NTSB Rules Against Pirker

[DrJoe]

The sky isn't falling yet. The FAA is undermanned and unable to enforce every infraction. But you publicly screw up, all bets are off.

 

[SilentAV8R]

The sky isn't falling yet. The FAA is undermanned and unable to enforce every infraction. But you publicly screw up, all bets are off.

Which is the way they have approached enforcement for a long time. They generally do not come looking for violators, but make your violations known and then they'll act. Sadly, all too often, that exception is some sort of accident.

 

[derrickduff]

This is still about "careless and reckless" flying. The FAA has yet to bring any fine or trial against a commercial operator. Only those bogus cease and desist orders. If I were a betting man I'd bet they won't try that until they've actually established their own legitimate rules since none currently exist.

Gotta love Peter Sachs' tweet:

https://twitter.com/TheDroneGuy/status/ ... 28/photo/1

The FAA and the NTSB may have bitten off too much with such a broad definition of aircraft:

any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.

A baseball fits within that definition.

 

[samd012]

I think this ruling intensifies things in regard to the ama and its part with this topic. Other than that if the mfg's of rc equipment do not pull together I do worry that our freedoms will be bull dozed over.
Interesting article here:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov ... htings-up/

 

[SteveMann]

Bust 400 feet. Go ahead. And post it. Send a link to the FAA. Bet you end up screwed. Same thing with FPV out of LOS.
Buzz a crowd when you could have covered from 50 feet away.
Do commercial work.

It's not just endangering. It's a lot more the FAA is looking to curtail.

There is no regulation limiting sUAV's to 400 ft or always in LOS. It's only a recommendation. In fact, it is because there are no regulations covering sUAV operations that Pirker won his suit in the first place.

This NTSB ruling gives the FAA the green light to apply 91.13 to anything that flies. So in the absence of any specific regulations against an activity, the FAA will start handing out 91.13 violations. The problem with 91.13 violations is that the FAA hands them out like Halloween candy with little regard to common sense. If I fly my Cessna on low fuel and crash as a result, then 91.13 does apply. People's lives are endangered. But, seriously, the worst a four pound piece of styrofoam can do is a bruise. It simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless operation that 91.13 is intended to address.

 

[garrock]

The problem with 91.13 violations is that the FAA hands them out like Halloween candy with little regard to common sense.

Where can one read more about 91.13 ?
Starting with the basics on up.

 

[SilentAV8R]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.13

FAA memo: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... Chg_6_.pdf

This is good: http://www.planelyspokenblog.com/2014/1 ... ing-ahead/

Neat article: http://blog.globalair.com/post/FAA-Need ... FAR-9113(a).aspx

Full sized pilots are confused as well: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/ar ... 67816.html

Full FARs: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:2.0.1.3.10

 

[Buk]

Well this ruling gives the FAA the easy out they need to complete the rules in a timely fashion as per Congress' directive. Everything in the air must comply with existing rules. No need for new rules. FAA says, "Ta da, we're done".

There is no differentiation between "paper" aircraft, "model" aircraft or "full-scale" aircraft. They're all aircraft. Much like toilet tissue, facial tissue and wrapping tissue are all tissue. Although I believe there is a difference. Or is it, I feel there is a difference.

 

[garrock]

But, seriously, the worst a four pound piece of styrofoam can do is a bruise. It simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless operation that 91.13 is intended to address.

It appears that if one uses the word "Styrofoam" then everything is OK

. ( A loose piece of styrofoam caused the space shuttle to explode; so kinetic energy is the source of danger.)
Forget the darn styrofoam. It's the hard-points that can kill you.

The motor-prop-shaft hard-point: That hard point with Four Pounds behind it flying at high speed creates a large amount of kinetic energy. Its plain and undeniable physics.

That can kill you if struck in the right spot on the skull (temple area). A lethal spear point.

Also, most of us has seen the video of what a spinning carbon fiber prop can do to you. Gash and expose an artery.
Phantom with carbon fiber props gashes mans arm.

AGAIN.. Pirkers YouTube TimeStamp 2:31 clearly shows just how close a motor-shaft hard-point came to striking a man in the head. And, flying past opposing ground vehicle traffic; could have easily smashed into the windshield (endangering property or who knows what other randomness causes).


SO PLEASE.. everyone.. no more "sytrofoam" explaining it away. There are far more serious endangering objects that make up the construction of an "aircraft".

 

[GoodnNuff]

"But, seriously, the worst a four pound piece of styrofoam can do is a bruise. It simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless operation that 91.13 is intended to address."

Steve,
Ask someone who knows more about physics than you do, ask them what 4 lbs of dense stryofoam with 2 lbs of batteries can do when it impacts a human body at 40 mph.

You are gravely mistaken that it will only leave a bruise...


When I joined this forum over a year ago, people were making the claim that the worst the props would do is leave a scratch.
Now that most of us have actually seen that the props can do more than a "scratch," most of us don't make that claim anymore.
I hope it doesn't take you hitting a person with your RC toy before you realize that foam will not just leave a bruise.

 

[derrickduff]

But, seriously, the worst a four pound piece of styrofoam can do is a bruise. It simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless operation that 91.13 is intended to address.

It appears that if one uses the word "Styrofoam" then everything is OK

. ( A loose piece of styrofoam caused the space shuttle to explode; so kinetic energy is the source of danger.)
Forget the darn styrofoam. It's the hard-points that can kill you.

The motor-prop-shaft hard-point: That hard point with Four Pounds behind it flying at high speed creates a large amount of kinetic energy. Its plain and undeniable physics.

That can kill you if struck in the right spot on the skull (temple area). A lethal spear point.

Also, most of us has seen the video of what a spinning carbon fiber prop can do to you. Gash and expose an artery.
Phantom with carbon fiber props gashes mans arm.

AGAIN.. Pirkers YouTube TimeStamp 2:31 clearly shows just how close a motor-shaft hard-point came to striking a man in the head. And, flying past opposing ground vehicle traffic; could have easily smashed into the windshield (endangering property or who knows what other randomness causes).


SO PLEASE.. everyone.. no more "sytrofoam" explaining it away. There are far more serious endangering objects that make up the construction of an "aircraft".

You've missed the point entirely.

I'm afraid styrofoam and in my example paper does explain it away logically. Of course if you're thinking irrationally and comparing a space rocket to a model aircraft you might find similarities. But physics does not side with you here. Comparing the kinetic energy of a space ship or an object at that speed and a model aircraft isn't just apples and oranges, it's like comparing an apple and Earth. Even if a one in a million shot hits somebody in the temple, it'd be very unlikely to cause a death.

About 1700 people get hit by foul balls a year at baseball games. 2 have died since 1900 from foul ball strikes. Id say the kinetic energy of a baseball traveling at 50-100 mph compares to a model aircraft traveling 20 mph. Bruises and concussions yes, serious injury and death not so likely.

 

[GoodnNuff]

This a the RiteWing Zephyr II that was used to film the flight. It has a 5.5 foot wingspan and weighs over 4 lbs without the 2 lbs of batteries that it carries to power it's flight. Without the FPV and camera equipment.

A regulation Baseball weighs 5 to 5.5 ounces.

I'll repeat this again: I've spent 30 years working in trauma centers in Utah and Washington, my reality is based in reality - I've seen the damages that an object can do when it impacts with a human head at high speed. Anyone who thinks that 6+ lbs at high speed into your head just leaves a bruise is a fool. It probably won't kill you, but it can leave you with permanent damage.

 

[GoodnNuff]

About 1700 people get hit by foul balls a year at baseball games. 2 have died since 1900 from foul ball strikes.

Where is a citation for this statistic?

Here is what I find:
"According to the Chicago Sun-Times, a USA Baseball study of players from T-ball age to college found 39 deaths among 82.6 million participants between 1989 and 2006...After the same incident, The Chicago Tribune, while cautioning that no comprehensive account of injuries exists, cited a limited study commissioned by USA Baseball. That review showed that between 1989 to 2010, 18 children younger than high school age died of baseball injuries."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20 ... l/2567169/

And those deaths were from a 5.5 oz ball to the head, not 6+ lbs of dense foam, batteries and camera equipment to the head...

 

[garrock]

No missing the point here.

The picture of the orange "aircraft" has a dense blunt object at its leading tip-edge.

Here... lets buy one of those things and plow it into your head at 100 miles an hour.

Then we can further discuss; if you are alive to talk about it.

 

[derrickduff]

Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-0 ... -year.html

If the velocities were the same for both objects then it would be comparable. But kinetic energy is calculated by velocity and mass :
KE = .5 x mv^2

Every foul ball is different, but lets just say it's traveling at 75mph , or 33.5 m/s.
That's .5x .156kg x 33.5^2 = 87.54 Joules

Lets say your 6lb plane is flying 20mph or 8.94 m/s
That;s .5 x 2.7 x 8.94^2 = 107.9 Joules

20 Joule difference. I'd say that's in the same ballpark, pun intended...

It's a matter of opinion but I would rather take a drone to the head than a baseball. 75mph is the low end, foul tips can actually travel faster than the pitch due to energy from the bat being transferred from to the ball. Massive concussion versus lacerations and a cool story, take your pick.

 

[derrickduff]

No missing the point here.

The picture of the orange "aircraft" has a dense blunt object at its leading tip-edge.

Here... lets buy one of those things and plow it into your head at 100 miles an hour.

Then we can further discuss; if you are alive to talk about it.

100 mph huh? Again, irrational thinking.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Hey derrickduff - see all those people killed by baseballs at what was that? 87.5 joules? And a plane at 20 mph will impact at 107 joules? How many joules will 6+lbs of dense foam at 40 mph generate on impact?

And lets go with your hypothesis - "just a concussion." Is a consussion just a bruise Derrick? What are the significant dangers associated with a concussion? What is the recovery time? Does everyone recover? Is there the possiblity of permanent deficits from a concussion?

Honestly people like you flying something over my head worry me. If you think it will just cause a bruise or a concussion, I wonder what steps you will actually take to ensure mine and other's safety when you fly?

It insults me to be called a fear monger, but it is an insult to common sense to think that an RC plane hitting you in the head will just be a little owie you can walk away from.


Wow, from your link above to the magazine article regarding foul balls: It says that 1750 people a year are injured by foul balls.
And this:
"A 6-year-old girl hit by a foul at a Braves game underwent surgery in 2010 after the ball shattered her skull and pushed fragments into her brain. A 7-year-old in Chicago sustained severe brain swelling from a foul liner in 2008. Fouls sent an 18-month-old to a Seattle hospital last season and a 12-year-old in New York to intensive care in 2011."

And that is about 20 joules less than your calculations for a plane at low speed, right?
LOL.

 

[garrock]

100 mph huh? Again, irrational thinking.

So what do you say to this.. from Team Blacksheeps own website:

CLICK: Level Cruise Speed of 85mph

that is a level cruise speed. Ritewing Zephyr Pilots regularly report going over 100mph when they come in for a strafing run.

At that speed with the nose of the aircraft coming to a tip-point, that will transfer all its kinetic energy into one small spot on your face or head. Does not matter what makes up the total mass (styrofoam or cupcakes); it all terminates with the nose-tip of the Aircraft.

 

[SteveMann]

It insults me to be called a fear monger, but it is an insult to common sense to think that an RC plane hitting you in the head will just be a little owie you can walk away from.

Then, stop fear-mongering.
Stop focusing on Pirker's airplane. Stop focusing on Pirker's actual flight. Pirker's flight is irrelevant. Pay attention instead to what this means for the rest of us.

I forgot where I copied this, (maybe sUASNews.com), but it's appropriate:
The FAA’s existing aircraft regulations cannot be reconciled with its guidelines for model aircraft flights. The statute that the FAA used to fine Pirker suggests that any flight by an “aircraft” below 500 feet can be considered reckless. The FAA’s model aircraft guidelines, meanwhile, suggest that any flight over 400 feet by a drone is unsafe and potentially illegal. ” With this decision, the NTSB has declared model aircraft, paper airplanes and even children’s toys to be ‘aircraft,’ subject to the same regulations as 747s, which ignores entirely the fact that for decades none has ever been treated as such,” Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based lawyer and founder of the Drone Pilots Association told me. “I don’t think that’s what Congress ever intended or that common sense and logic support today’s NTSB’s decision.”

I said this near the start of this thread, but it needs repeating:
The regulation Pirker was charged with is FAR 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation which says, in part:
"... No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
FAR 91.13 is for the Cessna pilot buzzing a football game. FAR 91.13 is for the pilot who flies is airplane past refueling opportunities and then runs out of gas. FAR 91.13 is for the VFR pilot who doesn't get a weather briefing then flies into a storm and crashes. FAR 91.13 is for the airline pilot who had a few drinks before entering the cockpit. These are the kind of operations where FAR 91.13 is appropriate. People's lives were endangered. However, a four pound styrofoam R/C airplane would at it's worst, cause some bruises. This simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless.

The first NTSB judge found that there were no regulations covering small UAV's like Pirkers styrofoam airplane, so he dismissed the charges.
The appeal by the FAA to the full NTSB board basically declared that for the purpose of FAR 91.13, anything that flies is an aircraft.

This means that if you throw a Frisbee at the park and accidentally clonk someone, then you could be charged with careless and reckless operation of an aircraft. (A Frisbee meets the FAA definition of an aircraft because it is designed to fly through the air due to it's airfoil shape).

 

[garrock]

Stop focusing on Pirker's airplane.
Stop focusing on Pirker's actual flight.
Pirker's flight is irrelevant.
Pay attention instead to what this means for the rest of us.

??? how can Pirkers flight be irrelevant when it's a major factor in what this will mean for the rest of us ?
This thread is about the NTSB's ruling that goes against Pirker.

You keep throwing out "styrofoam" as if it is a word to imagine Pirkers "aircraft" as being harmless in the environment he knowingly flew it in. Blindly using the word "styrofoam" is what politicians do to defuse or divert attention to real matters; such as the nose-tip impacting all of the aircrafts kinetic energy into a persons face or head.

BY the Way.. I used Pirkers Youttube video and Google maps to derive his airspeed flying thru that tunnel nearly missing the pedestrian. 68mph.

So what now?... claim that 68mph is ok. But if he was flying 100mph then that would be threatening ???????