NTSB Rules Against Pirker

[CarlJ]

This thread has failed to meet my expectations on every level.

Who did not see this coming?

We've got a lot of very bright people here that **** sure understand the difference between winning a battle and winning a war, but what is the reaction of our intelligentsia? Sour grapes...they'll be sorry.

I don't think they will be sorry fellas, but then I'm clearly wrong about a lot of things.

And where is our crack team of constitutional lawyers with their litany of habeas corpus? I expected them to go all Gandalf about this and start chanting "this shall not pass!" Very disappointing.

I'm really at a loss at understanding some of these reactions, I thought we were all staring at the same hand writing on the wall, but it appears some of you saw a different message.

 

[N017RW]

There are some very objective members/posts but most seem extremely subjective.

A lot of the analogies are pure rubbish.

 

[sdtrojan]

Good Morning Ladies and Gents,

I am a newbie to not only this forum, but to quadcopters in general. I have been reading with great interest all of the information disseminated by the FAA, AMA and all of the posts on-line I can find regarding this topic. Although I have yet to take delivery of my "rig" (should be done on Monday or so, being built by EZ Drone in San Diego - highly recommend them) I am trying to get as knowledgeable as possible on the local guidance and laws governing what I am about to get into.

I have to say that some of the banter regarding whether an object can hurt someone was at first comical to read, but then it got boring and repetitive. I coach baseball and my son is a baseball player. I have personally seen 2 kids get their orbital floors blown out by thrown baseballs in the past 4 years. It is not a pretty sight when it happened, and the first ball was travelling about 30 MPH thrown by a 9 year old, the second was about 55 MPH thrown by a 12 year old. I have also seen 2 pitchers hit by baseballs hit back at them, both were injured with broken jaws, lost teeth, etc. Ugly. Luckily the kids are all still playing baseball! 4 incidents of pretty ugly injuries in 4 years involved in the youth game. I have seen tens of thousands of pitches thrown, so as a percentage the risk is low, but it is there inherently and is accepted by the participant. They are anticipating a possible bad pitch and poised to protect themselves. Even with the anticipation there are still injuries. Comparing that to the millions of hours of manned and unmanned flight over the US with the number of injuries caused by it is also not a great argument because it is assumed 99% of those flights are abiding by the FAA rules, designed for the safety of the air travelers and those on the ground who could be harmed by a mishap. Do mishaps happen? Yes. Are they sometimes pilot error or recklessness? Occasionally. Are there ramifications for such behavior? You bet.

I plan on using my Phantom in a manner that will meet the safety guidelines and regulatory requirements of the FAA. I also plan on trying to get others as excited about this really neat hobby as I am. My kids think I am crazy, but I am 48 years old, don't golf, and love using my goPro and exploring my area from the air with FPV seems like a really cool hobby. I want to enhance my vacation videos and photos with aerial videography. From what I have read, what has happened recently with the Pirker decision is not unwarranted, not surprising, and frankly should send the kind of message that some need to get it appears. In my opinion, Pirker was reckless and openly violating several FAA regulations, and then bragging about it to the world. What did he think would happen? How can he be surprised by it? That's like street racing on a public street during the daytime, throwing the video on Youtube and sending the link to the world and not expecting a cop at your door. Hello? Then when I see Pirker involved in Flite Test videos online and one of the main guys in the FAA ban on FPV supports hammering reckless piloting, and his own buddy Pirker is the culprit in this case...come on!

Fly safe, use common sense, stay away from areas that will get you in trouble or scare people. Educate people who know nothing about Phantoms about the aircraft, what it is best used for, and get them excited about it.

 

[GoodnNuff]

This is what a few pounds of balsa wood does on impact with a stationary object. Looks like a large caliber bullet hole doesn't it.
Too bad it wasn't foam...it would have just left a bruise.
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270695

 

[BuzzBuzzZoomZoom]

It's too bad you didn't have a picture of a deceased horse getting hit by the "aircraft". As in, you're beating it.

 

[GoodnNuff]

It's too bad you didn't have a picture of a deceased horse getting hit by the "aircraft". As in, you're beating it.

And despite the snark from people like you, I'll continue to beat my drum when it comes to safety.

Do you have anything constructive to add?

 

[BuzzBuzzZoomZoom]

Not really.
This thread turned into a kinetic energy argument, instead of a discussion about how our model aircraft are now considered aircraft...which would be much more interesting than arguing over anecdotal evidence between "which would hurt more".

 

[GoodnNuff]

Not really.
This thread turned into a kinetic energy argument, instead of a discussion about how our model aircraft are now considered aircraft...which would be much more interesting than arguing over anecdotal evidence between "which would hurt more".

You know you can start a new thread with that topic, right?

Anytime I see an RC/Drone pilot who is under the impression that one of our toys is as harmless on impact as a Frisbee, I will try to correct that thinking. It is that simple and straight forward.

 

[ianwood]

Not really.
This thread turned into a kinetic energy argument, instead of a discussion about how our model aircraft are now considered aircraft...which would be much more interesting than arguing over anecdotal evidence between "which would hurt more".

+100. While it does amuse me that some people really believe a Phantom is veritable death trap, I really don't put much stock into personal opinions of the dangers they believe are present as there is no proof.

And I would much rather discuss the actual topic of this thread which is that the NTSB upheld the preposterous notion that a personal RC aircraft can be treated in the same manner as a 747.

 

[GoodnNuff]

+100. While it does amuse me that some people really believe a Phantom is veritable death trap, I really don't put much stock into personal opinions of the dangers they believe are present as there is no proof.

See photo above. That lightweight Balsa wood covered by monokote probably weighs less than a phantom. What sort of proof do you need to convince you?

Neither the plane that Pirker flew, a Phantom or any other drone, nor the plane that hit this car, are "veritable death traps" and
I'm truly sorry if that is how you've interpreted this Ian. But to say that all you'll suffer is a bruise if you're hit by one is pure unadulerated ********.

The FAA knows this and their goal is safety. We all need to make that our goals as well.

 

[BuzzBuzzZoomZoom]

You know you can start a new thread with that topic, right?
Anytime I see an RC/Drone pilot who is under the impression that one of our toys is as harmless on impact as a Frisbee, I will try to correct that thinking. It is that simple and straight forward.

You just admitted you're here to spread the message of safety for drones...but you tell ME to start a new thread? I was simply saying that I wished the conversation was more about the NTSB's decision to classify our drones as actual aircraft...you know, like the topic's subject already states.

My suggestion is for YOU to go make a new thread to talk about your agenda. You can title it "Our drones are more dangerous than a baseball"...I'm sure it would be a fine thread, and it would be relevant to the conversation in that thread. It's not here, though.

Many, many people have already chimed in and said how off topic your conversations have made this thread.

 

[Morgon]

Accidents are going to happen. Accepting that is the only way we can live in a truly free society.

I don't want to say that we should be able to have true lawlessness, but kneejerk reactions like this do nothing but hurt our nation. You may think that's over-dramatic, but it's important that we allow for more self-governance, and stop three-letter agencies from dictating the precise ways we are able to live.

Discussing things like the air-speed velocity of an object in flight is better left to Monty Python, because anyone can spin and make a case for anything to be illegal over some specific instance, regardless of probability.

**** happens. But only the people involved should pay the consequences, not the entire human race.

 

[SilentAV8R]

My suggestion is for YOU to go make a new thread to talk about your agenda. You can title it "Our drones are more dangerous than a baseball"...I'm sure it would be a fine thread, and it would be relevant to the conversation in that thread. It's not here, though.
.

As the OP in this thread I suggest you two exchange emails and take you mutual argumentation private.

 

[GoodnNuff]

These quotes are from THIS THREAD. They justify my posts. You don't like it, don't read them, and if you don't want me to post, don't respond to my posts.

"Really? Show me anywhere in the video that Pirker flew over a crowd or otherwise endangered anyone from his four pound winged, foam aircraft."

"At what point were hoards of people put in danger in the video? Were people running fearful and scared? Was significant damage done to property? Simply because you would not fly your drone in that manner does not necessarily means that it should automatically be classified as reckless.

Personally, I'd rather that the government keep its uneducated, uninformed, and arrogant nose completely out of what I choose to do with the property I own which was bought with my money."

"Again - WHAT in the video is reckless? Where was anyone in danger?"

"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?"

These comments were all made PRIOR to me joining the discussion.
After I joined:

"And it was a piece of flying styrofoam. If you think that was unsafe, maybe you shouldn't leave your house without wearing a helmet. You could get hit in the head by a bird having a heart attack. Or someone might beam you with a nerf bat."

"When a 2,000 pound airplane makes an unscheduled landing with a sudden stop - people on the ground could be injured or killed. (It happens to be rare even in General Aviation crashes). When a 4-pound styrofoam model crashes, even directly into a non-participant, there are going to be bruises, maybe even some non life-threatening lacerations."

"A bruise or other boo-boo would not rise to the level of an "Accident". You have to do a lot of damage before it becomes an accident."

"But, seriously, the worst a four pound piece of styrofoam can do is a bruise. It simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless operation that 91.13 is intended to address."

"I'm afraid styrofoam and in my example paper does explain it away logically. Of course if you're thinking irrationally and comparing a space rocket to a model aircraft you might find similarities. But physics does not side with you here. Comparing the kinetic energy of a space ship or an object at that speed and a model aircraft isn't just apples and oranges, it's like comparing an apple and Earth. Even if a one in a million shot hits somebody in the temple, it'd be very unlikely to cause a death."

And then the asinine baseball analogies started - I will not quote those. You're welcome.

"It's a matter of opinion but I would rather take a drone to the head than a baseball."

I'll stop there.
Each of my posts were on topic and in response to the above posts.

Please tell me again how my posts are not relevant?

 

[ianwood]

See photo above. That lightweight Balsa wood covered by monokote probably weighs less than a phantom. What sort of proof do you need to convince you?

That photo means nothing. Without a detailed assessment of the construction of the car, the plane and the details of the incident, it means nothing. And even then, it only has limited value as it is a car and not a person that was hit. As I said earlier, there appears to be no evidence of Phantoms or RC aircraft of similar construction causing serious injuries to people.

Neither the plane that Pirker flew, a Phantom or any other drone, nor the plane that hit this car, are "veritable death traps" and
I'm truly sorry if that is how you've interpreted this Ian. But to say that all you'll suffer is a bruise if you're hit by one is pure unadulerated ********.

The FAA knows this and their goal is safety. We all need to make that our goals as well.

Should the FAA have jurisdiction for the safety of people on the ground? Shouldn't a "reckless" act that is being perpetrated at or near where people are moving around on the ground be the jurisdiction of local authorities? Otherwise, the FAA should be considering a foul ball as reckless. The ball is a flying contrivance and it is reckless in that it could hit a number of people.

If Pirker's flight were a threat to the NAS, the FAA should actively pursue punitive measures. No question there. But it wasn't.

 

[GoodnNuff]

My suggestion is for YOU to go make a new thread to talk about your agenda. You can title it "Our drones are more dangerous than a baseball"...I'm sure it would be a fine thread, and it would be relevant to the conversation in that thread. It's not here, though.
.

As the OP in this thread I suggest you two exchange emails and take you mutual argumentation private.

You're right. I'm ending my involvment in this discussion.
I sincerly hope that you all fly safely and don't endanger yourselves, family, or strangers in the path of your harmless drones.

 

[GoodnNuff]

That photo means nothing. Without a detailed assessment of the construction of the car, the plane and the details of the incident, it means nothing. And even then, it only has limited value as it is a car and not a person that was hit. As I said earlier, there appears to be no evidence of Phantoms or RC aircraft of similar construction causing serious injuries to people."

You're absolutely right. Human flesh is far more resiliant than a car.

I'm out.

 

[Deathcode]

Just out:

http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf

We lost big in this!!

We didn't! This is GREAT! This shows that what this guy did was reckless and stupid. This also sets precedence that an UAV is in fact, an aircraft. This also marks the path for regulation of drones, with regulation, comes restrictions but also privileges.
I believe that not everyone is qualified to fly an UAV.I certainly don't want one falling in my property (car, house, myself)
I'm obviously against banning drones, but I'm all for regulation and pilot certification.
Like everything else that moves. If you want to ride a street bike like a maniac, go to a track, if you want to drive your sports car at 200mph, use a designated area (track), if you want to be stupid with a drone, go to a field where you won't cause damage to property. If you want to fly responsibly, then adhere to basic rules, just like GA pilots do.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Sorry, I can't leave this fiction alone.
Ian states:

As I said earlier, there appears to be no evidence of Phantoms or RC aircraft of similar construction causing serious injuries to people.

Girl killed by remote control plane
A family has been devastated by the death of a girl who was hit on the head by a model plane while walking in a park, police have said.
Tara Lipscombe, 13, from Dartford, Kent, was walking with her mother on Dartford Heath at about 5pm on Wednesday when the incident happened.
A petrol-powered Acrowot plane, which was believed to have a 5ft wingspan, appeared to fly out of control and strike the teenager on the head, causing severe injuries.
Kent Air Ambulance landed 100 metres away from the unconscious girl and flew her to Darent Valley Hospital in three minutes.
Despite efforts of medics, she died from her injuries a few hours later.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3Je4yprZU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Same size plane as Pirker's.

Flying Model Aircraft Comes Under Scrutiny After Fatal Accident in Brooklyn Park
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

BUDAPEST, Hungary - A model airplane crashed into a crowd at an air show in southern Hungary on Saturday, killing two spectators.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/2771464/

The AMA President wrote in a recent issue of Model Aviation
that there had been six fatal accidents in twenty years involving AMA members or clubs

Not common, but they happen Ian.

 

[Khudson7]

I probably should stay out of this...but...what the hell...

I had been following the Pirker case from day one, and until today, had always assumed Pirker was the victim of an unjust Government agency overstepping their bounds in trying to prosecute him. That was until I saw for the first time at the beginning of this thread, the actual video he took. IMHO that was some of the most careless, dangerous, and stupid flying I have ever seen. (May have been a styrofoam plane but it had a motor and prop also traveling at excessive speed...last I checked they are NOT styrofoam!) For those that think that type of flying is OK,again IMHO and with all due respect, you deserve tighter regulation. In any case, I understood he was taking promotional video for the university but I did not see anything from that insane stunt flying(without a gimbal) that could be considered useful for that purpose.