I know I'm probably going to get some heat for posting this, but some of you may enjoy a little collage of a "day in the life of a BlackSheep" nonetheless
If it helps, all approvals necessary were obtained, an army of ground helpers were available, as well as constant communication with the heliport tower to stay in the loop about incoming traffic.
Comments
@Simon, for me, it's not a question about "introducing new risks". It's about not introducing new restrictions on the freedoms we are all born with.
As long as the action is reasonable based on a logical analysis of risk, I think it should be allowed. What we are arguing, is if this action is reasonable or not. I think it is, you don't. I don't think we're going to resolve this, as neither one of us really has the tools to do a thorough analysis.
So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Should Trappy be banned? Well, what he did is not illegal. You strongly dislike it. If you could make the decision to ban him, you would. But how is that any different than censorship based on a person's dislike of another person's race, religion or sexual orientation? Throughout history, people have made dubious claims about the safety, morality, or civility of activities they don't like, and used those reasons to remove the freedom of others. I don't see how banning Trappy would be any different.
Trappy's exploits are a fringe interest, but they got me more into flying than I was before. His mountain flights are wonderful and have been a bridge that has allowed me to get a lot of other people into the hobby. It is pushing the issue, but FPV is an issue that was coming anyway as soon as someone took to the air with a crude camera and transmitter strapped to their plane.
Think about this .... sky diving still happens. It is legal. It is a legit hobby. Urban base jumping also happens and urban base jumping is the dark side of sky diving. It is not legal due to trespassing and often involves endangering the public. Trappy has done the legal homework. He is similar to the professional urban base jumpers who do public shows. Does this inspire the illegal crowd ? Yes. Can the community do anything about it other than "observe and report" ? No.
Believe me people complain about professional "legal" urban base jumpers, but people still do sky diving.
David and Robert, we will remember your comments when restrictive policies are implemented to stop Trappy's (and other morons like him) actions. Decisions like this are not made based on actual risk. I think the odds of Trappy actually hitting someone are very low. I have yet to see him flying over Times Square on New Year's eve, but I wouldn't put it past him. It's the "look at me" factor of Trappy coupled with his moronic stunts. He's pushing the issue....almost as if to dare the equally moronic politicians to come up with a law to stop him. How exactly does that help FPV or UAV? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Yes, I have not been paying much attention to Trappy's naval gazing here or on RCG....generally, he's not worth my time.
Never ending story!
Enjoy life. Enjoy flying. Enjoy friends. Enjoy people who can inspire. Enjoy people who are more clever than your. Don't use your life not enjoy, life too short not enjoying.
Be enjoyed, Enjoy being.
Just enjoy, thats what it's all about.
@Robert, as I have already said, I am not advocating banning RC flights or FPV flights or passing any kinds of laws. I am advocating sensible flying, which does not endager those who did not choose to be endangered.
While I am not exactly sure, how I lost the argument about *relative* risk of R/C airplane compared to other moving objects, your point seems to mostly focus around the statement, that since there already are risks, why not take some more. And I strongly disagree with you here. While there are risks which cannot be avoided, I don't see why this is the reason to introduce new ones.
@Paul, I almost forgot the comment about the heli video vs. the airplane video.
Here's the difference: Risk. ("Wait, isn't that what we're talking about?") Yeah. Risk. Number of people. Proximity. And time. Oh, and mechanical factors.
The heli in this case is VERY close to the people, and it is SURROUNDED by people. This increases the chance that should anything go wrong, it's almost guaranteed to hit at least one person. It is very close to them for a long time. This increases the odds that something should go wrong while the helicopter is near to them. Compare that to actual calculated risk that a person should be hit by the airplane should it go off in any one particular trajectory.
I estimate that the airplane has about about a 0.1% chance of hitting anybody. Just based on a geographical estimation. Size of the airplane, size and distance of targets, etc.
The helicopter has about a 70% chance of hitting somebody. The only way it would not hit somebody is if any fault should sent it directly downwards. And even then, if you've ever seen a heli do the funky chicken... you'll know that even the ground isn't safe.
Lastly, mechanical factors. Heli blades only weigh a few ounces each, but they are sharp, incredibly strong (carbon fiber) and traveling at about 600mph. Did you know they go that fast? They do. They are easily capable of causing extreme damage.
I take my kids to the airfield, and we watch RC airplanes flying. They can stand near me when I'm flying. When I'm flying the heli, I prefer if they stay inside the car.
I've even intentionally ditched a helicopter causing ~100$ in repairs when a child started unexpectedly running towards it.
The heli pilot in question is a POS. He ran away after he almost killed someone. I don't think Trappy is human garbage. The difference in danger between a heli and an FPV plane is light to dark. I own both. I fly a 450 size heli and I am much more careful with it that I am with my FPV plane. I would never dream about getting near people with my 450.
@Simon. Then we agree. The only real difference between the risk of a car vs. the airplane, is that the car is "normal" and the airplane is not. You make the assumption that the person on the street has accepted the risk due to the cars, but not the airplane, therefore airplanes should not be allowed to fly over streets. I disagree. Many more things can happen while walking on the street than just being hit by a car or RC airplane.
You could be assaulted by a criminal. You could be shot by a stray bullet fired by police trying to apprehend said villain (just happened around here). You could be hit by falling glass from the buildings (also just happened around here). Or falling concrete (also happened recently...) You could be hit by a real airplane crashing (happened... in the city). Do you think those people chose to accept the risk that they'd be hit by falling glass, or concrete, or real airplanes as they walked down that street? Do you think they even thought about it? I'll tell you what, they probably thought more about R/C airplanes than they did about falling concrete, as Trappy tells us they were warned.
Since you lost the argument about *relative* risk of an R/C Airplane compared to a car, or a baseball, or a chunk of foam from the space shuttle, you are now attempting to structure the argument to be about the absolute acceptance of risk of people walking down the street. That somehow a person has the ability to know and accept any normal risks, but is able to deny any risk which they do not consider normal.
We don't have that ability.
About the number of cars vs. the number of airplanes... that's exactly my point. How many moving cars did that person pass on their trip down the street? How many airplanes? Of course they are at greater risk of being hit by a car, than that airplane. That is exactly my point.
@ Paul .... I have read most of his threads on RC groups when he was getting started. I know he has talked to legal professionals. I know the FAA have contacted him. I know that he was employed by the college to do a publicity video. You aren't reading the thread very carefully are you ???
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 19 Next