A True Atrocity

Paul Marsh October 3, 2011 at 6:44pm

This might not add much to the conversation other than some entertainment value, but my first exposure to the idea of using a model airplane to cause damage, if not carry explosives, was in a 1965 episode of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. -- The Mad, Mad Tea Party Affair. I had a vague memory of a model airplane flying into U.N.C.L.E. headquarters to show how terrible their own security was. It took some digging, but I found it! Here, the nefarious Mr. Hemingway flies a model plane into said headquarters. If my memory serves, he later told U.N.C.L.E. it could have carried explosives (he also put goldfish in the tap water--i.e. could have been poison--but that's another story).

Actually, what made me think of this was the AMA's expression of "shock and outrage" at the notion. I would have thought that such a news story would have come as no surprise. By the way, this U.N.C.L.E. episode was shown on national TV at a time when there wasn't nearly as much to choose from (in other words, a high percentage of TV viewers would have seen this) and the model airplane hobby didn't suffer. Granted, very few people ever heard the term "terrorist" back then. Things are different now, but I'm optimistic that this latest event won't damage the hobby either.

Gustav Kuhn October 2, 2011 at 12:00am

I really hope sanity prevails amongst officialdom, regarding this incident.

As so rightly pointed out, on our scale of aircraft, even if you could deliver a payload with some precision, damage would be minimal.

Easier, and probably cheaper, to get some suicidal maniac to learn to pilot a Cessna 4 seater, load it with a fertilizer based bomb, and point him somewhere.........

Of course, the 1 ton panel van has been a favorite weapon of choice in that scenario too.

Ban those to ?

Jeffrey Torella October 1, 2011 at 11:13pm

on that note has anyone here had the id's copied and info taken while buying hobby fuels im getting tired of that!!!!!

Moderator

Michael Pursifull October 1, 2011 at 11:03pm

Depending on how you define that, he was never one of us, he did not subscribe to the mission statement, and if he was ever here, it was not for the reasons that we are here. In fact, if he had, and explained his engineering goals in ways that hid his agenda (substituted other mass items like cameras, etc) I suspect he'd have gotten good engineering advise - that his plans are entirely unsuitable for aerial flight. ... but I understand your meaning. According to the documents released so far, he had several aliases. I have never found any member profiles under any of the names publicly associated with him, and I looked, though not comprehensively.

I can report, in my own experience as an observer, that this community does not take the issue lightly, and it deals quickly and harshly with members who intend even suggest using their UAVs as destructive devices, even if sUAVs are very unsuitable for that purpose.

3D Robotics

Chris Anderson October 1, 2011 at 11:00pm

As best we can tell, he was not a member of this community. No record of his name or the pseudonyms he used elsewhere. He was a member of RC Groups, however, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. There is no evidence that he knew anything about UAVs. He was just learning about RC when he was busted.

Jeffrey Torella October 1, 2011 at 10:53pm

does anyone know if he was one of us community wise, or just another wise ass