what happened to bob eddelman on youtube?

[nedro018]

wonder if anyone who subscribed to this P2V+ pilot knows why he closed his youtube channel? he had some terrific vids out of the austin TX area, further, he had tremendous how-to vids on his technical upgrades that were getting out to 10K feet on FPV.

but i think i know how he possibly met his untimely demise because his site went dark after his very last vid, a fly around of the dallas cowboys stadium. which is a domed structure. it was on a weekend when there was no activity there. nothing. no cars even.

on his first phantom flight (he owns 2) there, he was flying FPV and accidentally flew around the dome and behind it but he didnt have enough altitude. he thought he was OVER the dome but was not. he immediately lost all comm's with the phantom. it went into RTH. but it didnt clear the structure, it flew into the stadium somewhere and never came back.

so he launched his second P2V+ and didnt make the same mistake. he flew around the back side successfully. it was this video that he posted on his YT site. on this flight, he went looking for his first unit. he thought he saw it sitting inside an upper balcony, or maybe on the roof, he couldnt be sure because if he went close enough it be another comm's outage.

he had said, that, he was going to check in with the officials there "next monday when they are open for business and see about getting my copter back again"

im a very new pilot (i was researching his upgrades even before my P2V+ even arrived) and i was thinking, im not too sure i would go back for THAT one.

his site went dark after 2 days.

anyone know more details? alot of people gave their emails to him on his site seeking to have more detailed contact with him. maybe they know more?

im sure alot of people here will bash him in this post. yes he did make mistakes (uhmm, at least TWO)

but he was flying in FPV on his nexxus 7. as a new pilot i only have about about 4 practice flights in full FPV in a local olives orchard. where i fly figure eights around 4 trees. in FPV, you only see the "target" in front of you, or, that you try to keep in front of you. its easy to let something that is NOT in front/in your field of view, get too close to you so that you bump into it, or, in his case, lose all comm's with the unit.

in his case the structure was too daunting for RTH to complete its journey.

questions:

1) does anyone know more of what happened to bob and,

2) does anyone have CONSTRUCTIVE take aways from this

 

[MattUNI2001]

The only thing extra I know is that a representative of the Cowboys said they would be giving him his phantom back. I haven't heard/seen anything since. I as well kept up with his channel on YouTube, when it was there.

 

[nedro018]

thanks im concerned about him and dont want a gestapo assault on one person which happens these days unfortunately.

i would like to see him back flying and back online.

thanks for you reply.

 

[SilentAV8R]

so he launched his second P2V+ and didnt make the same mistake. he flew around the back side successfully. it was this video that he posted on his YT site. on this flight, he went looking for his first unit. he thought he saw it sitting inside an upper balcony, or maybe on the roof, he couldnt be sure because if he went close enough it be another comm's outage.

In that same video he flew the second P2V+ over Ranger stadium as people were coming in for the game, then over Six Flags and a roller coaster there, there across the freeway (traffic and all) to fly over the water park, again wit lots of people. Later he had clips (same video) of flying around downtown Dallas. I'm sure this got the attention of the FAA and he wisely decided to remove any evidence they might use against him.

But something everyone needs to understand, as far as the FAA is concerned as of June 25, 2014 they banned ALL BLOS flying and ALL use of goggles. If it were me, I'd be careful about posting videos showing either activity. The FAA has the Internet and I'll bet they have a book mark for YouTube and Vimeo.

 

[kymedic121]

Despite the rumors the FAA has NO jurisdictional authority over RC Aircraft. This was upheld by the NTSB and a Superior Court Judge. The FAA is supposed to be preparing legislation for review for FY2015 but it will be challenged and then it will have to be amended and then passed into law this could take years. I do not feel that they will be able to restrict flight activity as this is an infringement of freedom but will they be pursuing altitude (which is already 400') and distance which will deter or limit FPV). Please read the attached article published by Dronelawjournal.com

 

[JWarren]

He himself pulled all his videos down after the Cowboy stadium story went national.

 

[CarlJ]

Please read the attached article published by Dronelawjournal.com

Good god man! I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I'm a doctor! No wait, I'm not even a doctor.

That the FAA is regulating (unopposed I might add), not an indication that authority is irrelevant? You concede that yes they'll pass legislation, yes it'll be challenged, and yes most likely in the fullness of time become law. So what's the fuss?

I don't know, and I'm beyond caring because we aint never gonna reach consensus among ourselves, and a house divided can not stand. I'll comply with whatever regulations are required, throw a bunch of money at it, and make it go away.

Sounds like you've taken a glimpse into the future yourself.

And for the record, Cowboy Bob is a *******...sorry but it had to be said.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Despite the rumors the FAA has NO jurisdictional authority over RC Aircraft.

You need to catch up. The Pirker case predated the 2012 FMRA. So the NTSB ruling, if upheld, only applies to that particular case.

The FMRA gave the FAA authority in a backdoor sense, which they are taking to an extreme.

Please review these two documents:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... &cid=TW223

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ua ... c_rule.pdf

So while the FAA may have had questionable authority in 2011, they have clear authority now.

 

[kymedic121]

My only point is that the FAA can say whatever they want, they can BAN this and that but it has no meaning. All they can do is send cease and desist letters and most will wipe their butts on them. They cannot ban anything where there is no law regulating, governing or restricting such activity. So, for them to BAN the use of FPV goggles mean NODDA. They do not have the jurisdictional authority over anything to do with RC Aircraft (Kites Or Paper Airplanes for that matter). I think many people are making much to do over nothing. Now with this being said, if one chooses to surpass the 400' altitude then they are in violation of a federal statute as an altitude of 401' and above is for private and commercial aircraft. Which I personally feel is high enough for my uses. Most are concerned about UAV registration, licensing, mandatory training requirements and no use of FPV. Yes all these things are possible but not likely and if so it will take a decade to see it all come to fruition. I just want folks to stop worrying about the FAA and use some good old common sense, get their aircraft out there and enjoy flying.

(Common sense meaning, don't be out buzzing police helicopters, flying into and over public venues packed with people and stop sending the UAV's up to heavens where it could possibly have an encounter with a commercial or private flight. Most of all stop calling them DRONES - no there is nothing wrong with the word its just that the UAV uneducated general public hear that word and instantly conjure the images of the Drones we used in the military to drop bombs on neighborhoods in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take a few minutes to explain what it really is and what it is not is capable of. The more the Media runs with the word DRONE then more problems we will have.)

'Re-Authorization of Law will not hold up in court. There is no case law on record that states that it is "Illegal" so therefore this statement from the FAA is with the hopes it will scare some of the ones doing this to stop." They have no LEGAL authority to do anything because it has not been deemed "Illegal".

 

[SilentAV8R]

Oddly enough the one thing that is NOT in their interpretation is an altitude limit. Maybe you can become the test case!!

 

[kymedic121]

I have never gone above 250' as I have no reason to and for that matter I don't leave LOS. But I feel it is wrong for a Government agency try to run rough shot over those that do as long as they don't enter a populated venue risking the safety of those on the ground. Nor, do I think its fair to tell someone who owns a quad that also owns a real estate agency that they cannot take photos of a property they or selling or the farmer who chooses to use one to inspect his crops all because they deem it to be "Commercial Use". All they have done is announced an "Initiative" which is nothing and can be beat in court very easily. No, I am not a lawyer but I am a Deputy Sheriff and I have a degree in Criminal Justice and also 2 years studying case law. In order for their to be criminal actions there first must be legislative law on the books that deems such an activity "Illegal" and then there must be descriptions of penalties and repercussions of violating the given law. You cannot tell a society that an action committed is illegal without them knowing the penalties of such activity. Will they make some of this law? You bet. The NTSB has Congress has instructed the FAA to create legislation for the 2015 review and yes they will in time pass some of it but it will not be done without first becoming federal law. A re-authorization of law is merely an initiative it is not law. Unfortunately, the future laws will only harm and restrict the law abiding RC enthusiasts. Someone who wants to send their UAV 5,000 plus feet up or fly it over a crowded stadium is going to no matter what the FAA says and take their chances and we must pay for the mistakes of others. Its the way it has been since the beginning of time. A pad lock or a locked door only keeps an honest man honest, if a person is dead set to gain entry no lock and no law is going to stop them.

 

[CarlJ]

My only point is that the FAA can say whatever they want, they can BAN this and that but it has no meaning. All they can do is send cease and desist letters and most will wipe their butts on them. They cannot ban anything where there is no law regulating, governing or restricting such activity. So, for them to BAN the use of FPV goggles mean NODDA. They do not have the jurisdictional authority over anything to do with RC Aircraft (Kites Or Paper Airplanes for that matter). I think many people are making much to do over nothing. Now with this being said, if one chooses to surpass the 400' altitude then they are in violation of a federal statute as an altitude of 401' and above is for private and commercial aircraft. Which I personally feel is high enough for my uses. Most are concerned about UAV registration, licensing, mandatory training requirements and no use of FPV. Yes all these things are possible but not likely and if so it will take a decade to see it all come to fruition. I just want folks to stop worrying about the FAA and use some good old common sense, get their aircraft out there and enjoy flying.

(Common sense meaning, don't be out buzzing police helicopters, flying into and over public venues packed with people and stop sending the UAV's up to heavens where it could possibly have an encounter with a commercial or private flight. Most of all stop calling them DRONES - no there is nothing wrong with the word its just that the UAV uneducated general public hear that word and instantly conjure the images of the Drones we used in the military to drop bombs on neighborhoods in Iraq and Afghanistan. Take a few minutes to explain what it really is and what it is not is capable of. The more the Media runs with the word DRONE then more problems we will have.)

'Re-Authorization of Law will not hold up in court. There is no case law on record that states that it is "Illegal" so therefore this statement from the FAA is with the hopes it will scare some of the ones doing this to stop." They have no LEGAL authority to do anything because it has not been deemed "Illegal".

With all due respect, and understanding that this whole topic is draining my will to live. I've heard this argument before, the goverment doesn't have the right to collect income taxes. Poor ole Willie didn't pay his income taxes and they took his home, his cars, boats, maybe his jet. They even took family photos, and when Willie complained that they were personal items they said "the frames aren't" and then they took those too!

Yeah, I'm not buying it...

 

[witold]

I love all the amateur lawyers interpreting laws based on random blogs and links they find. :lol:

Fact is: FAA is not happy.
Fact is: FAA is much bigger than you.

If you sell $4,000 quads, maybe it makes sense to get some fines, hire some lawyers, and spend a few years in courts explaining how right you are.

But most of the rest of us do not have the time, funds, or profit motive to fight the FAA. Lawyers are not free and your *** is on the line. We have much more to lose than to gain.

 

[dragonash]

I love all the amateur lawyers interpreting laws based on random blogs and links they find. :lol:

Fact is: FAA is not happy.
Fact is: FAA is much bigger than you.

If you sell $4,000 quads, maybe it makes sense to get some fines, hire some lawyers, and spend a few years in courts explaining how right you are.

But most of the rest of us do not have the time, funds, or profit motive to fight the FAA. Lawyers are not free and your *** is on the line. We have much more to lose than to gain.

social media is free my friend.
If enough people make a fuss, things change.

Unfortunately, we do not have numbers. This hobby is not mainstream enough

 

[kymedic121]

I love all the amateur lawyers interpreting laws based on random blogs and links they find. :lol:

Fact is: FAA is not happy.
Fact is: FAA is much bigger than you.

If you sell $4,000 quads, maybe it makes sense to get some fines, hire some lawyers, and spend a few years in courts explaining how right you are.

But most of the rest of us do not have the time, funds, or profit motive to fight the FAA. Lawyers are not free and your *** is on the line. We have much more to lose than to gain.

So, most are just willing to give in, roll over and just take whatever they dish out? First of all I never claimed to be a lawyer but I am basing my statement on the understanding of the law of which apparently I have a better understanding of than you. I deal with the law, court systems, judges and attorneys day in and day out as that is my job. It cannot be deemed Illegal until it is legislatively made law first. (Case Law 101, 1st week of college). If the RC community doesn't form an organization or a lobbying body then we will all be flying paper airplanes and sitting in front of a model train collection because they want to shut down FPV and they are wanting to tell you how and when and why you should fly your aircraft. If we do nothing then we will wind up with nothing.

 

[Dirty Bird]

We do have a lobbying body...its called the AMA. Not a bad idea to become a member. Many RC fields require you to be a member in order to fly or join. They also provide liability insurance in the event you crash.

 

[kymedic121]

Yes sir, I joined before buying the PV2+. It is an awesome group but from what I see the AMA is pretty much siding with FAA and not willing to fight them, this as per what some of the other members are saying.

 

[cahutch]

I agree with kymedic, we shouldn't be calling them drones.
Most hobby UAV's don't meet the definition. They are ROV's not Drones.
A drone is capable of autonomous operation and most Phantom/Phantom 2 models aren't unless they have ground station.

So the guy flying his Phantom over a stadium, over a bridge or over a disaster area is not flying a drone, he's flying an ROV. Yes it's a UAV, but ROV is more accurate.
UAV or UAS could be any unmanned system including autonomous systems. ROV has a direct implication that it's remotely piloted under direct human control and that's less frightening to the average person.

 

[Mori55]

Well your in la la land if you think anyone going to stop calling them drones. Not going to happen , right or wrong ! Sorry to say.
In the publics eye they're DRONES. never had someone come up to me and say ," that's a nice "multirotor you have " !
It is what it is now.

 

[SilentAV8R]

So, most are just willing to give in, roll over and just take whatever they dish out?

I'm not,, but I am also not going to live in some fantasy land where things work they way I think they should. FAA holds ALL the cards right now. Until another Pirker case comes up where they fine somebody who then has the resources to fight them in court, there is next to nothing that we can do. Just the simple reality.