Gary at sUAS News reports:
"sUAS News recently asked FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Peggy Gilligan about the First Person View flight undertaken in New York by Austrian Raphael Pirker.
As Associate Administrator, Ms. Gilligan leads the organization responsible for setting, overseeing, and enforcing safety standards for all parts of the aviation industry – airlines, manufacturers, repair stations, pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, and any person or product that operates in aviation. These programs have a direct impact on every facet of domestic and international civil aviation safety.
We are very grateful that Ms Gilligan took the time to answer, heres what she said.
“This event remains under investigation by FAA as well as by some law enforcement organizations in the NYC area. We do intend to notify the operator of the investigation — although I understand he is not a US citizen and we believe he is not in the US”
It will be interesting to see which particular rules may or may not have been broken during Trappys flight."
Comments
trappy may have valid points, but I personally am not impressed by his attitude. Sounds very immature calling people nitwits and claiming "douchebaggery"?, his point?
If he is going to do what he does, he could at least have some humility and at least admit he is doing outside of regulations.
Ok, nothing happened, but what if something did. What if his plane crashed into a building or street and hit someone...then would we be so quick to defend his actions.
I'd be willing to bet his plane weighs more than a seagull too, It is carrying lipos, camera, electronics. Birds don't weigh very much, that's why they can fly.
While the Peggy was trying trump up charges to nail Trappy, two airliners came withinn 200' of a mid air collision.
So much for priorities.
Although I think what you did was ill-timed, I gotta agree with you, nothing illegal about it.
1.law 2.enforcement 3.penalty much to be debated.
I am just glad we live in a great country that has a system of debate and investigation. With technology improving, sooner or later someone was going to make this flight. timing made Trappy the guy.
Obviously public safety number one, but I also want freedom to pursue my safe hobby.
Trying to stay objective and listen to all sides.
I think Ms. Gilligan response very tactful.
Chris if not appropriate, delete my post. Thanks.
hahaha. Gary Evans, the city park I used does NOT forbid operation of remote-controlled aircraft. This is a prime example of internet-douchebaggery. I was there first hand, read the rules and talked to the cops and park rangers. I was also sent away in a couple of places before even flying, not because it was forbidden but because I would have needed to register to fly and because it was a national holiday the registration office was closed.
Give it up already, I did not break a single law and there is not a god damn thing you can do about it. I wasn't even what the law looks at as a UAV. Stop claiming I'm a criminal just because you're sour and give it a rest already.
And as to all the other nitwits that think regulations are going to be made because of a single flight ... there are 3 possible scenarios:
1) the FAA bans flying R/C in the restricted air zones due to this video. Big deal, you get worked up over it and wouldn't do it anyway, so if it's banned nothing changes for anyone except for the people you already think are jerks.
2) the FAA goes ahead as planned regardless of the NYC flight, as it has seen the widespread abuse of their regulations and thousands of people posting flights inside controlled airspace.
3) the FAA recognizes the need for regulation due to widespread business interest in the UAV marketplace and UAV vendors requesting to take part in restricted airspace to ease their testing process. The hobby segment will either be excluded or included, but for hobbyists nothing much will change
Given that #3 has been implemented across whole europe and pretty much everywhere that regulations have been made (the USA is actually VERY far behind on this one), and that's where financial interests are at play (always a good indicator when new laws are to be made), I'd say it's the most likely one. If I seriously thought even for a second that my flight could in any way, shape
It's called "occupational therapy". A strongly needed measure for state employees not to fall asleep during whet they call "work".
Wasn't his plane a zagi or something? ie a foam wing? It probably weighed less than a seagull. It may be possible to build an FPV plane that would fit in your hand. Would the general public still be scared of that? I doubt the rules make no distinction.
I think the general public just don't know enough about FPV - they see a birds eye view of the city, a view which could only be achieved previously by something heavy like a full sized heli which would cause carnage if it crashed on the city. How much carnage does a dead seagull cause when it falls out of the sky? it must happen, probably more often then fpv flights in NYC
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
of 13 Next