hallmark007 Posted at 1-21 09:29
The real problem here is public perception, while you know that this is a Maverick Idiot the 1%, the public perceives this as what we all do with our drones and it those people we need to have on our side. But clowns like this are the cause of all of us having the same reputation.

Yep.  I've gotten some "stink eye" when I've flown my drone legally, and this doesn't help.

I'm choosing to go beyond what the legal requirements are in doing the following:  I try to be a good ambassador for the hobby.  I try to avoid flying when I think it will cause discomfort in others (even if I can legally fly), and I try to engage and have productive conversations with the drone-curious and the drone-skeptical.  I don't fight with the drone-adverse if I can avoid it.

To make things clear, I don't approve the video and I encourage every drone flyer to follow the rules.

However I think the public opinion tends to overestimate the risk of a drone flying over their head while underestimating the much higher risks they encounter everyday. Out of the maybe 60K people in that stadium, some will get hit by a car or get injured in an accident, but probably and most likely none will ever receive a drone on their head. We can walk on a sidewalk with cars and truck passing by us at a couple of meters. Imagine if there was a law saying you can't drive at night, if it's raining or if it's snowing, and you can't drive less than 10m from a pedestrian? So is that guy really deserving to be treated like a criminal?

Turbo1ed Posted at 1-21 10:52
To make things clear, I don't approve the video and I encourage every drone flyer to follow the rules.

However I think the public opinion tends to overestimate the risk of a drone flying over their head while underestimating the much higher risks they encounter everyday. Out of the maybe 60K people in that stadium, some will get hit by a car or get injured in an accident, but probably and most likely none will ever receive a drone on their head. We can walk on a sidewalk with cars and truck passing by us at a couple of meters. Imagine if there was a law saying you can't drive at night, if it's raining or if it's snowing, and you can't drive less than 10m from a pedestrian? So is that guy really deserving to be treated like a criminal?

I think compared to road traffic incidents Air safety is extremely safe and has the best track record of any form of transport. And the reason for this is how they approach the whole safety of their industry, drones now fall under their charge and you can bet they will do everything to keep incidents as low as you believe they are. I really can’t fault this attitude, if no one dies thats great and shows safety measures work. Should safety measures be eased until someone dies “i don’t think so”

Turbo1ed Posted at 1-21 10:52
However I think the public opinion tends to overestimate the risk of a drone flying over their head while underestimating the much higher risks they encounter everyday. Out of the maybe 60K people in that stadium, some will get hit by a car or get injured in an accident, but probably and most likely none will ever receive a drone on their head. We can walk on a sidewalk with cars and truck passing by us at a couple of meters. Imagine if there was a law saying you can't drive at night, if it's raining or if it's snowing, and you can't drive less than 10m from a pedestrian? So is that guy really deserving to be treated like a criminal?

If the pilot hadn't flown the drone inside the stadium none of the crowd would have been at risk from the drone at all. By flying the drone over the crowd he put them at risk, all the more so with the suspended cables and wires that are apparently plentifully inside the stadium.
Legal issues and laws aside the "what happens if something goes wrong" consideration is why I will not intentionally fly over uninvolved people full stop.

Worst Behavior over Here in the U.S.... Western U.S...... California  to more exact.
The Guys how fly their drones over Wildfires!!!
When U.S. Forestry Service has stop flights for water and fire-retardant drops due to these Jerks!!!
Despicable Behavior!!
Make all drone pilots look bad!

Turbo1ed Posted at 1-21 10:52
To make things clear, I don't approve the video and I encourage every drone flyer to follow the rules.

However I think the public opinion tends to overestimate the risk of a drone flying over their head while underestimating the much higher risks they encounter everyday. Out of the maybe 60K people in that stadium, some will get hit by a car or get injured in an accident, but probably and most likely none will ever receive a drone on their head. We can walk on a sidewalk with cars and truck passing by us at a couple of meters. Imagine if there was a law saying you can't drive at night, if it's raining or if it's snowing, and you can't drive less than 10m from a pedestrian? So is that guy really deserving to be treated like a criminal?

First off, I'm normally not the guy that complains or judges other people's flight choices.  I respect an individual's right to pick and choose how they choose to practice this hobby.  I will state whether or not I would make the same choices, but I don't normally judge other's choices.

But this one crossed a "red line".  Part of the "story" is not just this individual's behavior, but how this individual reacted to the community's recommendations for changing his behavior.  He was not particularly positive in responding to suggestions on how he could improve his participation in this hobby.

Whether or not we like it, he is "representing".  He, his flight and his reactions are the story, and his reactions are the impression that's being made on people less familiar with this hobby.  Not you and your good choices, not me and my care and caution.  Him, his flight and his attitude are the news.

Thus I called it out by starting this thread, and I am not very sympathetic or empathetic to this individual.

If you want to break some rules, your choice.  I hope and encourage you stay under the radar.  If you get caught, own it, accept responsibility the consequences gracefully.

How extreme should the consequences be?  Not for me to say.  But I hope that they are consequential enough to elicit an attitude change.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-21 11:24
If the pilot hadn't flown the drone inside the stadium none of the crowd would have been at risk from the drone at all. By flying the drone over the crowd he put them at risk, all the more so with the suspended cables and wires that are apparently plentifully inside the stadium.
Legal issues and laws aside the "what happens if something goes wrong" consideration is why I will not intentionally fly over uninvolved people full stop.

i certainly can't respond to everyone so not picking on anyone in particular.

i disagree, the drone flying inside that stadium is not putting everyone "at risk."  at risk of what?  getting their picture taken or getting their feelings hurt?  the risk of that drone falling onto someone and hurting them serious is tiny, it's more likely one of those beams will fall from the roof and crack someone's head open.  yet we don't find the stadium operator for putting spectator's at "risk."  instead what do we do?  we wait for one of those beams to fall.  then we don't do anything about it afterwards, not even an inspection.

what to know what is risk?  the sign on the road outside that stadium is marked "no hazardous materials route."  yet a tanker truck drove thru there while the game was going on.  when he arrived half way into town, do you think a trooper would pull him over and said he put those spectators at risk by driving past that stadium with all that gasoline?  if that truck has rear ended a car in slow traffic and caught fire, kids at the ball game could burn up.  "nothing happen sir but here's your $50,000 fine for putting all those people at risk" oh and btw, "here's some handcuffs you're going to jail."  we don't accept risks whether it's by drone or by tanker truck.

my take:  drone pilot....stop it.  confiscate footage.  trespass him.   $500 ticket.  refer to faa for other "minor" action to determine further administrative punishment.

The Saint Posted at 1-21 11:55
i certainly can't respond to everyone so not picking on anyone in particular.

i disagree, the drone flying inside that stadium is not putting everyone "at risk."  at risk of what?  getting their picture taken or getting their feelings hurt?  the risk of that drone falling onto someone and hurting them serious is tiny, it's more likely one of those beams will fall from the roof and crack someone's head open.  yet we don't find the stadium operator for putting spectator's at "risk."  instead what do we do?  we wait for one of those beams to fall.  then we don't do anything about it afterwards, not even an inspection.

Light punishment? Take yourself to San Fran, Portland or Chicago. That's what light to no punishment gets you. Throw the book at him!! Especially with his attitude!

sclelectronics Posted at 1-21 11:38
Worst Behavior over Here in the U.S.... Western U.S...... California  to more exact.
The Guys how fly their drones over Wildfires!!!
When U.S. Forestry Service has stop flights for water and fire-retardant drops due to these Jerks!!!

yeah until they start flying their own drones near the fires.

your drones NO
their drones OK

look, i don't think you should fly a drone in a NFZ.  Period.
should the authorities run and hide and make excuses to do their job because they perceive a safety issue?  Yes.  as long as the issue is real.

I hate people who fly drones near fires because it triggers the authorities to take unreasonable and unpredictable actions.  Do I make the rules?  No.  So we have to stop flying near fires and obey the rules.  But do i feel the person who set the fire to watch the entire town burn down can launch a drone and paralyze the fire fighters so he gets his wishes?

Im not the one taking the risk so I cant be the judge but I don't like it when the authorities make excuses why they can't do their job unless it is based on fact.  Fighting fires is risky and it's not because of drones.

Ok accepted that you are not picking on anyone but
."  at risk of what?  "
Something going wrong with the drone, it is not unknown. Motors seize, props break (for what ever reason ) or unscrew (mini models etc. only), signal interference or loss of signal and the corresponding behaviour, prop/drone strikes involving the wires and cables mentioned. For that matter maybe even bird strikes if birds roost in such places in the US, someone chucking something at the drone and hitting it or even one of the players accidentally hitting it with a ball thrown during the game.
Given the manner of the flying and that the drone was flown in such a place in the first place, I doubt the pilot is overly careful with the drone nor particularly fastidious about safety checks before flying.
As to what do I think is due to the pilot, everything that can be thrown at them and it should be well publisiced too, not only for the laws actually broken but to act as a deterent to other such fliers.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-21 12:10
Ok accepted that you are not picking on anyone but
."  at risk of what?  "
Something going wrong with the drone, it is not unknown, motors seize, props break (for what ever reason ) or unscrew (mini models etc. only), signal interference or loss of signal and the corresponding behaviour, prop strikes on the wires and cables mention, for that matter maybe even bird strikes if birds roost in such places in the US, someone chucking something at the drone or even one of the players accidentally hitting it with a thrown ball.

"At risk of..."

Colliding with a single Bengals cheerleader during a routine, and causing minor lacerations and various non life-threatening injuries...  ON LIVE NATIONAL TV!!!

or

Striking a fan causing no visible injuries...  ON LIVE NATIONAL TV!!!

or

Falling to the field of play while a play is in progress, causing a player to pause and get tackled during a game winning drive, ON LIVE NATIONAL TV!!!

I'm not a "saint" (ha-ha I made a funny) when it comes to flying, but if I choose to compromise on some regulations, I stay under the radar.  I'm discrete.  I'm invisible.  I would not choose to violate any FAA regulations ON LIVE NATIONAL TV!!!
And when someone such as Hallmark chooses to inform me of the risks I am taking by violating a regulation, I would accept his critique graciously.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-21 12:10
Ok accepted that you are not picking on anyone but
."  at risk of what?  "
Something going wrong with the drone, it is not unknown. Motors seize, props break (for what ever reason ) or unscrew (mini models etc. only), signal interference or loss of signal and the corresponding behaviour, prop/drone strikes involving the wires and cables mentioned. For that matter maybe even bird strikes if birds roost in such places in the US, someone chucking something at the drone and hitting it or even one of the players accidentally hitting it with a ball thrown during the game.

nobody went home that night from the game thinking their lives were at risk at the game earlier.  why?  because they weren't.  the biggest risk was getting hit from a ball.   a freak accident can happen to everyone but we don't go around punishing unless there is extreme carelessness or if someone is reckless.  it's called culpable negligence.  if you are flying a drone and buzzing people and darting around and flying thru small holes in the ceiling and running on low battery and carrying a payload to drop on people, trying to taunt people or cause confusion; flying a modified drone to avoid detection, etc....punish him accordingly.  not talking about irresponsible or people's attitudes....legal issues.

if the things you mentioned are not suitable for flying in a stadium and put people at extreme risk, then a drone is not suitable to fly anywhere.

every time you mash the gas on your vehicle, you put others at risk.  it's acceptable as long as it doesn't rise to the level of a crime.

Charles Adams Posted at 1-21 12:23
"At risk of..."

Colliding with a single Bengals cheerleader during a routine, and causing minor lacerations and various non life-threatening injuries...  ON LIVE NATIONAL TV!!!

haha good one!  i agree, i'm just trying to keep flying a drone from being a crime.  that's part of the negative perception that we have because many believe what we are doing is either illegal or border line illegal.

i would rather people understand that you can commit crimes with a drone but the act of flying a drone is not a crime.  two drones flying across the stadium at half time from end to end at the exact same time and you can't even see who is flying them but one drone is a crime and the other is perfectly ok?

i agree one should be sanctioned and the other not but if you can't tell, how do we expect citizens walking in the park and look up to see a drone....of course, they're going to think it's illegal.  why can't the crime be "mostly" based on what the drone is actually doing?

if there are 50 photographers on the sidelines taking photos of the players as they emerge from the locker room, do you think some of those photographers are going to jail for taking pictures?  no photographers license, using a flash, didn't get press credentials, didn't pass the national photographers course, not wearing a badge, not securing his equipment (a lens cap could pop off and one of the players could slip and break a leg) so it's risky....

no other hobby is burden with such high fines and harsh penalties in the name of mitigating [non-existent] risk and safety.  im sorry this is all so fake.  a drone never hurt anyone but we're asking like people are using weapons.  we're protecting against drones as it they are on the verge of going out of control and destroying society.  no wonder people are scared of drones.  they fire cannon in the stadium, what's the risk there is a live round?  they fly f16 over the stadium, is that not risky?

a laser can bring down an airplane or blind someone....so they say.  a high-power laser is illegal to import or misuse.  do you know what happens if you shine a green laser at a player during a football play?  they find you in the stands and escort you off the property and tell you to never come back.  why?  because the fellow laser-owners who abhor that activity don't advocate $100,000 fines and prison time for those who think it's funny.

Why ask "at risk of what" if you are apparently going to reject all thoughts presented to you. It appears your thinking is fixed and that further discussion is a waste of time, fair enough, that is your prerogative.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-21 13:01
Why ask "at risk of what" if you are apparently going to reject all thoughts presented to you. It appears your thinking is fixed and that further discussion is a waste of time, fair enough, that is your prerogative.

I'm not aware that I've reject any thoughts.  I find yours (and everyone else's) of great value.  You asked an open ended question, and I answered your question, with direct answers.  Apparently I have offended you, and I'm uncertain how.

Was there a better way for me to have responded to your direct question?

Charles Adams Posted at 1-21 13:05
I'm not aware that I've reject any thoughts.  I find yours (and everyone else's) of great value.  You asked an open ended question, and I answered your question, with direct answers.  Apparently I have offended you, and I'm uncertain how.

Was there a better way for me to have responded to your direct question?

Ahhh you seem to be responding to my posts, I was in fact replying to posts by "The Saint", maybe you have them blocked, if that is possible here. (If so how did you do it?)
You and I seem to have similar lines of thought.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-21 13:11
Ahhh you seem to be responding to my posts, I was in fact replying to posts by "The Saint", maybe you have them blocked, if that is possible here. (If so how did you do it?)
You and I seem to have similar lines of thought.

AH HA!  No, I think it was not that they are blocked.  I confused a response to a specific post with a response to the entire thread, and both notifications look very similar if not the same.

OK, got it.  WHEW!  I've not been having a good communication day, and I thought this may have been another "insert foot" moment.

No problem all is good

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-21 13:01
Why ask "at risk of what" if you are apparently going to reject all thoughts presented to you. It appears your thinking is fixed and that further discussion is a waste of time, fair enough, that is your prerogative.

i don't usually ask it that way that but the question was rhetorical.  was trying to point out that simply going outdoors is taking a risk.  a society based on laws cannot rely on simply the risks.
i realize i was getting a bit passion about this but i'll roll it back a bit.  this is one of the few forums where you can talk about this stuff without incurring the wrath of the mods.

i simply disagree with the penalties and the jail time and roughly a quarter of the rules that have nothing to do with safety.

NGC Posted at 1-21 01:01
How about a couple months in federal “pound-in-the-a$$” prison?

Well the punishment should fit the crime.  This guy just tried to stick it to all of us.  : )

TonyPHX Posted at 1-21 18:05
Well the punishment should fit the crime.  This guy just tried to stick it to all of us.  : )

This guy just tried to stick it to all of us.

Really?
Do you have similar thoughts when you see an example of bad driving?
He was just an individual doing something stupid ... and things like that happen all the time.

Another nail in the coffin of recreational drone flying  

Blériot53 Posted at 1-22 00:07
Another nail in the coffin of recreational drone flying

Another nail in the coffin of recreational drone flying  
Another one?
How many is that now?
And how much effect has that had on your recreational flying?
None?

Labroides Posted at 1-21 22:28
This guy just tried to stick it to all of us.

Really?

lol, naw.  I just don't like that somebody would so publicly and blatantly violate the rules.  He did us no favors as a community.

Be gentle to me Labroides...it's just an opinion.  : )

We have a copycat.
https://www.google.co.uk/search? ... =1265&bih=614&dpr=1
this one caused a temporary halt in the game.

TonyPHX Posted at 1-22 10:20
lol, naw.  I just don't like that somebody would so publicly and blatantly violate the rules.  He did us no favors as a community.

Be gentle to me Labroides...it's just an opinion.  : )

He did himself no favours.
But he did nothing to us as a community.

Labroides Posted at 1-22 15:10
He did himself no favours.
But he did nothing to us as a community.

Roger that.  Your opinion.  Understood.  : )

I think this discussion is just the beginning... The hobby and the technology will evolve, so will the regulations. Right now this is like an experiment. Different countries, different rules. In Canada, thankfully, we have the sub-250g category that is still almost un-regulated (other than not being allowed to fly in class F airspace or emergency sites). If I understand correctly, in US you can't even fly over one person accidentally without breaking the rule, or is it possible now with prop guards?
Different drones have different safety features, hence different level of risks. Generic no-name toy drones vs high-end GPS drones with obstacle avoidance. Just like cars needs to implement certain safety standards to be on the road, maybe only certain drones with certain safety features should be allowed over people.
Also there will be more and more drones in the sky, the probably of collision between two of them will increase, but then technology might evolve to avoid these collisions.

Turbo1ed Posted at 1-23 10:00
I think this discussion is just the beginning... The hobby and the technology will evolve, so will the regulations. Right now this is like an experiment. Different countries, different rules. In Canada, thankfully, we have the sub-250g category that is still almost un-regulated (other than not being allowed to fly in class F airspace or emergency sites). If I understand correctly, in US you can't even fly over one person accidentally without breaking the rule, or is it possible now with prop guards?
Different drones have different safety features, hence different level of risks. Generic no-name toy drones vs high-end GPS drones with obstacle avoidance. Just like cars needs to implement certain safety standards to be on the road, maybe only certain drones with certain safety features should be allowed over people.
Also there will be more and more drones in the sky, the probably of collision between two of them will increase, but then technology might evolve to avoid these collisions.

for the recreational pilot in america, most pilots think about it this way:  no sustained flight over groups of people regardless of your drone.

this is probably what you are thinking about:

https://pilotinstitute.com/how-to-fly-over-people/