The person who did this is a moron.

Groundpounder said:
Nope, Ravioli said it was perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

I think I said it COULD be perfectly legal.
Item 11 is the usual trap for the catch-all basket that hoses pilots (manned and unmanned).
Everyone assumes that the droner isn't commercial, with exactly which fact?

Fact is, if this was John Q citizen complaining about a 152 making noise over his house we'd all be on the pilot's side and quoting regs out the ass about why the John Q is a bad person. But, it's a drone operator. And they rank somewhere between John Q and a Politician around here. Heck, Pimps and Drug dealers get more positive press here than drone operators.
 
Ravioli said:
I think I said it COULD be perfectly legal.
Item 11 is the usual trap for the catch-all basket that hoses pilots (manned and unmanned).
Everyone assumes that the droner isn't commercial, with exactly which fact?

Fact is, if this was John Q citizen complaining about a 152 making noise over his house we'd all be on the pilot's side and quoting regs out the ass about why the John Q is a bad person. But, it's a drone operator. And they rank somewhere between John Q and a Politician around here. Heck, Pimps and Drug dealers get more positive press here than drone operators.
Click to expand...

No one in this thread is complaining about the drone being over something, they are complaining about the drone being in the flight path of the Blue Angels. If it was a 152 that was being operated by some dolt trying to get a better view of the formation, we'd be crucifying them as hard as we are the drone operator. The guy flying the drone knew the formation was there, knew its proposed flight path, and was simply trying to get a cool shot of the formation flying by, which lead to a NMAC. You'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that isn't careless and reckless.
 
Groundpounder said:
they are complaining about the drone being in the flight path of the Blue Angels.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it will all come out in the eventual report. But so far, no evidence the flight lead saw anything, deviated course, or was otherwise aware of the incident at the time.

It could well be he ****ed up and was in the wrong place. It could also be true that nothing will come of it.

Why is waiting for the full report such a bad thing these days? Which by the way, the guy who CONCLUDED 3 violations is willing to do in this case, but he won't speculate on the jet that punched out on Friday? Oh, because it's his YT channel. Right?
 
On another semi-related note. In that drone strike video above (post #69), it was interesting that the larger of the two drones impacted the right horizontal stab of the Piper after entering the prop arc on the left. Beyond that, the way he grabs that prop and moves it back and forth afterwards gives me the willies. :eek:
 
Ravioli said:
I'm sure it will all come out in the eventual report. But so far, no evidence the flight lead saw anything, deviated course, or was otherwise aware of the incident at the time.

It could well be he ****ed up and was in the wrong place. It could also be true that nothing will come of it.

Why is waiting for the full report such a bad thing these days? Which by the way, the guy who CONCLUDED 3 violations is willing to do in this case, but he won't speculate on the jet that punched out on Friday? Oh, because it's his YT channel. Right?
Click to expand...
Clearly the fact that he pulled his video(s) off the internet indicates that he’s guilty. ;)
 
You know, I've been channeling the inner Liberal in me. Which of course means I will rely on my limited understanding of science as portrayed in any internet media.

A 10-pound drone (okay 0-50#) flew close enough to SEVEN fighter jets, approximately the same altitude, opposite direction, and maybe landed unscathed?

Why do I worry about wake turbulance from one jet before me, or above me, in my 2500# plane?

Thomas Dolby might be correct.
 
Last edited:
Ravioli said:
I'm sure it will all come out in the eventual report. But so far, no evidence the flight lead saw anything, deviated course, or was otherwise aware of the incident at the time.

It could well be he ****ed up and was in the wrong place. It could also be true that nothing will come of it.

Why is waiting for the full report such a bad thing these days? Which by the way, the guy who CONCLUDED 3 violations is willing to do in this case, but he won't speculate on the jet that punched out on Friday? Oh, because it's his YT channel. Right?
Click to expand...

He wasn’t speculating on the F-22 because there’s nothing for him to go on. What’s he gonna say, he ejected so he must have had dual engine failure???

In the case of the drone pilot, we’ve got a lot to go on. We’ve got a video that clearly shows not giving way to manned aircraft, operating in a reckless manner and most likely, a 400 ft violation regardless of which part the pilot was operating under. FAA could probably throw in operating over unprotected people if they felt like it as well. The fact that the guy took his FB page down, has flown his drone at night over the city with the moronic comment of “might of broken a couple of FAA regulations tonight” is a clear indication we’re dealing with a recreational flyer. Either that or someone that’s very good with CGI and craves attention.

Speaking of speculation, you’re the one who assumed the guy was operating under 107 rules. But, since you didn’t answer my question earlier and your wording of “And the drone regulations state what? Don't look it up, it says:” leads me to believe you had no idea there are two sets of rules for 101 and 107.
 
Velocity173 said:
In the case of the drone pilot, we’ve got a lot to go on
Click to expand...

Let's take it up some day when we know the name of the drone operator, certificate(s) held (if any), registration status (if any), telemetry at the time of incident, statements from the seven manned aircraft, audio from the manned aircraft, statements of any ground witnesses... you know, all the **** you'd insist on if you're ass was in the sling.

Until then, it's all just a bunch of anti-drone blather.
 
Their are people taking shots at police helicopters, pointing laser at pilots, birds in flight into jet engines. First you have to catch the person who did it not who posted it on a video, then you have to find a judge that wont let him off with a slap on the hand when he says I did not know that was bad. Probably not worth the effort to track him down until a 737 sucks one up and crashes killing all on board at that point the attitude of enforcement might change.
 
brien23 said:
Their are people taking shots at police helicopters, pointing laser at pilots, birds in flight into jet engines.
Click to expand...

Laser at the pilot? Always known by pilot report. In fact, all of your examples are pilot reported.

So why is it so amazing to wait for a pilot report of this atrocity?
 
Yep, I knew it was CGI all along.

 
Velocity173 said:
In the case of the drone pilot, we’ve got a lot to go on. We’ve got a video that clearly shows not giving way to manned aircraft, operating in a reckless manner and most likely, a 400 ft violation regardless of which part the pilot was operating under.
Click to expand...
Unless the Blues had to deviate, there's nothing to give way to.
 
Lindberg said:
Unless the Blues had to deviate, there's nothing to give way to.
Click to expand...

If it went thru the middle of the formation and the Blues didn’t deviate (because they never saw it) is that still considered giving way to manned aircraft?
 
iflyvfr said:
On another semi-related note. In that drone strike video above (post #69), it was interesting that the larger of the two drones impacted the right horizontal stab of the Piper after entering the prop arc on the left. Beyond that, the way he grabs that prop and moves it back and forth afterwards gives me the willies. :eek:
Click to expand...
The video is bogus, like a lot of what those folks do. How many of us cruise around at idle? That engine was loping along at 600 rpm or less. How come they didn't rev it up to a cruise rpm of say, 2500 rpm?
 
Domenick said:
The video is bogus, like a lot of what those folks do. How many of us cruise around at idle? That engine was loping along at 600 rpm or less. How come they didn't rev it up to a cruise rpm of say, 2500 rpm?
Click to expand...
Agreed and I don't know if increased RPM would change that or not? I've not experimented with things entering the prop arc, but I've seen the aftermath in photos and accident reports.
 
As I have thought more about this is there any chance the drone was not some overpriced “pro” toy from DGI but was actually a legit pro platform with real cameras that didn’t have to be five feet from the jets to get that shot?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
As I have thought more about this is there any chance the drone was not some overpriced “pro” toy from DGI but was actually a legit pro platform with real cameras that didn’t have to be five feet from the jets to get that shot?
Click to expand...
You mean like with a good telephoto lens, and a smooth transition to warp speed in order to go from nearly aligned with the flight path to a safe distance off to the side without destabilizing the camera or showing apparent movement over the ground?
 
Dave Theisen said:
No TFR when they did the joint flyover of Atlanta. But drone operators still have to comply with altitude and proximity to airport restrictions.
Click to expand...

Yes, no ATL TFR and a lot of aircraft were circling just outside the flight path, of the jets, while you could not see the Blue's or the T Birds all the small planes were showing up on flightaware,
 
MauleSkinner said:
You mean like with a good telephoto lens, and a smooth transition to warp speed in order to go from nearly aligned with the flight path to a safe distance off to the side without destabilizing the camera or showing apparent movement over the ground?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Didn’t watch the video. Sounds like you did. What do you think?
 
Velocity173 said:
If it went thru the middle of the formation and the Blues didn’t deviate (because they never saw it) is that still considered giving way to manned aircraft?
Click to expand...
What does giving way mean where there's no threat of collision? If the manned aircraft is not required to maneuver, has the UAS failed to give way?
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think theres a good possibility it’s in violation of all the appropriate regs mentioned, and should be investigated.
Click to expand...

The question is, then what? Fine? Imprisonment? Paddling with a safe word?

How much of an “example” do they have to make of him to get anyone else concerned enough about the consequences not to do similar?
 
denverpilot said:
The question is, then what? Fine? Imprisonment? Paddling with a safe word?

How much of an “example” do they have to make of him to get anyone else concerned enough about the consequences not to do similar?
Click to expand...
That’s an entirely different question, of course, but as widely-publicized as this is, whatever penalty is allowed, and it should be equally publicized.
 
Lindberg said:
What does giving way mean where there's no threat of collision? If the manned aircraft is not required to maneuver, has the UAS failed to give way?
Click to expand...

If there was no threat of a collision, then why is everyone vilifying the drone operator?

Yes, I believe if the Blues had known they were going to cross in such close proximity to a drone, they would’ve adjusted their flight path. In my opinion even though they didn’t maneuver, the FAA will 1) consider this not giving way because he’s not at a “safe distance” and 2) the FAA will treat this as a NMAC.

85A79AE3-3700-40D3-BFAF-26540D627426.jpeg 04F69D08-F03C-4130-A7D3-145CEF93AF00.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top