Ok who here is this?

http://www.komonews.com/news/loc ... eel--346388372.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/loc ... b=gallery&c=y&img=6

Does it really matter? Unless the owner comes forward, they probably won't investigate any further.

What they posted pictures of is a broken plastic table.

You notice they have a picture of a DJI product has a USB cable attached so I don't know what they think can be downloaded.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/ ... -great-wheel/npLfB/

gregg1r Posted at 2015-11-12 15:45
Does it really matter? Unless the owner comes forward, they probably won't investigate any further.
...

It would matter if it were you your friends and or family sat at the table.Also theres plenty of evidence to be got from the UAVs memory

pi-inthesky@hot Posted at 2015-11-12 11:54
It would matter if it were you your friends and or family sat at the table.Also theres plenty of e ...

I think you've read my comment wrong.

While a quad was involved, this is nothing more than a property damage incident. No one was injured. Police have a hard time investigating common assaults much less a quad that fell from the sky.

If I were the owner of the observation deck area, I'd be more concerned as to why the table shattered the way it did. Just imagine someone tripping and landing on one of these tables.

I pulled up The Great Wheel location  and it's not listed as a no-fly-zone.

I've looked at the FAA no fly map, the DJI NFZ maps and the Mapbox maps, where the Great Wheel is located isn't a restricted area.

The location of picture with the usb cable in the Phantom can't be determined, so we don't know if it's a police photo or the Great Wheel management pic.

The owner needs to grow a set and own up to the crash.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-11-12 11:56
I think you've read my comment wrong.

While a quad was involved, this is nothing more than a prope ...

That's the key. People have to take responsibility for their actions. The monetary value of the issue and where it landed is really irrelevant. Idiots fly in crowds and over busy streets all the time inviting injury and even death (sounds kinda like a disclaimer for a drug commercial! ) A judge or prosecutor should decide the penalty for some kind of 'wreckless endangerment' type of criminal charge that includes some jail time. Hopefully they find the guy through data on the P3 and that wakes other idiots up knowing that they might be found and charged for something like that. My 2 cents.

Barney

I assume the flight records are in the drone too, can't the police just upload them to healthydrones.com.

The person must have flown at least once near their home.

IMI193 (RI,USA) Posted at 2015-11-12 13:45
I assume the flight records are in the drone too, can't the police just upload them to healthydrones ...

You give the police way too much credit for first off knowing where or how to download any information from the Phantom, much less know that Healthydrones exists.

How many people post to the forum verses people that have purchased DJI Phantom 3's?

Unless someone has a bug up their arse or are beholding to the Great Wheel management company, this isn't going to go far.

Had the accident happened in a FAA restricted area, then possibly there would be an investigation. Total damage is probably less than $300. I don't know what your experience has been with a major police department, but after having a window knocked out of my truck and losing $2k in tools, they couldn't be bothered.

Had someone been injured, they'd investigate, but for a plastic table, imo, I don't think so.

gregg1r Posted at 2015-11-12 17:56
I think you've read my comment wrong.

While a quad was involved, this is nothing more than a prope ...

So please clarify this if its not on a FAA no fly zone your free to fly in close proximity to people and built up areas any where it suites you. Dont think so

pi-inthesky@hot Posted at 2015-11-12 14:27
So please clarify this if its not on a FAA no fly zone your free to fly in close proximity to peop ...

OK, pieinthesky. Too lazy to learn unicode? π

I'm not condoning the flight, never said I did.

There's a difference between stupid and illegal. Is that so hard to understand?

Me, I'm not willing to take on the liability to fly around a group of people under where I need or want to fly. Read some of my old postings.

I agree with gregg1r, that table breaking is a real concern, and also, is that Big Wheel manager's name for real?

gregg1r Posted at 2015-11-12 20:38
OK, pieinthesky. Too lazy to learn unicode? π

I'm not condoning the flight, never said I did.

OK gregg1r are you to lazy to read the question.
The question was Please clarify. FAA no fly zones and your remarks are you suggesting if its not shown as a no fly zone then whats the problem
YOUR WORDS
Ive looked at the FAA no flymap.the DJI NFZ maps and the mapbox maps where the great wheel is located isnt a restricted area.

pi-inthesky@hot Posted at 2015-11-12 19:29
OK gregg1r are you to lazy to read the question.
The question was Please clarify. FAA no fly zones ...

π

  What’s to clarify? Our FAA doesn’t list the area where the Big Wheel is located as being restricted airspace. The city of Seattle may have park ordinances that don’t allow for flight. No one of authority has been interviewed to state anything different.

From what was published in the two linked to stories, the statement from the park security officer said he thought it was not allowed. “Thought it was not” verses “is not allowed” are two different things.  

  From the limited information made available, the operator wasn't operating the Phantom in a restricted area. On that count, legally he did nothing wrong. Could he still be charged with something? Yes, as was once said, you can indite a ham sandwich.

  From a moral standpoint, operating his Phantom in the area could have caused injury. It didn’t in this case.

  The key here is that he didn't injure anyone. He, it appeared operated in a reckless fashion. The operator should have owned up to the crash and took whatever charges the police came up with if any.

What else do you want me to state? Legally, as far as flying in restricted air space he’s clear. I don’t know if Seattle proper has any ordinances that restrict flight in the area.  If you wish to research Seattle municipal code, go for it.

Why does DJI have to take the hit all of the time. The Phantom pictured obviously not involved and it is a stock photo. This is getting old!

Sorry, I didn't see Spanky's Post before I replied earlier. Another reckless act! Is there an answer to eliminate these actions?

Barney Rubbel Posted at 2015-11-12 12:21
That's the key. People have to take responsibility for their actions. The monetary value of the iss ...

.

The problem is common sense now a days, and people break the law all the time.
Everyone speeds which could turn into a life endangerment in the right situation.
Not making a full stop at a stop sign is breaking the law and under certain situations could become fatal.
Everyone here has broken the law at some point in time. I know I have run a stop signs and I have had a speeding ticket or two

I don't know why but my post got clipped


The problem is common sense now a days, and people break the law all the time.
Everyone speeds which could turn into a life endangerment in the right situation.
Not making a full stop at a stop sign is breaking the law and under certain situations could become fatal.
Everyone here has broken the law at some point in time. I know I have run a stop signs and I have had a speeding ticket or two

It should  be handled as an accident, I'm getting tired of multi-rotors being painted in a bad light.
I bet that damn news van broke the law to get to the news story first...SPEEDERS...LOL

We don't know what happened to the quad did the pilot fly it incorrectly or did the software fail and become a flyaway.
I'm sure who ever they are, they are scarred and worried about what happened ( at least I hope they are )
We have all become sheepeople believing everything that is told to us, and jumping on board with out asking simple question.
If multi-rotors hadn't become such a fast demonized topic I bet the owner would of come forward.

I'm not siding with the drown owner but we don't have all the facts in this matter and we may never have them.

There has been somewhat of a follow up story on the quad that struck the Great Wheel. The photo of the Phantom 3 Professional is the unit that was involved in the crash

The police are appealing for the owner to come forward as they stated they would make the investigation easier.

The FAA was asked if the quad was flying in a No Fly Zone and refused comment.

A Facebook poster (Stephen Mann) had a very factual comment that I thought covered the incident rather well.

"49 USC §40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Only the FAA may regulate flight.
Only the FAA may create a no-fly-zone.

Why do you think the area is a "no fly zone" as it is outside the five-mile radius from the King County International Airport (see https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/).

FAA Advisory Circular AC91-57a says, in part: "When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the model aircraft provides the airport operator or the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation." Commercial drones are required to obtain permission from the tower.

The panic, here, is completely out of any sort of proportion to reality.
This is what we in the rational world call "Fear Mongering". Keep the risk of personal drones in perspective.

Today (if this is an average day in the USA):
1560 people will die from Cancer
268 people in US hospitals will die because of medical mistakes.
162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.
117 Americans will die in an automobile accident.
98 people in the US will die from the flu.
53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.
46 children will suffer eye injuries.
37 will die from AIDS.
30 people will die in gun-related murders.
18 pilots will report a Laser Incident
3 General Aviation airplanes will crash in the US.
0 people will be seriously injured or killed by a small drone accident.*

Zero. Why are so many otherwise rational people so terrified of zero?
The panic, here, is completely out of any sort of proportion to reality.

There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been hundreds of thousands of hours of flight of small drones, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash that resulted in a serious injury* as defined by the NTSB to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. (A Band-Aid is not a serious injury- See CFR 49 §830.2). It is a safety rate that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. There is also not one verifiable report of a collision between a small drone and a manned aircraft. Not one. An FAA executive speaking to a nervous audience of helicopter operators at HAI Heli-Expo in Orlando (March 2015) and said that while there's never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft, the military has some experience in that regard. In all cases the aircraft was virtually unscathed while the UAS was "smashed to pieces."

Small UAVs and personal drones do not pose any significant risk to anyone. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance and propagated by lazy, irresponsible reporting. Where's the blood and mayhem to justify the perception that small personal drones are a threat to public safety?

* I have to add the asterisk because too many otherwise reasonable people think a band-aid is a serious injury. 49 CFR §830.2 contains the definition of "Serious Injury" that the FAA and NTSB use in their aircraft and vehicular accident statistics. It is important to hold small UAS accidents to the same metric, otherwise comparisons are meaningless."