Seattle Drone Pilot gets 30 days in jail + fine

Yes, the pilot was flying over the parade while filming it. The drone probably lost its signal in the urban canyons and crashed into a building and then a parade spectator, knocking her to the ground. The jail sentence will most likely be deferred, meaning he won't spend a night in jail.


Pilot of drone that struck woman at Pride Parade gets 30 days in jail
 
"Drone" has become a bad word. It's too bad they are commonly referred to as drones, because drones kill insurgents with hellfire missiles. There is not now and never has been anything fun and rosy associated with drones. These are not drones, they are quad copters.


Jeff

Or better yet we need to start using the term sUAS. Hello people, that is what the FAA uses. Start to act like we are professionals (starting with terminology) and others (the public) will see us as such.

Let the military play with drones.
Hobbyist with quadcopters
Professionals with sUAS / UAS / UAV

Just my opinion
 
Drone Pilot sentenced to 30 days, $500.00 fine and restitution for Pride Day Parade crash that injures woman...

Pilot of drone that struck woman at Pride Parade gets 30 days in jail

It said in that article; "Gregory acknowledged that the collision was accidental, not intentional, but felt a punishment was in order, as Skinner had "engaged in conduct that put people in danger of being injured." Think about it, a bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, or any vehicle can put people in danger of being injured. Such a general statement.
 
"Drone" has become a bad word. It's too bad they are commonly referred to as drones, because drones kill insurgents with hellfire missiles. There is not now and never has been anything fun and rosy associated with drones. These are not drones, they are quad copters.


Jeff
A rose by other name is still a rose. It is not the name. The behaviour of the operator is what the law is applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clipper707
It said in that article; "Gregory acknowledged that the collision was accidental, not intentional, but felt a punishment was in order, as Skinner had "engaged in conduct that put people in danger of being injured." Think about it, a bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, or any vehicle can put people in danger of being injured. Such a general statement.
It's pretty much the same isn't it? If you drive your car the wrong way on a freeway and hurt someone you're going to be in a lot more trouble than having a blow out and hurting someone.
 
It's pretty much the same isn't it? If you drive your car the wrong way on a freeway and hurt someone you're going to be in a lot more trouble than having a blow out and hurting someone.

Not really. A mistake is a mistake just as an accident is an accident. We can't compare this driving, but we can compare this to drunk driving......

Now if you were drunk and got on the freeway the wrong way and injured someone, your in trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JesterPhotog
A rose by other name is still a rose. It is not the name. The behaviour of the operator is what the law is applied.

While that's true, it's a "perception" we are fighting. Disassociating what we fly from something that is already known as an aggressive, offensive weapon may not be a bad move.
 
While that's true, it's a "perception" we are fighting. Disassociating what we fly from something that is already known as an aggressive, offensive weapon may not be a bad move.

The D-word argument again. That ship sailed about 2 years ago and it's not coming back. It's a drone, people. Furthermore, the word is accurate.

Quadcopter operator: Sorry, Miss. That wasn't a drone that hit you. It was a quadcopter.
Victim: I feel better already. Good thing it wasn't a drone.
 
The D-word argument again. That ship sailed about 2 years ago and it's not coming back. It's a drone, people. Furthermore, the word is accurate.

Quadcopter operator: Sorry, Miss. That wasn't a drone that hit you. It was a quadcopter.
Victim: I feel better already. Good thing it wasn't a drone.

Oh, I know. But there are lots of words that change meaning, whether they should or not, and some that remain the same but become redeployed... mis-assigned. I'm a firm believer that it comes down to the amount of syllables.

And there's nothing wrong with a little wish sometimes.

Like I wish this:
201d9882a951d69ddecab956e9c3eb78.jpg

Wasn't considered the same family as this:
9080b08003e3bac515728d53dd899c57.jpg

But I'll get over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clipper707
Problem is drone is a short, one syllable word.
Quadcopter three syllables.
sUAS 4 syllables with pauses unless you try to say it phonetically. Swas maybe? Sounds like the name of a collection of bees which probably isn't much better than drone.
 
Problem is drone is a short, one syllable word.
Quadcopter three syllables.
sUAS 4 syllables with pauses unless you try to say it phonetically. Swas maybe? Sounds like the name of a collection of bees which probably isn't much better than drone.

That's exactly what I mean. People will default to whatever is shortest to say. We've even gotten lazy when it comes to speaking...

Seriously... wtf, lol, idk, smh.

Cash me ousside, howbowdah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
I think he was definitely singled out and made an example of.
Quote: Skinner, the owner of an aerial photography company, was convicted by a jury last month of the gross misdemeanor after being charged with conduct that created a “substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.”

Singled out? Singled out from who? Who on this forum has had an accident where a person ended up with a concussion? His drone knocked the victim out and twelve citizens agreed he acted in a reckless manner.

SB
 
Or better yet we need to start using the term sUAS. Hello people, that is what the FAA uses. Start to act like we are professionals (starting with terminology) and others (the public) will see us as such.

Let the military play with drones.
Hobbyist with quadcopters
Professionals with sUAS / UAS / UAV

Just my opinion

You can refer to a cat as felis catus but no one will understand you and everyone will still call it a cat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clipper707
Since the 22rd of January I've been in an ongoing debate with probably 25 to 30 of my neighbors in an online app called NextDoor. I wish you all could see it. But I have no idea how to get you into our neighborhood discussions since it's highly unlikely any of you live in my neighborhood. But I decided to stand up to stupidity, ignorance, urban myths and collective acceptance of misinformation about us and our "drones". I, too dislike the word drone for several reasons. It reminds me of the other usage of someone droning on about this or that. Never complimentary. It rhymes with moan and it is a fact that people's perception of something IS directly effected by the word used to describe it. Even when I'm in the presence of someone 'droning' on about how they hate drones it's clear from how they even say the word DrOhnnn like it pains them. You can't pull that sort of moronic symbolism (I call it moronic because it's effective with sheep like followers who grab on to brilliant declarations like "it's an invasion of privacy" or "and they're illegal"). These type of people typically call them drones because they don't know a **** thing about them other than that they heard this story in Seattle glorified by the media and people at the water cooler at work are droning on about how they wish they'd outlaw "those dangerous toys" or whatever emotion stirring adjectives they want to put on them. One guy I know calls them peeping drones because he thinks if one flies within his eyesight it MUST be filming him, invading his privacy and perhaps stealing his identity or even his soul (if he has one). Anyway, not to be hyper technical but quadcopters is also too specific and at times incorrect. These are UAV's or multirotors, are they not? Not all multirotors have four props. Not even DJI's products are all quads, so I think the debate on what to call them is appropriate, healthy for the whole industry and sooner or later public perception will be changed or lean in the other direction. I firmly believe that allowing these to be referred to as drones (I'm going to get nailed for this, but bring it on) which is factually an incorrect term that does conjure up scary even negative emotions regarding weapons used by the military (glad they do) is no different than someone referring to a black person as a "n word". Before it became so evil and wrong to ever use that word or even spell it out it was NOT always meant in a derogatory way, but unfortunately it evolved quickly to mean something and imply something derogatory. I am against using the word due to it, but the absolute fact behind that word is it was at first an innocent mispronunciation of the word negro. I'll even go out on a limb and say that the word *** did the same thing. How did the British term for a cigarette ever evolve into a hateful word used to describe what PC folks love to label them as homosexuals. That word has TOO MANY syllables and it isn't helpful to the gay community or the LGBTQ ....etc. add another akbhabet letter every year...all that stuff is really just stupid. Before anyone jumps me about this I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and it directly effects me as a gay multirotor operator or (GMO). Just opened the door there for a multitude of jokes. No problem. Seriously though, until the black community stops insisting they be known as African-Americans and some are ok with black and some aren't, but they are completely ok with calling each other the n word but if anyone else does it they lose careers, etc. Until that crap stops there will be racial problems. Until the gay community stops getting caught up in their FEELINGS about including EVERYONE with another **** letter (LGBTQ...more to come trust me) who needs to identify with a sexual minority then they will struggle to achieve quality as quickly as they could otherwise. My point is that we, who are sort of the pioneers of pilots of these multirotors who have seen this evolve so rapidly from nothing to this - we SHOULD be the ones who DO CARE what word the public uses when they glorify negative stories that really have us losing the PR war. The acceptance of the word DRONE is absolutely part of the problem. The black community wouldn't tolerate the use of the n word when a negative news story was written or told about them because whether or not you use the word or not it's rarely a nice or kind or positive reference, so I understand their wanting to rid our lexicon of the term. It's how the word makes people feel is why it needs to die. Same goes for ***. Someone calls me a *** I'm not going to cry but it clearly isn't a come on or complimentary. Very quickly the word drone - the word alone IS a problem and a big obstacle to positive PR shifting in the other direction. The best argument to correct it was done earlier by showing a picture of a Predator drone and then a Phantom. If you don't get the difference then you'll believe all the BS you hear out there and there's millions of them who are, like sheep, against the invasion of privacy (who isn't?) and all drones invade privacy or they want those drones banned because they're unsafe. One guy literally got on the neighborhood forum and claimed a "drone" flew over his vehicle equipped with some sort of laser and that this laser wielding flying menace intentionally chased him down and temporarily blinded him. Therefore, ban ALL DRONES. Several people jumped on his bandwagon until I called him out on his stupid story to begin with. People believe anything. I wish I could find a way to share the post with you. I think I did us all a good amount of Justice and I got a lot of positive feedback from dozens of neighbors about it. But this isn't about me and I'm truly sorry for droning on this long. I need to go light up a *** and relax!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helihover
Question for you "Quadcopter" folks:

Let's suppose a drone strikes and blinds a baby. My coworkers are discussing the incident at the water cooler.

Am I supposed to educate my coworkers by telling them a "quadcopter" blinded that baby?
 
Question for you "Quadcopter" folks:

Let's suppose a drone strikes and blinds a baby. My coworkers are discussing the incident at the water cooler.

Am I supposed to educate my coworkers by telling them a "quadcopter" blinded that baby?

Maybe that a UAV blinded the baby.

Maybe we should rid the word drone and ALL start using the the word UAV.........

I hated it when Drone became the mainstream word of choice, but I too started using it. Think I'm gonna stop now.

Maybe if we all stop we could change it?

Nice post Captain Kirk!
 
Question for you "Quadcopter" folks:

Let's suppose a drone strikes and blinds a baby. My coworkers are discussing the incident at the water cooler.

Am I supposed to educate my coworkers by telling them a "quadcopter" blinded that baby?

Honestly? Know what I'd do?

I'd express sympathy, and ask about the baby's prognosis. I'd shift the focus to the operator. I'd ask questions about whether it was being operated unsafely, if he/she was new or inexperienced, whether authorities were involved and what actions were taken. My focus would be the baby, and the actions leading up to the incident. Maybe even suggest that they can be dangerous without proper safeguards and practice and if flown unsafely, operators can bring negative feelings toward the sport.

And I simply, and naturally, wouldn't use the word drone throughout the conversation any more than I'd use the word "n" or *** while I was speaking.

Because in the end, neither a drone, nor a UAV, quadcopter or Heli-anything blinded anyone. The guy that took it out of the box did.
 
...the point being, that when a man kills a man with a gun, the headline doesn't read:

"GUN KILLS MAN"

It's the "Drone injures baby" likening that needs to change.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,607
Members
104,981
Latest member
Scav8tor