UAV / FPV Forum to talk about UAV / FPV electric R/C flight.

"Trappy" gets slapped with a $10K fine!

Old 03-16-2014, 02:50 AM
  #126  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

Originally Posted by hayofstacks View Post
I don't see how laws and regulations that have to do with "drones" have nothing to do with trappy, but what ever I guess.
I don't think anyone is saying Laws and Regs don't have - but use of Drones by authorities is a different ball-game to Trappy and his street antics with a model.

I honestly hope he gets out of it without a fine, and overall I think that is going to be how it all ends. being as the judge has decided the faa has constantly avoided regulation our hobby, and there are no actual laws in place against anything he did, I don't see how he could end up with a fine and
As I read - he was barely in control of this model at times and was flying in a crowded public place ... how many times have we all posted about dangers of props etc.
It's standard advice to all even in Chinglish RTF manuals - Do not fly where people are etc. Do not fly in restricted areas.

I'm not saying what he did was right or I condone it, but I would very much hate to be banned from flying anything I own in anyway.
I have great respect for you Hawk ... and we have a lot of similar views and I agree that we don't want restrictions to be result of his stupidity, but I have to differ and hope that he gets everything thrown at him. My main reason for that is to deter others from doing same. If he gets away with it - who else is going to do it ? Some spotty little kid who can hardly hold a model let alone fly it ... then what happens ? What restrictions will be then ? Who wants the results on their conscience ?

Precedent has to be set. Trappy is that point. Not only that - but having read through some of the on-line of his group and followers ... they are one self-centred, devil may care bunch. Do we really need that sort of publicity ?

All the time most public regard us as flying 'toys' - that's actually good. Means we are only lightly legislated ... but as soon as majority realise what we really have in our hands ... Trappy having done a wonderful job there - bang goes your parks and areas to fly.

Think I'm exaggerating ? How many posts already about park or football field not available .. groundsman ... dog-walker ... etc. complaining about models.

We really do not need someone flying in a street and doing what he did.

Where does it end ? can you imagine my T45 ballistic missile in Times Square ?

Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 03:39 AM
  #127  
hayofstacks
Super Contributor
 
hayofstacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,780
Default

I agree with everything you said.

Although I am really not big on the ama, they have done a great deal for our hobby and have saved many modelers and worked with the faa to try to set specific rules and regulations to prevent things like this from happening. if they can do that here, hopefully we get something we call all live with.

Where I fly more often then not, is a church on private property and have permission to fly there. there is a street that can be busy on both sides of it, but it has a fantastic parking lot for east-west and north-south takeoffs, meaning you only have to land crosswind if you want to.

I've been flying with a group of local guys as well at a park, again with permission. we have our own little corner and even set up cones and things to try to map out an area for us to fly in without interfering or bothering anyone.

My biggest fear is the faa trying to regulate where you fly to the point of it being impossible for me to fly on either private or public land. we also occasionally go out to a chunk of salt flats that's owned by the department of national resources. any rules or set laws could easily take places like this from those of us that do try to be safe and courteous to anyone who may be near.

That's the only reason I hope he gets away with it. I really don't want to be restricted because of something someone else did. our best bet is for him to get off Scott free and hope everyone forgets about it, or if it is regulated, get away with as minimal intrusions as possible.
hayofstacks is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 03:53 AM
  #128  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

OK ... but my fear is that IF he gets of scot free - then others may follow and do similar .... thinking that if he can do it - why can't I.

It's a road to severe regulation - just what you are afraid of.

I know it's a different arena ... but in UK certain dog breeds are banned totally.

Sensible owners who kept them in suitable conditions found themselves having to kill their dogs because some idiots chose to keep 'fighting breed' dogs with children. There are two particularly nasty shocking court cases where young children were torn apart by 'lovely family pets' .....

I know it's an extreme comparison, but what I am trying to say - is for the stupid few - the majority suffer.

Those breeds are now banned because people are stupid enough to ignore the common sense rules of where and how to keep such breeds. Lesser rules and light penalties in the past only allowed more idiots to keep them, further ignoring the character and type of breed. It took the tearing apart of young children .. one was so badly mauled - they failed to find all pieces of her.

What if some idiot flies a quad in the street ... has a moment of **** and it crashes into a baby walker or other person ...

I usually object to scare-mongering that some do in threads ... but this is one time that it is valid.

Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 04:37 AM
  #129  
hayofstacks
Super Contributor
 
hayofstacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,780
Default

Thumbs up man. like I said, we are on the same page
hayofstacks is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 04:41 AM
  #130  
thepiper92
Warbird Fanatic
 
thepiper92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,513
Default

It is very similar to dogs. As you can see by my profile pic, I have the sort of dog many are afraid off, yet she is a great dog who likes cuddling and playing. There are many dogs that are banned here, so far only city wide, and these dogs are only dangerous because people like to have tough dangerous dogs and train them in such a way. Yes, these types dogs have more instinct typically, but for my dog that instinct is reserved for cat, rabbit and car chasing. It is all in the person who trains the dog. The same goes for planes, though you aren't training planes, in the fact that it is the general rules of banning that come to be because of the few who make situations (or dogs) dangerous. Is it fair, no, but thank those who do stupid things.
thepiper92 is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 05:11 AM
  #131  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

Originally Posted by thepiper92 View Post
It is very similar to dogs. As you can see by my profile pic, I have the sort of dog many are afraid off, yet she is a great dog who likes cuddling and playing. There are many dogs that are banned here, so far only city wide, and these dogs are only dangerous because people like to have tough dangerous dogs and train them in such a way. Yes, these types dogs have more instinct typically, but for my dog that instinct is reserved for cat, rabbit and car chasing. It is all in the person who trains the dog. The same goes for planes, though you aren't training planes, in the fact that it is the general rules of banning that come to be because of the few who make situations (or dogs) dangerous. Is it fair, no, but thank those who do stupid things.
Hi 92 ...

I agree that an animal can be subject to who and how trained - but there are some that are naturally by instinct and evolution totally unsuited to domestic in-house life. And leaving such alone with children is criminal.
Dogs such as Pit Bull ... Ridge-backs ... etc. are such that they should not be in hands of casual idiots.

I have 4 big dogs at home and grew up with German Shepherds. I regard myself as responsible enough to have such and I also understand others fears and concerns. I always keep my dogs away until the persons themselves are ready to meet them. BUT one of them - the Doberman / Alsation mix - I am reluctant to allow with strangers. She has the quick reaction of the Dobie and is not one to take lightly.

It really is not just a matter of training, it is picking the right breed and environment mix so that problems are minimised. Natural instinct and behaviour developed over years cannot be programmed out ... ask any Zoo Keeper.

Sorry to digress ..
Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 05:18 AM
  #132  
thepiper92
Warbird Fanatic
 
thepiper92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,513
Default

Yes correct, clearly instinct comes into play to a large degree, and a person is just as much of an idiot training a dog to be bad as they are leaving an instinctual one with little kids and so one. Our Rotty we only trust with those she knows, although she gets to be trusting very quickly. I would not let her around anyone until she shows some signs of calming, in which I would slowly allow her or the person to come closer. She is still however instinctual, no matter how loving. On the other hand, such dogs should not be banned I feel, but the people who do not train or watch over the dogs properly that should be punished. This, of course, is not going to happen, the same as if any laws are made because of people like Trappy; laws will not be made against people like him, but even against those who are responsible.
thepiper92 is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 05:37 AM
  #133  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

That's the problem ... The MANY suffer because of the FEW.

Traffic laws are a prime example, they exist because some people just can't drive sensibly. They fail to understand a vehicles and THEIR limits endangering others.

Trappy - if he pushes this and gets of ... I can imagine a group who will object and then we not only have idiots who follow his example, but maybe a pressure group or similar baying for extreme restrictions affecting everyone.
If the penalties remain - news is dead basically. If he gets of and penalties are voided - it becomes news again.

Then we will see all the 'dirt' resurrected ... remember the Heli guy who near decapitated himself not so long ago ? The kid that was hit in the park ?


Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 07:38 AM
  #134  
spog
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16
Default

There is a difference with FPV'ers. How many of them are happy flying line of sight at the field with a spotter at a low altitude? They all want the same thing, more and more range. This is one of those cases where the few (if any) should suffer because of the many. But the few are unlikely to suffer at all if they stick to the FPV that is responsible.
spog is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 07:45 AM
  #135  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

Originally Posted by spog View Post
There is a difference with FPV'ers. How many of them are happy flying line of sight at the field with a spotter at a low altitude? They all want the same thing, more and more range. This is one of those cases where the few (if any) should suffer because of the many.
I am very close friend of a guy who does a lot of FPV. I admire his work and persistence to attain performance out of his gear that I never imagined possible outside military circles.

But he will be first to say - there are others who are idiots with FPV and gear... idiots who will spoil it for the sensible people.

He flies out to ranges that are incredible - BUT he does not fly over towns or areas that could be a risk to those on the ground ... he plots out his arena for each flight, being careful. He has 'Get you homŽ' GPS systems on board etc. etc. all designed to be as safe as possible.

Unfortunately not everyone is as careful as he.

Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 03-16-2014, 07:49 AM
  #136  
spog
New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16
Default

Originally Posted by solentlife View Post
I am very close friend of a guy who does a lot of FPV. I admire his work and persistence to attain performance out of his gear that I never imagined possible outside military circles.

But he will be first to say - there are others who are idiots with FPV and gear... idiots who will spoil it for the sensible people.

He flies out to ranges that are incredible - BUT he does not fly over towns or areas that could be a risk to those on the ground ... he plots out his arena for each flight, being careful. He has 'Get you homŽ' GPS systems on board etc. etc. all designed to be as safe as possible.

Unfortunately not everyone is as careful as he.

Nigel
Careful as he may be, he is still a danger to full scale aircraft because he can't see or hear them coming.
spog is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 01:33 AM
  #137  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

A little news that AMA just got around to publishing......beter late than never...


NTSB judge rules FAA ban on commercial UAS/Drones unenforceable


Quad copter flown at the International Consumer Electronics Show, 1/8/2014 (AP Photo/Jae C Hong)


In a ruling late Thursday, 3/6, NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled that the FAA policy banning the commercial operation of unmanned aircraft is “non-binding”, hence unenforceable. The judge found that the policy wasn’t written as part of a formal rulemaking process and the FAA hadn’t complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The FAA policy was published in the Federal Register in 2007 and has effectively banned the operation of commercial and public use UAS in the national airspace over the past seven years.
This finding came as part of the judge ‘s ruling on attorney Brendan Schulman’s motion to dismiss FAA’s Order of Assessment against Raphael Pirker, aka “Trappy”. Mr. Pirker was fined $10,000 by the FAA under 14 CFR 91.13 for allegedly operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner while flying a UAS through the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia.
This ruling effectively lifts the ban on the commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft, those aircraft that would otherwise meet the description of a model aircraft.
It’s a bit too soon to say how the FAA will respond to the ruling, or what this means to the UAS community. But, by all accounts, this is a game changer.

Last edited by pizzano; 03-21-2014 at 01:50 AM.
pizzano is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 04:36 AM
  #138  
Larry3215
Look out for that tree!!!
 
Larry3215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gig Harbor, Wa USA
Posts: 7,061
Default

I have mixed feelings on that. I'm afraid the FAA will go over board in reaction to this "set back" to their authority and try to clamp down even harder on us average "non-commercial" RC folks.

Im also disappointed trappy wont get fined/punished. Im afraid this will make every idiot out there think they have a free license to be stupid.
Larry3215 is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 04:40 AM
  #139  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by Larry3215 View Post
I have mixed feelings on that. I'm afraid the FAA will go over board in reaction to this "set back" to their authority and try to clamp down even harder on us average "non-commercial" RC folks.

Im also disappointed trappy wont get fined/punished. Im afraid this will make every idiot out there think they have a free license to be stupid.
Yeah
If you hear any whining noises in your back yard that don't belong to you, be sure to put on your hard hat, and duck.
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 03-21-2014, 06:17 AM
  #140  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

Originally Posted by Larry3215 View Post
I have mixed feelings on that. I'm afraid the FAA will go over board in reaction to this "set back" to their authority and try to clamp down even harder on us average "non-commercial" RC folks.

Im also disappointed trappy wont get fined/punished. Im afraid this will make every idiot out there think they have a free license to be stupid.
I am not subject to FAA rulings ... but like many things, what is decided by FAA / CAA (ie bodies from recognised nations ... USA, UK, EU etc.) - they get picked up by others ... easy way to put in place rulings.

This whole 'Trappy' thing if not careful - will bring about over-kill in rulings and restrictions.

I agree with quoted ... 'Trappy' should be hung out to dry to show others NOT to be so stupid.

I can only assume that some do-gooder legal guy has stepped up and presented a case to this Judge ... and the Judge has taken only route he can ... It's worth the bet the Judge may not like the ruling he's been required to make.
FAA obviously like many Govt agencies around the world - overstepping their mark ... even if intention is good.

Sad day ...

Maybe it's time for you USA Modellers to stand up and make a voice of reason ?

Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 04:08 AM
  #141  
Eddie James
FPV Racer - N4FPV
 
Eddie James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4
Default

I personally feel that Trappy shouldn't be fined a thing. He didn't break any laws just as the judge properly ruled.

The FAA has dragged its feet in this Country and is literally hindering growth in a massive billion dollar market. They are being called on the carpet and are doubling down on their ineptness.

I don't agree with some of the ways Trappy has flown, but the bottom line is that he should not have been fined. If he hurts someone then he will be responsible via local laws.

Also, just to clarify for those line of sight pilots that don't fly FPV. You have a billion times more control flying FPV than flying LOS. I know from first hand experience - I have flown LOS for 25 years and FPV for around 4 years. If I had a choice from a safety standpoint I would have exceptionally more control in the cockpit FPV than trying to "see" a plane way over there "los".

In the category of control, LOS cannot remotely hold a candle to FPV. In fact, LOS is considerably more dangerous than FPV as far as flight control.

In fact, at my local AMA clubs (member of two) I fly within 3 feet of the treeline at an altitude of 10 feet all the way across a 30 acre field and small valley. All of the LOS pilots start screaming "YOU"RE GOING IN THE TREES!!!! YOU'RE going to crash!!! --- I just sit and smile with my goggles on and loop back around and land 3 steps from my chair.

I take my goggles off and look around and they are all going , WTH??? how did he do that?

If you've never done something don't talk about it like an authority until you get educated by doing it yourself.

Here is an old video of me flying through the woods and behind trees FPV. I was testing a linear 5.8 system back then. This is an impossibility flying LOS. You literally could not do it.

http://youtu.be/yYuRv2vZvs4

Last edited by Eddie James; 04-16-2014 at 04:36 AM.
Eddie James is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 05:24 AM
  #142  
Eddie James
FPV Racer - N4FPV
 
Eddie James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4
Default

This inept behemoth called the FAA is actually HINDERING search and rescue work using a 2 lb FOAM model airplane. Yes, they actually threaten someone trying to save someone's life with a valid technology and they are making ZERO dollars.

It totally boggles the mind and it is an American travesty.

The judge's ruling in the Pirker (Trappy) case basically said FAA you are full of you know what. And they ARE. The FAA is to the point of being criminal themselves. They have stunted the growth of an emerging industry in this Country and someone there should be held accountable and punished.

See link: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...rones-grounded

Last edited by Eddie James; 04-16-2014 at 05:50 AM.
Eddie James is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 06:51 AM
  #143  
crxmanpat
Community Moderator
 
crxmanpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 6,966
Default

I have two concerns with that article.

First of all, turbine jets are not doing 500kph passes in front of spectators. Somebody needs to get their facts straight.

Second, the FAA's concern here is for safety. If there is SAR going on in an area, then there are more than likely full scale helicopters in the area at the same time. I know the article says he coordinates with local authorities, but there was an incident a few years ago where a full scale and large 3D collided at a "coordinated" event. If I were a full scale SAR pilot, I would not even want the possibility of a UAV in my flight zone.
crxmanpat is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 07:15 AM
  #144  
kyleservicetech
Super Contributor
 
kyleservicetech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 8,952
Default

Originally Posted by crxmanpat View Post
I have two concerns with that article.

First of all, turbine jets are not doing 500kph passes in front of spectators. Somebody needs to get their facts straight.

Second, the FAA's concern here is for safety. If there is SAR going on in an area, then there are more than likely full scale helicopters in the area at the same time. I know the article says he coordinates with local authorities, but there was an incident a few years ago where a full scale and large 3D collided at a "coordinated" event. If I were a full scale SAR pilot, I would not even want the possibility of a UAV in my flight zone.
Yeah
I suspect if the rotors of a full scale heli hit one of those UAV's it would not be good.

If the heli pilot is lucky, perhaps just expensive repairs to the heli's rotor blades.
kyleservicetech is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 07:28 AM
  #145  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

Originally Posted by crxmanpat View Post
I have two concerns with that article.

First of all, turbine jets are not doing 500kph passes in front of spectators. Somebody needs to get their facts straight.

Second, the FAA's concern here is for safety. If there is SAR going on in an area, then there are more than likely full scale helicopters in the area at the same time. I know the article says he coordinates with local authorities, but there was an incident a few years ago where a full scale and large 3D collided at a "coordinated" event. If I were a full scale SAR pilot, I would not even want the possibility of a UAV in my flight zone.
Totally agree with you .... it's an either or situation - the two cannot mix.

Second - human eye and perception are different to a video camera.

Third - the Trappy affair is about flying a machine capable of serious injury / death and damage in a public area endangering life and property. It is not about Drones and use on SAR / Police / Military etc. services. It is about flying a machine which has potential to maim, kill, damage in a public area QED. Don't forget that also Trappy and his fellows attitude along with public statements affects rulings about them - as I read it - they are arrogant and believe themselves to be so right as to be excused the law.

Fourth - Although an FPV pilot may be able to fly within a few feet of trees etc. - the Field of View of the FPV is limited to only so many degrees either side of camera centre-line, wherever that cam is directed
you only see that with no side views or perceived spatial awareness.

Example : You are driving your car ... you are looking ahead ... you KNOW that another car is coming at you from the side ... not because you LOOKED at it - but your spatial awareness and field of view allows you to perceive its presence. With FPV - you have no chance of that. You simply do not know as you do not see it.

I have FPV friends who have a lot of experience with FPV ... and they say that you are wrong Mr. Eddie James Sir. That they still feel they have better awareness of overall situation with LoS ...

Imagine a SAR pilot ... he KNOWS what's around him .... Let's throw in a Drone flown by some guy on the ground looking at a screen .. we shall stay with screens as that is what they use - not Goggles. He only sees what camera delivers back to him .. poor old SAR pilot has to keep clear of the partially blind Drone.

A reality check needs to be brought in here methinks ...........

Nigel
solentlife is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 07:46 AM
  #146  
xmech2k
Ya got any Beeman's?
 
xmech2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,100
Default

+1 to Nigel's comment. An FPV rc craft is very slow compared to full scale aircraft, so an FPV operator will never see or hear them approaching from the sides or rear. And they'll approach a lot faster than you can imagine.
xmech2k is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 01:17 PM
  #147  
Eddie James
FPV Racer - N4FPV
 
Eddie James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4
Default

Hi Nigel - I disagree with all four points you made. They are simply wrong. When you have flown FPV for a number of years and can actually speak from personal experience and education on the subject let's discuss. We could go back and forth all day with he said / she said but it would be fruitless for both of us. I would say let's just agree to disagree. I just wanted to contribute a professional opinion on FPV to the discussion and this forum. I've built and flown about every FPV aircraft made, from a FOAM wing, to 3 FPV quad copters, to three FPV race planes. I've flown them all over the years. LOS cannot hold a candle to FPV as far as safety and control. Just no two ways about it. And that is coming from a 50 year old LOS guy that adores his nitro YS and OS engines (both 2 and 4 stroke).

I would encourage you to get a starter FPV plane and experience it for yourself. There is no doubt you would change (and open) your mind.

Pan / Tilt on your goggles enables you to see exactly where you point your head creating incredible spatial awareness. Literally, where you move your head - the camera (and your sight) goes. It is the same gimbal technology that stabilizes video on multi copters, and it is amazing.

Link (I am holding the Dominator goggles): http://vimeo.com/90930816

Good day sir!

.

Last edited by Eddie James; 04-16-2014 at 01:41 PM.
Eddie James is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 01:36 PM
  #148  
solentlife
Super Contributor
 
solentlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ex UK Brit now in Latvia west coast - Ventspils
Posts: 12,789
Default

In fact I have done FPV .... as close pal introduced me to it ... so I DO speak from hands on.

Yes - we disagree and I suggest that I will not be only one to disagree with you.... whether they have done FPV or not.

FPV goggles NEVER can give same FoV and spatial awareness of the human eye and it's awareness of side lobes etc. The car coming in from the side is prime example. Direction of view of goggles mimics the camera panning on FPV - it has NO side lobe spatial awareness or FoV as natural sight has.

There's a good video on Youtube that is the recording of an X8 FPV colliding with a Sbach Aerobatic machine. The FPV pilot was a very experienced operator. The Sbach pilot also very experienced. The Sbach was a 33cc Gasoline powered job and not a small model to have such happen with. The video shows clearly the LACK of side FoV and also the only knowledge of the Sbach was when it came into FORWARD view of the FPV camera.... at no time was there any warning as it came alongside ... etc.

I am subject to Opthalmic Surgeons reports with my career. One of the tests is looking straight ahead and his finger moves from next to my ear forward. Without looking to the side - I have to say when I detect in my FoV his finger ... and then to say when it momentarily disappears on continuing its forward movement, then it comes into real FoV of forward eye vision. Mr. James - you are trying to tell the world that your FPV goggles give you that capability ? Forgive me if I stifle a guffawing belly laugh at such a ridiculous claim !

I revert too the specific case of Trappy and his flying in public area. the case report even states clearly that at one point control was questionable.

I am not against Quads, FPV, Drones, any form of model flying - I am against any form in area that is unsuitable due to public access / use and safety.
I indulge in as many forms of model ... ground, air and water as I am able. I do not lightly enter discussions as some may think - I try to see from all angles.

Trappy should be hung drawn and 1/4'd and hung out to dry for all to see ... With a big sign pinned on : NOT ALL MODELLERS ARE SO STUPID AS THIS GUY

Nigel

Last edited by solentlife; 04-16-2014 at 01:54 PM.
solentlife is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 03:52 PM
  #149  
thepiper92
Warbird Fanatic
 
thepiper92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 1,513
Default

There is a reason why there is air traffic control, large jets, to me, can relate to fpv, as their size and cockpit location give a limited view. Without air traffic control, then no one would know where any plane was flying. With fpv, this predicament comes to be in any plane. Yes, you can pivot cameras, but it isn't like turning your head; movement of the camera distracts you from flying and is slower than a person actually looking around. About the only thing that I can see fpv helping you with is orientation, in that it allows you to not become directionally confused. If you are flying with no other planes, then fpv is okay. Fpv also posses the issue of you flying to far away, and a spotter becomes important often. I wouldn't mind fpv, but simply because of the experience, not because I would prefer it. I think it is a novelty, not some thing that improves many aspects of flight. Now I have never had experience in fpv, and this is just from looking at videos, but fpv no doubt removes spatial awareness and perception.
thepiper92 is offline  
Old 04-16-2014, 04:06 PM
  #150  
pizzano
Behold The Renaissance
 
pizzano's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: So. Calif
Posts: 2,316
Default

Geeez.......!

Everyone (to include myself) who has flown FPV (only twice) most certainly would agree that flying FPV is akin to flying a simulator. Even the UAS course programs state that your senses of balance (feel), hearing, spatial awareness, smell, peripheral awareness and depth perception will be compromised and you must re-learn how to manage (train) yourself to function without them.....end of debate!

As for the impact flying like Trappy has had on the hobby, rules and regulations.....that's really the debate here. That argument seems to be sorting itself out at many levels......just like when a stop sign is not installed at an interesection until someone (or many) have experienced harm or citation due to the unsafe conditions (or law violations) that have been reported, researched, analyzed, documented and judged!

Enough already......... on the personal feelings one may or may not have on Trappy getting his ass kicked!......We all know he has a history of being extreme with everything related to flying RC......it's documented every where......you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.......guys like Trappy will always exist....it's up to us to manage our own circle's of influence and relationships.....
pizzano is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.

Page generated in 0.14959 seconds with 11 queries