Really..I thought this was America...land of the free..I recently got into flying quadcopters after seeing the 60 minutes episode on the dji phantom. ..I was planning on starting a high performance business centered around the phantom vision quadcopters along with flight training and other services. . Since I've started my journey I must say I've had the most fun flying and making modifications to my p2v+.. my background is in motorcycle and car high performance ..recently I've been getting a lot of grief from my neighbors (I live in a small town in the foothills ) many threatening to shoot my phantom out of the air..one person said I was peeping into someone's window ( complete lie) every one of my flights has been at least 300 ft elevation due to the many trees around..I must say that I'm very disappointed about how people have responded to my phantom. .flying by fpv is the coolest and most enjoyable thing I've done in years..I hope the drone gods shine down on my hobby and allow me to follow my dreams..happy flying. .turbodronepilot
NTSB Rules Against Pirker
- Thread starter SilentAV8R
- Start date
MapMaker53 said:
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Again, where in the video was anyone's life endangered?
YouTube Timestamp 2:31.. moving cars and people with a potentially compromised video downlink due to the tunnel.
I have met Trappy; had several interesting conversations with him at a Drone-Ag show in Decatur Illinois.
He is a likable man; and I am sure our paths will cross again; he has a passion for this stuff; like most of us.
But, the tunnel flight was a high risk maneuver. A pedestrian was nearly missed.
----------------
As the number of unmanned vehicles increases, the probability of a major incident will increase too. Inevitability Mr Anderson.
I have met Trappy; had several interesting conversations with him at a Drone-Ag show in Decatur Illinois.
He is a likable man; and I am sure our paths will cross again; he has a passion for this stuff; like most of us.
But, the tunnel flight was a high risk maneuver. A pedestrian was nearly missed.
----------------
As the number of unmanned vehicles increases, the probability of a major incident will increase too. Inevitability Mr Anderson.
MapMaker53 said:
Yes, you should. Government's job is not to protect you from yourself. If you want to drive a car while impaired and only wind up killing yourself, it's not society's problem nor should it be.
MapMaker53 said:
So you believe that government exists to protect people from themselves? How far are you willing to go to be "protected"? Should we allow cameras to be installed in and around all homes "just in case" someone beats a child there, or decides to grow illegal drugs there, or simply falls and can't get up?
I subscribe to the belief that government's role in life should be as limited as possible, and its powers should be as restricted as possible. If/when people want to do dumb things that affect only themselves, that's their business and not anyone else's. Government agencies who do not understand what they are regulating (the FAA is one of them) should keep their noses the hell away from creating onerous and unnecessary rules.
The flying wing used to shoot this video has a 56 inch wing span. Personally if I was walking on campus or driving through a tunnel and a mini stealth bomber suddenly came zooming out of the sky directly towards me, I'd crap my pants. The surprise/fear factor could easily cause a car accident. And yeah the foam plane may weigh less than five pounds, but it is the force and inertia behind that five lbs that would cause some serious trauma or property damage.
nope, "hoards" of people were never in danger, but individuals were made unsafe. You can see the pedestrian throw his arms up in a defensive move when the plane buzzes him, right before it appears to go into the trees.
Was anyone's actual life in danger? Probably not, but it wasn't safe flying - the fright factor alone made this unsafe, and flying through the tunnel right above unsuspecting drivers was dangerous and stupid.
But a $10,000 fine? Absolute ********. Grounding all drones is just a stupid and inane. But it should drive home the point that our hobby is truly under attack and how we respond may well determine our future.
nope, "hoards" of people were never in danger, but individuals were made unsafe. You can see the pedestrian throw his arms up in a defensive move when the plane buzzes him, right before it appears to go into the trees.
Was anyone's actual life in danger? Probably not, but it wasn't safe flying - the fright factor alone made this unsafe, and flying through the tunnel right above unsuspecting drivers was dangerous and stupid.
But a $10,000 fine? Absolute ********. Grounding all drones is just a stupid and inane. But it should drive home the point that our hobby is truly under attack and how we respond may well determine our future.
CRankin said:
I'm not sure what you pulled that out of but that's the same non-sense argument you always hear from people who don't understand (or feel they are above) the concept of recklessness. The laws aren't protecting me from me, they are protecting me (and the public in general) from YOU. If you feel that you should be allowed to do as you please as long as no one HAPPENS BY CHANCE to not to get hurt, then I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to explain such a simple concept to you. This type of ruling is aimed squarely at people like you who just don't get it. Unfortunately, the rest of us more responsible operators must suffer as a result. That's life.
Does this mean I have to get an "N-number and a PPL to fly my paper airplanes in my front yard...and if I fly the one that does multiple loops before striking the ground inverted, I am carelessly operating an aerial vehicle.
fizzviic said:Does this mean I have to get an "N-number and a PPL to fly my paper airplanes in my front yard...and if I fly the one that does multiple loops before striking the ground inverted, I am carelessly operating an aerial vehicle.
Is the paper airplane rated for aerobatics or not?? :twisted:
CRankin said:
I feel government exists in no small measure to protect me from the other dumba$$e$ who I come in contact with. The problem is that every minute of every day multiple people provide ample evidence that they lack the common sense required to keep from endangering others.
"The National Transportation Safety Board affirmed the agency's position that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) meet the legal definition of ‘aircraft,’ and that the agency may take enforcement action against anyone who operates a UAS or model aircraft in a careless or reckless manner," Les Dorr, an FAA spokesman, told Ars.
"The FAA believes Mr. Pirker operated a UAS in a careless or reckless manner, and that the proposed civil penalty should stand. The agency looks forward to a factual determination by the Administrative Law Judge on the ‘careless or reckless’ nature of the operation in question."
Ryan Calo, an expert in drone law at the University of Washington, said that he was not surprised that the decision was reversed. But he thought that Pirker and his lawyers could have sued for a different reason.
"I never thought this was the right argument: the better argument is the First Amendment," he said. "How is it that some people are allowed to fly but not others?"
"If you, the FAA, are going to permit some uses but not others, you need to explain your decisions," added Calo. "Because if you don’t then it looks as though folks with legitimate reasons in the public interest—like, journalists filming protests—but allowing others that are not—like surveying people's land or making a movie—doesn’t make sense."
"The FAA believes Mr. Pirker operated a UAS in a careless or reckless manner, and that the proposed civil penalty should stand. The agency looks forward to a factual determination by the Administrative Law Judge on the ‘careless or reckless’ nature of the operation in question."
Ryan Calo, an expert in drone law at the University of Washington, said that he was not surprised that the decision was reversed. But he thought that Pirker and his lawyers could have sued for a different reason.
"I never thought this was the right argument: the better argument is the First Amendment," he said. "How is it that some people are allowed to fly but not others?"
"If you, the FAA, are going to permit some uses but not others, you need to explain your decisions," added Calo. "Because if you don’t then it looks as though folks with legitimate reasons in the public interest—like, journalists filming protests—but allowing others that are not—like surveying people's land or making a movie—doesn’t make sense."
WOW the panic here coming from some of you guys sends chills up my spine.
I think there is more than just a ruling you all are jousting about.
There are philosophical differences
Protect me from myself (pass laws to prevent me from smoking pot or getting an abortion, or drinking too much cola)
Protect me from those paranoid people (pass laws to prevent us from flying a UAV into a crowd of people)
The regulation was not passed solely because of Pirker, He could have been Smith, Jones, or Bush
The regulation was going to happen regardless as it should
Its not the apocalypse and they are not coming to get your Phantoms. We are still at the starting line trying to figure this stuff out and regulation that stays in place wont come from kneejerk reactions.
The cool thing is we get to be a part of the process and thats how the system is supposed to work, And if you think companies like DJI, 3DR, Parrot and others are gonna sit back and let a potentially multi BILLION dollar industry go bye bye you must have never read a news paper or watched a TV.
Just calm down and continue to read, participate, but loose the ridiculous FEAR MONGERING!
I have been in contact with my local elected officials and shared my thoughts on what regulation from a low level should look and feel like. We need regulation to keep the public safe, we need registration so when someone breaks the law with a UAV that should be traceable and or track-able. We will need education so new pilots join the hobby understanding the dangers.
This was all going to happen regardless how many people lined up to allow you SAINTS to throw rocks from your glass houses.
And its ok to disagree with me and i promise not to stoop and call people idiots lol
I think there is more than just a ruling you all are jousting about.
There are philosophical differences
Protect me from myself (pass laws to prevent me from smoking pot or getting an abortion, or drinking too much cola)
Protect me from those paranoid people (pass laws to prevent us from flying a UAV into a crowd of people)
The regulation was not passed solely because of Pirker, He could have been Smith, Jones, or Bush
The regulation was going to happen regardless as it should
Its not the apocalypse and they are not coming to get your Phantoms. We are still at the starting line trying to figure this stuff out and regulation that stays in place wont come from kneejerk reactions.
The cool thing is we get to be a part of the process and thats how the system is supposed to work, And if you think companies like DJI, 3DR, Parrot and others are gonna sit back and let a potentially multi BILLION dollar industry go bye bye you must have never read a news paper or watched a TV.
Just calm down and continue to read, participate, but loose the ridiculous FEAR MONGERING!
I have been in contact with my local elected officials and shared my thoughts on what regulation from a low level should look and feel like. We need regulation to keep the public safe, we need registration so when someone breaks the law with a UAV that should be traceable and or track-able. We will need education so new pilots join the hobby understanding the dangers.
This was all going to happen regardless how many people lined up to allow you SAINTS to throw rocks from your glass houses.
And its ok to disagree with me and i promise not to stoop and call people idiots lol
FAR 91.13 has been on the books since the 1950's. The danger here, that few seem to grasp, is the determination that our vehicles are aircraft and subject to the same rules as a Cessna or a Boeing 747.eckoner said:
I understand that with anything there will always be differing opinions but I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone would say that some of the flight was anything short of reckless. Just because no damage was done the potential for it was excessive at times especially when flying under the walkways. There are a million what ifs but if a larger vehicle had been coming down that road or the signal broke up even for a second (thats just two very realistic ones) there is in no way room for an evasive maneuver especially a safe one with the speeds he was going, especially with people around who are not expecting something like this.
I agree that the government over regulates almost everything but I have to say if there are people that think there was nothing dangerous with that flight I see why others fight to over regulate!
I agree that the government over regulates almost everything but I have to say if there are people that think there was nothing dangerous with that flight I see why others fight to over regulate!
SteveMann said:
This ruling basically allows the FAA to take this issue and run with it. However the way its currently written the other things that are now considered "Aircraft" would be
**A Paper Airplane
**A Balso Wood Glider with rubber band fueled prop
** A micro sized Hubsan quad
We are just getting started and this will all get sorted out and i assure you we will be able to fly our Phantoms and Paper airplanes too.
SteveMann said:
Although at this point the NTSB Board seemed to restrict it to the application of 91.13. However, the FAA itself has made clear that they may, at their discretion, apply other FARs to us. This is their way of trying to get around the prohibition in Section 336 of promulgating "new" regulations affecting model aircraft.
It is this patchwork approach that has many concerned. What FARs will they apply to us? Under what circumstances? Is that end run even legal (AMA and others are suing right now to test that.)
I think that the FAA Interpretation published in June gives some disturbing insight into how they plan to "not regulate" model aircraft.
samd012 said:
I guess it comes down to opinion. I have not watched the video but i will either agree or disagree and thats the funny thing.
So i say its dangerous and others think its not...Who is right?
Thats what gets ironed out with regulation and a framed discussion.
Similar threads
