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
I think the coming ban-hammer is something that we can't avoid using "observe and report". Once FPV, really the combo of li-po, go-pro, and youtube, came along a clock started ticking and the advent of a "Trappy" was unavoidable. If not him then it would have been someone else. There is actually a much more dangerous version of "Trappy" in south america who just happens to not use go-pro cameras, so his stuff looks like shit. He uses no spotters and flies much lower. At least when he does it now it's a commerical operation with insurance.
Robert, if flying at an airfield, the people there accept the fact that they are in a hazardous area, and people flying their are either highly skilled or under supervision. This is why it's "safer".
However flying in an urban area, people are not aware of the dangers. It's fine if people want to risk their own safety, but it's a different story to take it upon yourself to risk someone else's. Bottom line is that care must be taken to ensure public safety at all times.
The whole point of advocating safety, is that we don't want laws being passed. You're exactly right, governments only pass laws, when enough of the public get scare of something. By flying safely, we prevent the public from fearing us.
@Paul, I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong. This is case closed. It's done. This really happened, and that was the result. You can look it up yourself. There was a HUGE thread on RC Groups where they put on a man-hunt to find the culprit, which they did. And that was the result. No charges laid.
The difference between you wielding a stick, and that pilot, was intention. He did not intend to hit her. He claims he had a radio glitch. The police determined that their chances of prosecution were too low.
If I throw a stick at you, then that's assault. If I throw a stick for my dog to fetch, and accidentally hit you, it's not. That's the difference.
@John, your point about traffic deaths is exactly what I was getting at. 40,000 people die every year while making the choice to be anywhere near a roadway. In this case, they were on a road with people driving around, and an RC aircraft flying overhead. Yet these people want airplanes banned, but not cars. I don't get it.
If Trappy had been flying through livingroom windows, then maybe you'd have a point. Still, lots of cases where cars crashed through living room windows, so that can't be presumed to be 100% safe either.
@Robert, I think I have already pointed out to you that the risk of being hit by RC plane is less than the risk of being hit by the car only because cars on the streets outnumber RC planes. So you can't compare involved risks directly. If we continue comparison with cars, average person being out on the street you can predict with certain degree of confidence behavior of drivers. It's nearly impossible to predict where Trappy will fly next.
The difference in accepting the car risk and RC plane risk is exactly in the act of acceptance. One of the risks is accepted by people, the other one isn't.
sorry robert, I can't agree with or see the sense in any of your comments
@John, when it concerns public safety, risks are usually weighed against the benefits of positive outcome. That's why we have cars, civil aviation, nuclear power stations and many other things. Trappy is the only one benefiting from his flights
@John, there's no need for political relativism here. This is a website dedicated to UAV's....not FPV. But his stunts will effect both FPV and UAV when he hurts someone. The stupidity of the people standing on the sidewalk right next to that heli is that they didn't move away. They could see the moron flying right next to their heads and yet they didn't move. In Trappy's case, they probably won't even see it coming.
It seems bizarre to me that everyone can agree that that heli pilot was a moron, but Trappy's videos are not much different and 1/2 the people pat him on the back.
@Simon: Are you willfully choosing to ignore the point that anybody standing anywhere near a street has chosen to accept the MUCH greater risk of being hit by a car?
Please, other than the fact that the risk of an airplane is not "normal", tell me what is the difference between a person accepting the risk of being hit by a car, and that of being hit by an RC airplane?
Also, in the video I posted, and many others on Youtube involving pedestrians, the pedestrian wsa paying attention and obviously saw they were going to be hit, but still couldn't do anything to prevent it. So back to my point about not really being any safer at an airfield...
@All the safety people: Do you not realize that your language, all the fire and brimstone stuff you are saying, might eventually be the cause of legislative action rather than any actual facts about public safety or actual risks? The #1 way that laws are passed in our society are when the government manages to strike fear in the hearts of a majority of the population (whether or not there is any real reason to be fearful).
Don't be part of that.
@Robert, you're dead wrong. That would be assault. The police absolutely can charge that heli pilot with something. If I picked up a stick and whipped it at someone's head, that's assault.
As the logic of the challenges to Trappy's flight continue - so much of it is speculative, this or that could have happened. Let's apply that logic to driving a car. Well, some 40,000 are dead every year in the US after some 50 years of "improvements" in automobiles. Many more are disabled, injured and suffer property damage. That is fact, not speculation, not conjecture. I suggest you make your banning efforts be directed at the automotive area, after all, you have so much more to gain in practical results.
Or how about objecting to the pharmaceutical industry, which, on an occasion of a "drug" gone wrong - take Merk for example, lost ie: died from taking a drug, some 40,000 people. These were with FDA approval, so you can be sure it was tested. Right?
Perhaps you can object to the drone or NATO attack yesterday in Pakistan of people, there are actually 40 dead people. There they are, freshly buried. What a cause? Go for it! And drones are involved? Have at the danger argument::No problem, they are dead. See, that's easy.
Oh, wait. Hollywood just lost a stunt man filming a movie with Sylvester Stallone. Here's another worthy cause. Actual damages, not speculative.
Yea, maybe building a drone is looking for attention but then so is a suicide bomber, or an actor, or comedian, or folks in the limelight. Yep, lawyers are lining up to cash in on the henious display of magnificant flying shown by the video. Oh, wait, no they aren't. How about administrators. They are absolutely loving the controversary like a low budget flick desperately needing to improve sales.
Why not object to the carrier groups moving like wolves, loaded up with nukes, rock n roll ready to party from two superpowers over 40 dead, two thirds of Pakistan's currency value lost, and posturing for yet another bigger theater of war? Or, how anemic the manipulated and value sucking US dollar has become after QE 1, 2, and new improved stealth QE 3 is doing - ah the joy of printing money. Any of those causes bring out such passion in your self? How about the Euro with political "leaders" about to bring down governments sovereignty over money gone bad? Surely, fighting for that is a worthy cause?
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 19 Next