For filming a video, endanger the lives of others?

[ArrUnTuS]

I'll play you a video that's running like the gunpowder. Let no one be surprised when the laws get tougher. This can only be done by a complete brainless man. In this case in the USA.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[AH-1G]

This is really, really bad! There are going to be copy cats and one of those could cause fatalities.
We have enough doltish people out there as it is.
IMO, acts like this should land a person in jail, not any warnings!

 

[ArrUnTuS]

I have searched for information due to this video and its possible consequences specifically in the USA. I found this other video where they talk about fines and they're not meant to be a joke

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[eaglefreedom101]

I have to ask. Is this real? It looks like the aircraft just pops up on the screen out of nowhere. Also there is obvious editing to remove something (maybe a watermark of some kind). It doesn't matter to those that will try and use this to justify more regulation, though.

 

[AH-1G]

Now looking at it the best I could frame by frame, it does pop out of know where.
Hmm got me all rowled up, need a cup of coffee

 

[Maddog]

I'm not buying it. Is there a drone that can basically roll on its back then pull out (basically an Immelmann) like that?

That jet must be traveling around 200 kts for that segment of its flight, so I'm guessing it was slowed down in post?

Why is the video shakey until the jet shows up then gets smooth?

 

[BigAl07]

First off, I may be proven wrong (wouldn't be the first time LOL) but I have my doubts this video is REAL. If it's proven to be authenticated I'll admit I was wrong but since I first saw it I felt like a few things aren't adding up.

I'm not buying it. Is there a drone that can basically roll on its back then pull out (basically an Immelmann) like that?

Yes absolutely there are sUAS that can roll in all axis like this. Racing drones are amazing to fly and even more impressive to fly when under the control of an advanced pilot.

That jet must be traveling around 200 kts for that segment of its flight, so I'm guessing it was slowed down in post?

Per published charts that particular aircraft was at a min at 210kts which is standard until wheels hit the pavement. So you're right on the $$ there sir.

Why is the video shakey until the jet shows up then gets smooth?

The video is shaky from several factors... poor screen recording, missing segments and other items that "could" cause it.

I just don't think it's REAL (and I hope it's not actually) but if it is I hope they throw the book at this guy, lock him up, and forget where the key is. When someone does something that affects my livelihood and potential career I don't have a lot of sympathy for them... PERIOD!

 

[xspwhite]

I don't know. It looks pretty real.

 

[ArrUnTuS]

The drone is a racer, you have many videos in YT to see how these types of aircraft behave. In fact, that's nothing you can find. There's a slowing effect, it's nothing unusual.

I'm going to translate an article that I found with more information about this fact.

----------------------

The video was recorded by James Jayo Older, a Las Vegas drone fan who is accustomed to this type of recording and who, after uploading it to his private Facebook account, has chosen to erase it after the scandal provoked.

But it was too late. Someone uploaded the document to Reddit and it is already in all the networks and the US administration is investigating the incident at McCarran International Airport.

When he noticed the mistake, the fan has erased the video from his personal Facebook page and commented that, in reality, a memory card was found and the video was recorded inside.

---------------------------

A media that echoes the new

Drone hovers right above jet landing at Las Vegas airport

 

[Maddog]

Wow, just wow..

 

[Ravenflight]

While I would never do something like this and have no desire to flagrantly disregard the law, I feel like all the outrage is little more than typical Internet sensationalism. Assuming this is real, how is it more dangerous than a flock of birds flying by?

 

[ArrUnTuS]

While I would never do something like this and have no desire to flagrantly disregard the law, I feel like all the outrage is little more than typical Internet sensationalism. Assuming this is real, how is it more dangerous than a flock of birds flying by?

I'm sorry, mate, but what an unfortunate question. You're gonna compare a bird to a person? It is clear that this individual has less brains than a bird, but let us allow ourselves to be carried away by, according to you, an unfounded alarm created by the media.

Don't you consider, as a drone professional, the matter to be serious enough? Do you think that an aviation accident caused by an animal can be put on the same level as that caused by an abnormal by wanting to record a video to put on the Internet and put the lives of others in danger?

Can you compare the danger of fire caused by a LIPO battery with the guts of an animal?

Can you compare a person's reasoning to that of an animal?

I can also think of questions, but then they are all cleared up thinking that anything that prevents a single person from dying from a plane crash caused by these causes, is a good thing.

Whether it's real or false, that's not the point. This video has come to light but how many incidents and some other accidents are caused by bad drone pilots that don't come to light? Does that make the problem unimportant?

 

[Ravenflight]

I'm sorry, mate, but what an unfortunate question. You're gonna compare a bird to a person? It is clear that this individual has less brains than a bird, but let us allow ourselves to be carried away by, according to you, an unfounded alarm created by the media.

Don't you consider, as a drone professional, the matter to be serious enough? Do you think that an aviation accident caused by an animal can be put on the same level as that caused by an abnormal by wanting to record a video to put on the Internet and put the lives of others in danger?

Can you compare the danger of fire caused by a LIPO battery with the guts of an animal?

Can you compare a person's reasoning to that of an animal?

I can also think of questions, but then they are all cleared up thinking that anything that prevents a single person from dying from a plane crash caused by these causes, is a good thing.

Whether it's real or false, that's not the point. This video has come to light but how many incidents and some other accidents are caused by bad drone pilots that don't come to light? Does that make the problem unimportant?

I think you may have misunderstood me, or I you. I wasn't comparing the lives of birds with the lives of humans. My point was that I don't see how a drone crashing into a plane is any more likely to cause an accident than a bird strike. While it is possible for a bird strike to cause an accident it is extremely unlikely. According to the NTSB, bird strikes are responsible for one death (not one accident, one death) for every one billion hours flown. And there are millions and millions of birds in the air all the time. Given that birds far out number drones in the air and that most birds are bigger than most drones (particularly a little racing drone like this one had to be) and that the drone pilot understands what a plane is and is actively working to avoid hitting it while a bird does not and is not, then surely a drone causing an accident is far less likely than the already extremely unlikely case of a bird strike causing an accident? I am in no way condoning this behavior and if someone is caught doing it they should be dealt with appropriately under the law. But it seems like all the outrage and vilification is unwarranted. People speeding on the roads (of which most or all of us are guilty) is a much bigger threat to public safety but no one gets upset about that.

 

[Maddog]

I don't know which would cause more damage but that's not the point of this thread.

And I disagree that the outrage and vilification is unwarranted.

Comparing auto accidents to aircraft accidents is another apples to oranges comparison.

There are many cars on the roads, occupied by 1, 2, 3, or 4 people. Many people have driven a car and most of them have not had an accident. They are everyday occurrences that we have become numb to. So they don't really concern most people, even though statistically we are more likely to die in an auto accident than a plane crash.

In contrast there are fewer planes in the air, each carrying many people. Many of these people are afraid to fly for a variety of reasons. Plane crashes are rare but the carnage is spectacular. The news media bombards the airwaves with images of the crash site and further scares many people.

These people know birds pose a hazard to planes but collisions are rare and they rarely cause a crash. We can't control the birds.

So let's introduce a drone into the picture. A drone flown by a humanoid who could avoid flying near planes but chooses to do so. All of the scared people are now even more scared because they have been told a drone strike could bring a jetliner down.

So there is a hue and cry from the scared people demanding the government protect them from this new menace that surely will kill them all. The gov't responds "we already made it illegal!" But the scared people are not satisfied because these "near-misses" continue to happen. And the scared people know the gov't can't catch all the law disobeyers. They just know their next plane flight will be brought down by a drone!

So the scared people rise up and demand the law-makers and the gov't ban all people from owning, possessing, building, flying, buying, selling and thinking about drones. And the law-makers fear losing their jobs so they give the scared people what they want.

And drones wind up tossed into the trash heap of history- existing for less than a micro-second in the time line of human-kind.

Hear endeth the lesson...

(...what was the question again?)

 

[Ravenflight]

I don't know which would cause more damage but that's not the point of this thread.

And I disagree that the outrage and vilification is unwarranted.

Comparing auto accidents to aircraft accidents is another apples to oranges comparison.

There are many cars on the roads, occupied by 1, 2, 3, or 4 people. Many people have driven a car and most of them have not had an accident. They are everyday occurrences that we have become numb to. So they don't really concern most people, even though statistically we are more likely to die in an auto accident than a plane crash.

In contrast there are fewer planes in the air, each carrying many people. Many of these people are afraid to fly for a variety of reasons. Plane crashes are rare but the carnage is spectacular. The news media bombards the airwaves with images of the crash site and further scares many people.

These people know birds pose a hazard to planes but collisions are rare and they rarely cause a crash. We can't control the birds.

So let's introduce a drone into the picture. A drone flown by a humanoid who could avoid flying near planes but chooses to do so. All of the scared people are now even more scared because they have been told a drone strike could bring a jetliner down.

So there is a hue and cry from the scared people demanding the government protect them from this new menace that surely will kill them all. The gov't responds "we already made it illegal!" But the scared people are not satisfied because these "near-misses" continue to happen. And the scared people know the gov't can't catch all the law disobeyers. They just know their next plane flight will be brought down by a drone!

So the scared people rise up and demand the law-makers and the gov't ban all people from owning, possessing, building, flying, buying, selling and thinking about drones. And the law-makers fear losing their jobs so they give the scared people what they want.

And drones wind up tossed into the trash heap of history- existing for less than a micro-second in the time line of human-kind.

Hear endeth the lesson...

(...what was the question again?)

Okay, so your concern is about the PR aspect of it. "The optics" as they call it these days. That's valid. I think you're right that there's an undercurrent of fear or mistrust of them in the general public and the drone community may need to work to combat that. Perception is reality and facts don't weigh heavily in people's emotions. No one is afraid of a bird.

Still though, I'm not sure the reaction is warranted. It's very unlikely drones will become illegal. There's too much money to be made (also, how often does the government listen to the people? And don't forget we have Amazon on our side lol). But tougher laws are almost certainly coming with or without news and entertainment outlets scaring people with drone videos. It may well be necessary for the drone community to be involved in the legislative process but what good does Internet outrage do? How can this be more than gossip at best and alarmism at worst?

 

[ArrUnTuS]

If we are all clear that animals are irrational and humans are the only rational animals, consciously doing such things has no justification whatsoever.

Don't underestimate what one media outlet, which the Internet has become the most important media outlet, can do to change the minds of others. In short, if it is not already, the Internet will become the most important means of communication to know what is happening in the world. It is a global medium, without the restrictions that newspapers have and will probably soon surpass all television channels in terms of people's preferences for get information.

The habitat of the birds is the air, we are guests. Due to the increase in incidents and accidents that are occurring between drones and manned aircraft, the laws are already being tightened. All for people like the one who shot the video, whether it's real or not. We don't need to watch any video to know that this is happening and to think that if we don't see it, it doesn't happen. The justification for all agencies that regulate the laws governing the use of drones is based on the word safety. The birds flying cannot be avoided, the danger they represent can be mitigated but not avoided. That drones fly is being limited and although it may not be banned, but doing so hard to make it unfeasible and therefore kill this market.

Making a very simple search on Youtube, you can see news, not from now, from years ago and where there is talk of the problems between drones and planes, also talk about birds comparing it.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Another similar example, I am not going to say more because there are many.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

With these examples it is clear that it is not only the current video, it is a problem that we have been dragging for a long time and that is becoming more serious because drones are currently sold as sweets. Ignorance and lack of brain at the end will cause a fatal accident and those who pay the consequences will be us, the professionals.

 

[Ravenflight]

If we are all clear that animals are irrational and humans are the only rational animals, consciously doing such things has no justification whatsoever.

I agree. My point wasn't that doing so was justified but that all the hand-wringing and hyperbole isn't warranted or helpful.

The habitat of the birds is the air, we are guests. Due to the increase in incidents and accidents that are occurring between drones and manned aircraft, the laws are already being tightened. All for people like the one who shot the video, whether it's real or not. We don't need to watch any video to know that this is happening and to think that if we don't see it, it doesn't happen. The justification for all agencies that regulate the laws governing the use of drones is based on the word safety. The birds flying cannot be avoided, the danger they represent can be mitigated but not avoided. That drones fly is being limited and although it may not be banned, but doing so hard to make it unfeasible and therefore kill this market.

There have been no accidents and the number of actual incidents is negligible. The only significant increase has been in the coverage of the incidents. But the laws are not being tightened because of news media sensationalism. They're being tightened because the existing ones were rushed into place due to the explosive growth of the market. This was always going to happen. People making videos like the one you shared certainly doesn't help and the drone community jumping on them and hyping them up instead of calmly explaining why it's not a real safety threat only makes it worse. The general public doesn't understand what the real risks are but we should. Instead of contributing to the hyperbole we should be trying to dispel it through reasoned and rational explanation. Whether we do that or not though, to think some bad PR right now is going to kill the market is to underestimate the market. The drone revolution has only just begun.

With these examples it is clear that it is not only the current video, it is a problem that we have been dragging for a long time and that is becoming more serious because drones are currently sold as sweets. Ignorance and lack of brain at the end will cause a fatal accident and those who pay the consequences will be us, the professionals.

I didn't intend to imply that it was only this video. I've been seeing this kind of thing of thing all over the place for quite some time and I've come to feel like I need to speak out against it. Sensationalism hurts our case and the facts don't seem to support the fear.

 

[ArrUnTuS]

You are wrong when you say that there have been no accidents, they will not have been fatal but there have been. Those that cause damage are accidents and if you want to look for what happened to a plane in Argentina when it was just landing. After seeing the picture of the nose of the plane we spoke again. Just because we don't know doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, with the amount of news that the media actually publishes, you think there have been no accidents? That regulations are getting tougher and tougher, do you think it's just incidents? Although for me to avoid the possibility of a fatal accident already justifies it, I hope it will do so for everyone else as well.

 

[Ravenflight]

You are wrong when you say that there have been no accidents, they will not have been fatal but there have been. Those that cause damage are accidents and if you want to look for what happened to a plane in Argentina when it was just landing. After seeing the picture of the nose of the plane we spoke again. Just because we don't know doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, with the amount of news that the media actually publishes, you think there have been no accidents? That regulations are getting tougher and tougher, do you think it's just incidents? Although for me to avoid the possibility of a fatal accident already justifies it, I hope it will do so for everyone else as well.

When I said accidents I meant crashes but I suppose you are correct that a drone making contact with a plane is technically an accident. However, the scratches and dents that resulted in no way jeopardized the aircraft. Look at this:

This was caused by a bird strike. Could a drone cause more damage than this? I doubt it. Yet the safety of this plane was never compromised and it landed without issue. If a bird strike can cause this much damage and still not pose a significant safety risk then what reason is there to fear a drone?

That said, I want to reiterate that I DO NOT condone this reckless flying. It is and should be illegal and those who do it should be punished. Even though the possibility of a fatal accident is extremely remote it is still a possibility and lives should not be needlessly endangered. But I also do not condone reckless hyperbole.

 

[Terry Ketron CFI-I]

I have a friend that was flying a Cessna 172 near Charlotte NC and he hit a goose that went through his windshield. His aircraft wouldn't maintain altitude because of the rush of air entering through the hole and the increased drag generated by interrupted airflow. He was headed for a field near Charlotte Douglas Airport and he unlatched his door as recommended before an off airport forced landing. The increased airflow "OUT" of the aircraft enabled him to maintain enough altitude to make the runway. He was seriously injured. NEVER underestimate the damage that could be caused by a drone strike. It all depends on "where" the drone "strikes".
Plus--- the damage to the airplane shown may well have exceeded $50,000 to $100,000 even if it didn't cause a crash.
A single broken windshield pane in a King Air, in which I was flying right seat, cost $11,000 and that was more than 20 years ago. I imagine it would be at least $15k now. It forced us to declare an emergency to descend below pressurization requirements and make an unscheduled landing at Harrisburg PA (we flew right over Three Mile Island) and being greeted by the fire trucks.) There was FAA paperwork and we had to arrange for another charter aircraft to come and pick up our passengers to take them the rest of the way to NJ. No one died, but a lot of extra stress was felt and a lot of extra money had to be spent.
Fly every flight like someone's life (or well being) could be endangered.