs. value of aircraft.

On the other hand, the landowner has a duty to the owner of the plane, as well. The landowner cannot keep the landed plane. That would amount to a conversion of the flier's property and the landowner may be compelled to pay the cost of the plane. The landowner may not intentionally damage the plane, as this would be a trespass to the chattel of the flier. The landowner may ask to have it removed by the flier. The landowner may move the craft himself if its location is causing some harm to his enjoyment of his property, or is creating some other risk of harm. If the owner of the plane does not remove it upon request, the landowner may have the plane removed from the property such as one would have an automobile impounded. In any event, the landowner may not deprive the AMA member of his right to the airplane nor may he intentionally or recklessly cause damage to the craft. If the landowner breaches this duty to the owner of the plane, he exposes himself to liability for conversion, trespass to chattel, replevin, and other forms of recovery designed to enable the AMA member to recover the plane or its value.

 

[BruceTS]

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!


That's all I got out of this thread...OMG people what kind of damage can a Phantom do if it hit someone? a few minor cuts at most, heck AMA insurance doesn't even cover you unless your flying from an AMA field.

That footage was digitally zoomed to the plane, from a distance no where near the planes flight path, so many fear mongers.

BTW those RC turbine jets are way more dangerous than our Phantoms will ever be, even if they are being flown from an AMA field, control lost, they could easily travel great distances and when they go down, usually end in one large fireball.

I have insurance, coverage is inexpensive, that's all you can really do, with the exception of not flying at all. The risk factor of a Phantom is much less than the risk factor of flying a Predator when it comes to a crash.

 

[Visioneer]

AMA insurance doesn't even cover you unless your flying from an AMA field.

That is incorrect. I've seen that comment before and searched AMA documents to verify. It's not there. Unsatisfied I contacted AMA and received this response

 

[thongbong]

Just curious, there's obviously multiple sides to every argument.

If you are for flying near airfields, what are your guidelines for safe flying?

If you are against it, what are your reasons?

 

[BruceTS]

AMA insurance doesn't even cover you unless your flying from an AMA field.

That is incorrect. I've seen that comment before and searched AMA documents to verify. It's not there. Unsatisfied I contacted AMA and received this response

The key is following Their Safety Code, this is open for debate, how you gonna prove you followed their procedures. It's too vague and leaves them an out.

 

[BruceTS]

Oh boy. Now you did it.

Reckless, reckless reckless!

p.s. also reckless according to DrReckless's guidelines - the hypocrisy is astounding! viewtopic.php?f=27&t=12610&p=124894#p124894

hehe just liked your answers and figured I'd do a bit of stirring too!

As far as I'm concerned the Phantom is a toy, heck look at my newest build TBS Discovery with 15" props and a 30+ minute flight times.

One of the AMA airfields I've flown at since the late 70's is right in path of an airport approach/takeoff. There have been times where planes taking off were too low and pilots of RC Planes were higher than them, yet to my knowledge not one collision has ever occurred. Well the Miss America P51 mustang did make a crash landing in the field next to the RCM airfield, in the corn....
What are the odds that a collision with a quad and a jet liner would occur, then add the factor of actually doing any damage, next add in the odds of actually getting the quad ingested by one of the engines. Then tell me the odds of the plane actually crashing, considering they have the ability to fly with one dead engine.

 

[dkr77573]

Oh boy. Now you did it.

Reckless, reckless reckless!

p.s. also reckless according to DrReckless's guidelines - the hypocrisy is astounding! http://www.phantompilots.com/viewtopic. ... 94#p124894

hehe just liked your answers and figured I'd do a bit of stirring too!

As far as I'm concerned the Phantom is a toy, heck look at my newest build TBS Discovery with 15" props and a 30+ minute flight times.

One of the AMA airfields I've flown at since the late 70's is right in path of an airport approach/takeoff. There have been times where planes taking off were too low and pilots of RC Planes were higher than them, yet to my knowledge not one collision has ever occurred. Well the Miss America P51 mustang did make a crash landing in the field next to the RCM airfield, in the corn....
What are the odds that a collision with a quad and a jet liner would occur, then add the factor of actually doing any damage, next add in the odds of actually getting the quad ingested by one of the engines. Then tell me the odds of the plane actually crashing, considering they have the ability to fly with one dead engine.

The way I see it is; no matter how low you think the chances are of a collision taking place, it will still be greater near an airport. Look up the aviation term FOD. No matter how skillful you are, if a flyaway happens for any reason, your toy has become a potential piece of FOD. Even if the chances of a crash are low, it still causes monetary damages that you would be responsible for. That includes delayed flights too.

 

[Visioneer]

AMA insurance doesn't even cover you unless your flying from an AMA field.

That is incorrect. I've seen that comment before and searched AMA documents to verify. It's not there. Unsatisfied I contacted AMA and received this response

The key is following Their Safety Code, this is open for debate, how you gonna prove you followed their procedures. It's too vague and leaves them an out.

My point was simply that the notion that you have to be flying at a sanctioned field for the coverage to be in effect is incorrect. Whether or not they pay claims on or off a field is an entirely different issue.

To your new question and that second point - In the same vein, how is one going to prove they were flying within the safety code even at a sanctioned field? For that matter, how is one going to prove their action didn't fall into a loophole of any insurance policy? Whether it's the AMA (who buys the insurance from Westchester Surplus Lines Ins Co) or any other insurer, you have to take them at their "written" word. If you doubt any insurer's word (policy), why would you even bother with buying their insurance? Every policy I've ever seen has pages of caveats. To file an AMA claim, you have to fill out a claim form and provide them with a description of the incident. Unless this affidavit shows something that reveals you were flying unsafely, the burden of proving you were flying unsafely falls on them. I imagine the size of the claim would have some influence on how much investigation the insurer might do, but disputes between policyholders and insurers happen all the time. If those parties can't work out a settlement, the disputes typically go to arbiters or state insurance commissions, or perhaps the courts. There is nothing unique about AMA coverage versus any other insurer in that regard.

Just for giggles, I Googled "academy of model aeronautics fails to pay insurance claims" and variations thereof. I got nothing. If some AMA member was denied a claim unfairly (in their mind), there would almost certainly be a rant on some forum somewhere. The only thing related that popped up in the first screen of hits was a thread on RC Groups where the OP was ranting about AMA insurance being redundant. Among the many responses was a post that alluded to RC craft related claims being denied by homeowner's policies and subsequently paid by the AMA insurer. No specifics were given and I saw no point in attempting to pursue it further.

So apparently the notion that AMA may not pay claims because of a dispute regards compliance with their safety code is presently just speculation, not substantiated by any actual event that the ever creeping Google bots have, as yet, unearthed.

 

[ianwood]

Yup, the quad isn't supposed to be there. No RC device should be flying anywhere near an airport, approach lane or not. A plane can circle an airport numerous times before it lands, until it is cleared to do so by air traffic control.

Exactly. If you want to fly understand that you're not the first to do so. You're the new guy. You need to cooperate with what's already there.

Before the FAA and other transportation authorities issue steadfast rules, I suggest we adopt the following:
1. No operations below 200 feet in residential areas.
2. No operations over urban environments unless above water or park space.
3. Maintain line of sight at all times.
4. Use a spotter when flying FPV.
5. No operations above 400 feet.
6. No operations within 2 miles of an active airport without VHF communications or notice to aviation authorities.

The above six rules are not highly restrictive...

Maybe not for you. Stay above 200ft in residential areas? No operations in urban environments? Spotters? VHF radios? Uhhm, no, no, no, and no. You might as well restrict everyone to AMA fields while you're at it. I've been flying in residential areas and in urban areas and all is done safely and without conflict.

How about we start with some common sense guidelines:

• Stay well away from airports. Duh! Live near one? Seriously consider flying elsewhere. If you insist, call the FBO first and figure out how and where it is safe for you to fly.
• Stay out of controlled space always. Don't know what or where that is? Don't fly until you figure it out.
• Do not exceed 400ft unless in very rural areas free from air traffic.
• Don't overfly large crowds. Don't overfly people that are not aware or cannot be alerted amply to avoid risk.
• Be courteous of neighbors. When it doubt, talk to them first.

 

[DrJoe]

I guess it all comes down to what you are comfortable with. Ultimately, the pilot of a drone involved in an incident will have to take responsibility for their action, as the press and law enforcement will vilify you if someone is hurt (or if something "sensational" happens, like the footage that started this thread).

While my list might be too restrictive for you, it is honestly proving restrictive for me, too, especially the residential part. I think I like you're guidelines better.

How about we start with some common sense guidelines:

• Stay well away from airports. Duh! Live near one? Seriously consider flying elsewhere. If you insist, call the FBO first and figure out how and where it is safe for you to fly.
• Stay out of controlled space always. Don't know what or where that is? Don't fly until you figure it out.
• Do not exceed 400ft unless in very rural areas free from air traffic.
• Don't overfly large crowds. Don't overfly people that are not aware or cannot be alerted amply to avoid risk.
• Be courteous of neighbors. When it doubt, talk to them first.

I will still use a spotter while flying FPV and broadcast on my VHF.

In the end, the FAA or some other government agency or court will impose its own rules & regulations. The more incidents that occur during this process, the more restrictive the rules will likely be.