P2V+ view of Lake Whitney House Burning on Cliff

[pyrodactyl]

Should we all remain on the ground then, avoiding everything of interest, just to be "extremely" safe?


I don't think I suggested anything like that.


I can often hear my Phantom from 1000' away. Helicopters, airplanes, air tankers, etc.. make a Hell of a lot more noise than a Phantom, and can be heard, even if unseen, from far greater distances. Were I to see or hear an aircraft in proximity to where I was operating I would, of course, take immediate steps to insure I am out of the way and pose no risk. With an approaching airplane, its relatively easy to determine if your Phantom poses a hazard. Planes tend to fly straight or in long arcs. Helicopters require a bit more caution as its easier for them to alter heading & altitude. There are lots of things sharing the airspace with commercial aircraft. A Phantom here or there, in the hands of a capable pilot, adds little to the risk pool.

Yep, that's the definition of hubris.

 

[Dirty Bird]

I don't think I suggested anything like that.

You didn't come right out and say that directly, however, your message certainly implies we should just stay away from anything of interest because, "You cannot know what other aircraft are planning or whether they are aware you are there." Basically, we should just park it, or reside ourselves to flights over mundane territory because we never know when a "real" aircraft might show up.

Yep, that's the definition of hubris.

So all who don't share your viewpoint are over-confident, arrogant bastards... :roll:

Can you see? Can you hear? Don't you know when another aircraft is in the vicinity? You can hear one of Maryland's Agusta-Westland AW139 MediVac choppers coming from 10 miles away! Wouldn't you act accordingly, just as I said I would do, were another aircraft to be operating in the vicinity? Sorry, but I'm not going to ground my aircraft because maybe another aircraft might happen along. I think I'll know, and I will act accordingly. That doesn't make me arrogant or cocky. It just means I can see & hear...

 

[CRankin]

So, seriously, why should it be 100% the responsibility of the UAV operator to stay away from all air traffic at all times? I assume that there are qualified pilots operating the planes and helicopters overhead who also bear some amount of responsibility to act in ways that would avoid our aircraft.

Hobbyists (and UAV operators who fly for other-than-hobby purposes, whatever those may be ) are not second class citizens in the air and should not be treated as so when they fly. The OP has an equal right to access that airspace, so long as his/her operation does not interfere or negatively impact safety or operations on the ground.

As another poster said, if we are to worry about and accept 100% of the responsibility for avoiding other air traffic at all times, we may as well just stay on the ground. I live in an area of Northern Virginia that's out of the regular flight path for major airports, but usually has a few (to several) fly-overs of smaller single engine planes at low altitude on the weekends (especially in good weather) operating under VFR. These guys are flying in roughly the same airspace that I use for a practice area. While I haven't yet been up at the same time they're flying around, if I ever were I can't honestly say that I'd feel compelled to land. I'd be a bit more vigilant, perhaps, but everybody who's in the air has an obligation to share the space and act responsibly.

 

[rrhansen]

I don't think I suggested anything like that.

You didn't come right out and say that directly, however, your message certainly implies we should just stay away from anything of interest because, "You cannot know what other aircraft are planning or whether they are aware you are there." Basically, we should just park it, or reside ourselves to flights over mundane territory because we never know when a "real" aircraft might show up.

Yep, that's the definition of hubris.

So all who don't share your viewpoint are over-confident, arrogant bastards... :roll:

Can you see? Can you hear? Don't you know when another aircraft is in the vicinity? You can hear one of Maryland's Agusta-Westland AW139 MediVac choppers coming from 10 miles away! Wouldn't you act accordingly, just as I said I would do, were another aircraft to be operating in the vicinity? Sorry, but I'm not going to ground my aircraft because maybe another aircraft might happen along. I think I'll know, and I will act accordingly. That doesn't make me arrogant or cocky. It just means I can see & hear...

Been following this whole thread, and others similar to it. Got to say Pyrodictyl, that I think dirty bird is spot on and has a more reasonable and sound perspective. I live in a direct floatplane and medivac helo approach corridor and they often come in right at the 500 footmark. However, I can hear them coming from a couple miles away, and always make sure my quad is down well below 400 feet. I don't view myself as an excellent or even mid level pilot by any stretch, I am still learning the ropes - so no hubris on my part. I feel that commonsense allows me to coexist with the floatplanes with no risk to either party.

 

[Michigan_PI]

I do not live in the direct approach of any airport, although there are several within a 20 mile radius, including DTW, Detroit City Airport, Oakland county Airport, Troy Airport and Selfridge ANG. I don't usually have aircraft lower than 1000' where I can see them from my house; however, on occasion there will be a flyover at about 500', usually good weather on weekends.
A few weeks ago, I heard (what I later identified as) a Blackhawk approaching low and fast, heading toward Selfridge ANG. I stepped outside to look as the Blackhawk was passing over my house at near 200'. As low and fast as this thing came through, I don't think I could have safely brought my Phantom down from 400' before the Blackhawk was in my airspace.

I wasn't flying at the time but it made me wonder. If I had been flying at say 300', this Blackhawk comes screaming in like it did, there would have been a near incident. Then what? How would the pilot react if he sees my Phantom racing for the deck? Would I have had a heavily armed gunship hovering over me with a pissed-off crew even though they had no business flying that low in this area and in a perceived unsafe operating envelope?

I'm not saying that we should ground ourselves "for the sake of safety". Just the opposite. Go out and fly but fly smart and safe. I've had my Phantom over 1000' AGL (not at my house though) but I also had a safety spotter keeping a vigilant eye and ear for the big boys. There are no laws that prevent me from flying over 400' outside of controlled airspace, and I will. But I will also fly safe as most of you do; with the exception of some that don't think far enough ahead to realize the damage these can inflict on a crowd or a manned aircraft.

Regardless of who is in the right, we are sharing airspace even if we are operating under 400' where the big ones do not belong. If there ever is an incident or a near miss, guess who the bad guy is going to be??
We all would be served best to keep that in mind whenever we lift off.

PS: I didn't see anything wrong with the original poster's video in it's context, content, or the way he operated his machine.

 

[SilentAV8R]

So, seriously, why should it be 100% the responsibility of the UAV operator to stay away from all air traffic at all times?

Because you are not the one who may die if there is a crash.

 

[dataway]

Nice Shot Semaj, thanks for sharing the video...

 

[Jermz]

I hope no-one was hurt in the fire.
Great video, nice short shots, not repetitive at all.
Pyrodactyl raised some great safety points I think we all need to be aware of. It looks like you used common sense by staying away from the helicopter on the other side of the lake while it was blazing and waited until it was just smoldering before flying close.
I really wish Dji would fix the jerky camera tilt.

It was an intentionally set fire. The cliff was falling away and the house was about to go. Fire was the simplest demolition option since no one wanted to put heavy machinery on a falling cliff face.

All the video I saw from news choppers was from over the lake, nobody seemed to be on the land side. He was likely well out of the way, but is is important to pay attention to that. We don't need to be causing problems when the media was already there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jermz]

So, seriously, why should it be 100% the responsibility of the UAV operator to stay away from all air traffic at all times? I assume that there are qualified pilots operating the planes and helicopters overhead who also bear some amount of responsibility to act in ways that would avoid our aircraft.

Hobbyists (and UAV operators who fly for other-than-hobby purposes, whatever those may be ) are not second class citizens in the air and should not be treated as so when they fly. The OP has an equal right to access that airspace, so long as his/her operation does not interfere or negatively impact safety or operations on the ground.

As another poster said, if we are to worry about and accept 100% of the responsibility for avoiding other air traffic at all times, we may as well just stay on the ground. I live in an area of Northern Virginia that's out of the regular flight path for major airports, but usually has a few (to several) fly-overs of smaller single engine planes at low altitude on the weekends (especially in good weather) operating under VFR. These guys are flying in roughly the same airspace that I use for a practice area. While I haven't yet been up at the same time they're flying around, if I ever were I can't honestly say that I'd feel compelled to land. I'd be a bit more vigilant, perhaps, but everybody who's in the air has an obligation to share the space and act responsibly.

I think the main reason is that it's easier for someone on the ground to see a large aircraft than for a pilot of a fast moving aircraft to see a tiny quadcopter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CRankin]

I think the main reason is that it's easier for someone on the ground to see a large aircraft than for a pilot of a fast moving aircraft to see a tiny quadcopter.

Agreed - but it still doesn't mean that pilots of manned aircraft should feel free to proceed with impunity at all times as if they owned the skies. Sharing airspace is just that - sharing.

While we obviously wouldn't do stupid things to put others' lives at risk, pilots flying under 400' AGL must also realize that they are sharing that airspace with others who may be flying in both manned and unmanned aircraft. As such, they have an equal obligation to not unnecessarily create risks to their lives, others' lives, or property. I would assume that would include being alert for other aircraft operating in the area and taking appropriate precautions to avoid them if possible.

I can appreciate that it might be difficult (or nearly impossible) to do this while flying at any reasonable speed in a plane - but in this specific case I believe we are talking about a helicopter, which is capable of moving at low speeds or hovering in much the same way that our Phantoms can. Under these circumstances, I'd say that the Phantom pilot and helicopter pilot share the responsibility of being aware of where each other is and taking appropriate precautions to prevent a dangerous situation from arising.

My point in the whole discussion was, and still is, that all who fly within a particular airspace equally share the duty of acting responsibly and safely. No pilot - whether in a manned or unmanned aircraft - should assume that s/he has complete right-of-way at all times. We have just as much right to operate as hobbyists at 400' AGL or lower, and that should be respected by pilots as much as we (generally speaking) respect right to operate. Without this mutual respect, problems are more likely to occur.

 

[SilentAV8R]

I think the main reason is that it's easier for someone on the ground to see a large aircraft than for a pilot of a fast moving aircraft to see a tiny quadcopter.

Agreed - but it still doesn't mean that pilots of manned aircraft should feel free to proceed with impunity at all times as if they owned the skies. Sharing airspace is just that - sharing.

Better get used to the idea of theprimacy of manned aircraft. It is the foundation of the FAA's thinking.