SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 10, 2014, 07:17 PM
Too many numbers
United States, OH, Troy
Joined Oct 2010
1,790 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burntpixel View Post
Could you expand on why it is in your opinion significant?
Lol. You're really late in the game my friend... Maybe you should read the judge's opinion- and look carefully at the names of the defendant and their COUNCIL.
c131frdave is offline Find More Posts by c131frdave
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 10, 2014, 10:34 PM
Preserve our right to FPV !!!!
melsailsnorth's Avatar
United States, CA, Chico
Joined Dec 2010
914 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia View Post
I'm not asking you to spend money on being filmed as you work. I'm asking you to think twice before putting out video that appears to be actively dismissive about safety, and which encourages people who don't know better to, for example, fly through street traffic without a word from you saying "closed course" or "all cars in this scene were driven by people were involved in the production" or "the police car that it looks like we're baiting is actually in on this, we worked it all out in advance - we would never actually fly around an active patrol car like that," etc.

If you can afford the time to type thousands of words in your reputational defense here, you can afford the time it takes to type some simple guidance into a caption on a YouTube vid. Except I believe that would interfere with the marketing tone you've embraced, which attempts to waive off thoughts about safety as being uncool for that audience. Cavalier coolness and authority-baiting has appeared to be more important to you than communicating with your prospective customers about safety.



No, in your case, what matters is that your internet evangelizing is deliberately made to appear risky - to get a rise out of fellow would-be rebels, in order to sell them stuff.



Oh, brother.
All this perceived culpability with regard to advertising or marketing is something that is so inherently American IMHO. Most likely because we happen to reside in the most letigious society on the planet. You can hardly sell a roll of toilet paper in the good ole USA without the proper warning labels and waivers. I understand your perceived effect his videos might have on the rest of us pilots but I"m wondering if anyone has demonstrated this by causing injury, property damage, or by even getting reprimanded while attempting to replicate something that they saw on his videos? I'm not even convinced warnings would have the intended effect. Collin's (DJI) videos are chuck-full of warnings and the like but it hasn't stopped countless new Phantom owners that go out and fly above people or in other very dangerous circumstance despite having no piloting experience or understanding of the equipment that they are flying. Despite how his videos may come across to some, I always figured the majority of those seeking TBS products were guys with enough experience to see-through any video antics.. They do demand (for the most part) quite a bit more building, understanding and know-how to get them in the air. It's the aforementioned products that any nut can "buy and fly" the very same day that have me much more concerned with regard to public safety and/or public perception.
melsailsnorth is offline Find More Posts by melsailsnorth
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 02:21 AM
Whadda YOU lookin' at?
CactusJackSlade's Avatar
United States, CA, Folsom
Joined May 2002
2,554 Posts
I've been doing AP/AV for over 10 years and have been watching this unfold.... well.... for 10 years or more...

Technology is now allowing us to do things now that push the envelope on many levels.

I've seen previous posts reguarding Trappy as a "great inspirational pioneer in aviation" and congratulating him on all this. Hummmm

Watching Trappy's video's, in my opinion, does not help the negative issues that surround FPV and commercial use of "drones" (I dislike that word).

Although his videos are very "cool" I've been absolutely lambasted on this very forum for a flight I took and flew (briefly) overhead a group of spectators at a race... an very minor oversight compared to some of Trappy's (and many others) flights. I'm not completely innocent in my entire FPV career either, but I make an extreme effort to be much safer in my flights now-a-days.

Watching Trappy's videos sure looks fun and maybe in the back of everyone's mind we are all thinking how cool would that be... SO much fun. BUT I would not want to be the one on the receiving end of a flying wing going 60 mph through a dark bridge underpass. The liability issues are very real and the possibility of injury is very real.

The thing I see of value is that maybe, just maybe these issues have been forced to the forefront and maybe a resolution can be had sooner than later... at least for smaller "drones" (there is that word again.... we need a new one).

I used to shoot aerial photos for the real estate industry 10 years ago, but stopped because of the FAA/commercial use fuss. I eagerly would like to re-enter that industry. I still worry about the negative press and pressure that can be made of "irresponsible" flying and the video's posted.

I went to a gig yesterday to shoot an event I shot last year fro the promoter. This year TWO other FPV flyers turned up out there with Phantom's. One was fairly knowledgeable, the other a greenhorn, clueless and flying over everyone's heads, including a group of kids.... and I mean only 10-15 feet above their heads. Watching how they flew I bet they had less than 10 battery packs under (her) belt.

Afterwards I had a "talk" with them and they were accepting of my point of view and realized in hindsight possible dangers.. but this was in HINDSIGHT. With the "Phantom Invasion" this will be and is already a common occurrence I'm sure.

After 7 years of flying and taking aerial video/photos at my own events the state park where i am doing my events informed me that a directive from the California Film Commission now expressly prohibits the "commercial use of drones" on state Parks property. This effectively puts the kibosh on what I've been doing for several years... at my own events.... really, you've got to be kidding me. Because i use the video to promote my event, it is (of course) deemed commercial.

The new technology is incredible and the sights we can bring to the world are amazing... I just hope that dangerous flying does not jeopardize the future ability for us to fly in a reasonable manor, commercially or non-commercially.

I'm not out to lambaste anybody, I would simply hope that people fly in a reasonable safe way as to not antagonize the already media hyped populous... and FAA.
CactusJackSlade is offline Find More Posts by CactusJackSlade
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 02:55 AM
Registered Pilot
bmschulman's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2006
922 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CactusJackSlade View Post
After 7 years of flying and taking aerial video/photos at my own events the state park where i am doing my events informed me that a directive from the California Film Commission now expressly prohibits the "commercial use of drones" on state Parks property. This effectively puts the kibosh on what I've been doing for several years... at my own events.... really, you've got to be kidding me. Because i use the video to promote my event, it is (of course) deemed commercial.
The CFC no-permit policy is the direct result of its "thorough investigation" of the FAA's 2007 policy-based ban.

http://www.filmmonterey.org/mcfc-pdf...05-31-2011.pdf

Quote:
After a thorough investigation researching Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies and advisories regarding the commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) the CFC will no longer issue any film or still photography permits that intend to use such UAS as part of the filming equipment. Any remote controlled airborne devices either carrying photographic equipment of any kind used for commercial purposes or flying to be photographed for still or film commercial purposes is not yet regulated and therefore not authorized by the FAA.
bmschulman is offline Find More Posts by bmschulman
RCG Plus Member
Old Mar 11, 2014, 03:16 AM
Whadda YOU lookin' at?
CactusJackSlade's Avatar
United States, CA, Folsom
Joined May 2002
2,554 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman View Post
The CFC no-permit policy is the direct result of its "thorough investigation" of the FAA's 2007 policy-based ban.

http://www.filmmonterey.org/mcfc-pdf...05-31-2011.pdf
And thus why I did not bother applying for a permit this year.... Thanks for the exact quote.
CactusJackSlade is offline Find More Posts by CactusJackSlade
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 06:10 AM
Launch the drones ...
Ashtabula, OH USA
Joined May 1999
2,775 Posts
To moderators

Let trappy rejoin. You do a disservice to RCG with the Trappy ban. The trappy ban makes RCG look biased, political and venal.

Is that what RCG is?
Tim Green is offline Find More Posts by Tim Green
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 08:40 AM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,400 Posts
"line of sight", which means the airspace as observed from the spotter.


"None of the NYC flight(s) were beyond visual line of sight. Far from it. In the TBS interpretation of the word "line of sight", which means the airspace as observed from the spotter. Not the historic defitition by the AMA of "being able to see your aircraft". The pilot - and I think you correctly addressed this point - is incapable of seeing an aircraft head on through the FPV goggles anyway until it is too late.

We have argued this definition of "line of sight" over the past 6 years or so to regulatory agencies that listened, and a lot of them are warming up to the idea (I'm not saying that's necessarily because of us ... but because it makes sense). the AMA is welcoming of our definition, by the way, and in my discussion with Rich Hanson he only showed concern that the FAA would not give them a "GO" on that otherwise it makes perfect sense and they would adapt it instantly."


Once all this churn settles down, this point should be the core of the community's safety rules proposal...

My own experience with the FAA and AMA concur with TBS's...

This concept is the best compromise between "see and avoid" and the way we fly as FPV hobbyists. We should embrace it if we are to have any hope of acceptance by the entire aviation community who's safety is the FAA's primary concern.
scrtsqrl is offline Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Last edited by scrtsqrl; Mar 11, 2014 at 08:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 09:02 AM
Registered User
North vancouver, B.C. Canada
Joined Apr 2008
18,504 Posts
Here is AMA rules including definition of Los

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf
David22 is offline Find More Posts by David22
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Mar 11, 2014, 09:55 AM
Launch the drones ...
Ashtabula, OH USA
Joined May 1999
2,775 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by David22 View Post
Here is AMA rules including definition of Los

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf
a) FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy-box system with an FPV spotter, or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy-box system is used.
b) All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight.

The AMA is obviously behind the tech curve, regarding the 33g ladybird fpv.
Tim Green is offline Find More Posts by Tim Green
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 10:08 AM
Registered User
North vancouver, B.C. Canada
Joined Apr 2008
18,504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Green View Post
a) FPV novice pilots undergoing training at low altitude must use a buddy-box system with an FPV spotter, or must go to a safer altitude if no buddy-box system is used.
b) All FPV flights require an AMA FPV pilot to have an AMA FPV spotter next to him/her maintaining VLOS with the FPV aircraft throughout its flight.

The AMA is obviously behind the tech curve, regarding the 33g ladybird fpv.
I think they are only concerned about larger planes like a global hawk

However I did see a fpv ladybird crash into a turbine jet the other day
Nearly causing a fatal accident at our local club


The owner of the jet was really mad at the fpv ladybird operator for not following fpv AMA rules
His jet cost like 39000$ and was a total loss along with fpv ladybird copter
David22 is offline Find More Posts by David22
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Mar 11, 2014, 10:19 AM
Launch the drones ...
Ashtabula, OH USA
Joined May 1999
2,775 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by David22 View Post
I think they are only concerned about larger planes like a global hawk

However I did see a fpv ladybird crash into a turbine jet the other day
Nearly causing a fatal accident at our local club


The owner of the jet was really mad at the fpv ladybird operator for not following fpv AMA rules
His jet cost like 39000$ and was a total loss along with fpv ladybird copter
You saw it? How exactly did this occur? Details, or you are just passing gas.

Edit - 24 hours later - the world awaits David22's reply - and nothing .... just the gas he passed earlier.
Tim Green is offline Find More Posts by Tim Green
Last edited by Tim Green; Mar 12, 2014 at 08:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2014, 04:17 PM
Registered Pilot
bmschulman's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2006
922 Posts
Press release issued by Team BlackSheep in response to NTSB decision.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11660722.htm

Hong Kong (PRWEB) March 11, 2014

Team BlackSheep is pleased with the dismissal of proposed FAA fines directed at its lead pilot, Raphael “Trappy” Pirker, (National Transportation Safety Board, Docket No. CP-217) announced on March 6th, 2014. The civil penalty, proposed in connection with Mr. Pirker’s operation of a videography drone at the University of Virginia in October 2011, was dismissed on the ground that at the time, “there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as [unmanned aircraft systems].”

“I hope that the March 6 decision by the NTSB administrative law judge will create a path forward for beneficial use of civilian drones in the United States, after years of regulatory delay,” said Mr. Pirker. “I also anticipate that it will prompt an international discussion about the appropriate level of regulation for small, lightweight airborne robots that bear almost no resemblance to the passenger aircraft that aviation agencies were historically established to regulate over 60 years ago.”

Team BlackSheep takes safety very seriously and does not view the decision as a license to use drones in an irresponsible manner. Many of the Team’s aerial videos demonstrate dramatic flying styles using equipment that has been rigorously tested, flown by drone pilots with proven experience. These operations involve safety measures and operational protocols that are not visible in the final production videos. Mr. Pirker has 18 years of experience piloting radio-control drones, including test flights in extreme weather conditions, and the Team boasts a perfect zero-injury safety record. Team BlackSheep invests considerable amounts of its revenue into research and development to make its civilian drones safe and reliable. The Team also works with community-based organizations in various countries to help implement or improve voluntary safety guidelines for model aircraft (drone) operators. In addition, they advise customers and all drone operators not to undertake advanced drone photography missions until they have established complete confidence in their equipment and skills.

Mr. Pirker was represented by Brendan Schulman, head of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems practice at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

“We understand that the FAA intends to appeal the decision. We are disappointed that the agency feels that continued litigation is the appropriate path forward for this emerging industry,” said Mr. Schulman. “However, Mr. Pirker will continue to defend against this unprecedented attempt to impose a penalty that has no basis in any law or regulation, and the nearly decade-long commercial drone ‘ban’ that sends the wrong message to high-tech innovators and entrepreneurs.”
bmschulman is offline Find More Posts by bmschulman
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by bmschulman; Mar 13, 2014 at 12:24 AM. Reason: Removed link to TBS website (part of press release)
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2014, 03:12 AM
Official Boat Bum
Eddie P's Avatar
United States, NV, Reno
Joined Mar 2000
7,257 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmschulman View Post
Press release issued by Team BlackSheep in response to NTSB decision.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11660722.htm

Hong Kong (PRWEB) March 11, 2014

Team BlackSheep is pleased with the dismissal of proposed FAA fines directed at its lead pilot, Raphael “Trappy” Pirker, (National Transportation Safety Board, Docket No. CP-217) announced on March 6th, 2014. The civil penalty, proposed in connection with Mr. Pirker’s operation of a videography drone at the University of Virginia in October 2011, was dismissed on the ground that at the time, “there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as [unmanned aircraft systems].”

“I hope that the March 6 decision by the NTSB administrative law judge will create a path forward for beneficial use of civilian drones in the United States, after years of regulatory delay,” said Mr. Pirker. “I also anticipate that it will prompt an international discussion about the appropriate level of regulation for small, lightweight airborne robots that bear almost no resemblance to the passenger aircraft that aviation agencies were historically established to regulate over 60 years ago.”

Team BlackSheep takes safety very seriously and does not view the decision as a license to use drones in an irresponsible manner. Many of the Team’s aerial videos demonstrate dramatic flying styles using equipment that has been rigorously tested, flown by drone pilots with proven experience. These operations involve safety measures and operational protocols that are not visible in the final production videos. Mr. Pirker has 18 years of experience piloting radio-control drones, including test flights in extreme weather conditions, and the Team boasts a perfect zero-injury safety record. Team BlackSheep invests considerable amounts of its revenue into research and development to make its civilian drones safe and reliable. The Team also works with community-based organizations in various countries to help implement or improve voluntary safety guidelines for model aircraft (drone) operators. In addition, they advise customers and all drone operators not to undertake advanced drone photography missions until they have established complete confidence in their equipment and skills.

Mr. Pirker was represented by Brendan Schulman, head of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems practice at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

“We understand that the FAA intends to appeal the decision. We are disappointed that the agency feels that continued litigation is the appropriate path forward for this emerging industry,” said Mr. Schulman. “However, Mr. Pirker will continue to defend against this unprecedented attempt to impose a penalty that has no basis in any law or regulation, and the nearly decade-long commercial drone ‘ban’ that sends the wrong message to high-tech innovators and entrepreneurs.”
Well this press release looks a little awkward now, doesn't it.
Eddie P is offline Find More Posts by Eddie P
RCG Plus Member
Old Jun 28, 2014, 10:21 PM
FPV Racer - N4FPV
Eddie James's Avatar
United States, GA, Kennesaw
Joined Sep 2009
858 Posts
The fat lady is bellowing.

Eddie James is offline Find More Posts by Eddie James
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: CavCam, Inc.
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2014, 01:52 AM
Registered User
HoverbotFPV's Avatar
Joined Dec 2013
60 Posts
Looks like that statement is what sealed all rc down there as flying robots and drones. Why would they not just call the rc aircraft? Was regulation the result of the win, lots in the statement that sounds more like classification for future rules like you have now. Sketchy set-up?
HoverbotFPV is offline Find More Posts by HoverbotFPV
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Your plans are now legally substandard, but don't blame the law MtnGoat Life, The Universe, and Politics 173 Feb 25, 2014 03:09 PM
Discussion FAA to allow Commercial Drones(new law)! glmccready Multirotor Talk 19 Nov 08, 2013 11:53 AM
Yippee! Drone Pilot Challenges FAA on Commercial Flying Ban chuenwe Multirotor Talk 2 Nov 01, 2013 11:22 PM
Discussion FAA Approves Commercial Drone Use philip frank Aerial Photography 14 Aug 12, 2013 11:44 AM
Discussion Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal craab Life, The Universe, and Politics 96 Mar 08, 2013 08:03 AM