Reporting someone

[RaptorMan]

I'm not the kind of guy that calls the police or tattle tells on people as a rule, but I just saw a video on youtube that is so egregious that I had to report it to the FAA -- doesn't make me happy, but with the Mavic Pro opening the skies to even more newbies that don't know or care about the rules we need to nip this crap in the bud before we lose the right to fly at all.

Brian

 

[Nigpd]

He's a complete cockwomble

 

[RaptorMan]

Well, upon further review it appears the poster of that video has a number of other alias's such as: Heather Golla, Samuel Camacho, Gladys Arevalo, Geraldine Jones, José Lourenço, Nancy Van, Ella Mejia and Annette Dillinger.

You can bet that absolutely none of the video was shot using a Mavic Pro and that they've simply repackaged someone else's video with headline titles to catch people and get clicks. I hope DJI is aware of this scam as it appears they are the target of the click baiting...


Brian

 

[lake_flyer]

Well, upon further review it appears the poster of that video has a number of other alias's such as: Heather Golla, Samuel Camacho, Gladys Arevalo, Geraldine Jones, José Lourenço, Nancy Van, Ella Mejia and Annette Dillinger.

You can bet that absolutely none of the video was shot using a Mavic Pro and that they've simply repackaged someone else's video with headline titles to catch people and get clicks. I hope DJI is aware of this scam as it appears they are the target of the click baiting...


Brian

I left a comment as well. Totally agree with you.
'amazing, cool, stunning' is the metadata he wants to be found with. I added 'smoking gun'

 

[Morgon]

Am I a bad person if I don't clutch my pearls or reach for my pitchfork while watching this? I would argue there's exponentially more danger from the other people driving on the bridge than him flying near it.

His shots around the bridge were still quite far away (above or beside) as to not have any potential ferric interference or physical contact, and with only one exception that I know of (a helicopter touring company that allegedly has a grandfathered license to fly under the bridge), there's no danger of him being in the way of any other aircraft.

I just can't get on board with the wholesale demonization (by the government or the community) of flight above an arbitrary number when they're clearly not in the way of anyone else.

 

[cinematic_aero]

Maybe it is a helicopter with a really bad camera op...

 

[RaptorMan]

Am I a bad person if I don't clutch my pearls or reach for my pitchfork while watching this? I would argue there's exponentially more danger from the other people driving on the bridge than him flying near it.

His shots around the bridge were still quite far away (above or beside) as to not have any potential ferric interference or physical contact, and with only one exception that I know of (a helicopter touring company that allegedly has a grandfathered license to fly under the bridge), there's no danger of him being in the way of any other aircraft.

I just can't get on board with the wholesale demonization (by the government or the community) of flight above an arbitrary number when they're clearly not in the way of anyone else.

The Golden Gate Bridge is one of the very top most iconic landmarks in the USA AND it often has hundreds or even thousands of people on it at one time -- this makes it a high probability target for terrorism. That's point 1.

The Golden Gate Bridge is also a route with high traffic and as such is frequently patrolled by news helicopters providing traffic reports. That's point 2.

There are accidents and other incidents on and near the bridge that bring police and EMS helicopters to and near the bridge and fairly often at that. That's point 3.

The point is, the bridge is visited by low flying helicopters very often and a drone, which isn't likely to be seen by the copter pilots until it's too late and an incident between even a small drone and a helicopter rotor blade could spell death for everyone on the copter and potentially others on the ground/bridge.

You may not feel that we should worry about that but when this happens, and with a-holes doing this all too often it will happen, and guess what -- we might find our right to fly eliminated. ELIMINATED!

You are utterly clueless!


Brian

 

[Morgon]

The Golden Gate Bridge is one of the very top most iconic landmarks in the USA AND it often has hundreds or even thousands of people on it at one time -- this makes it a high probability target for terrorism. That's point 1.

The Golden Gate Bridge is also a route with high traffic and as such is frequently patrolled by news helicopters providing traffic reports. That's point 2.

There are accidents and other incidents on and near the bridge that bring police and EMS helicopters to and near the bridge and fairly often at that. That's point 3.

Perhaps it's wrong of me to make assumptions, but I don't think I'm out of line to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was flying within LOS on this clear day, therefore making the presence of nearby helicopters very apparent.

Sorry that I don't agree with totalitarianism, self-imposed or otherwise. It could turn out that he was being a complete **** and wasn't watching his flight area and this was all based on luck alone, but I just don't see any inherent issue based solely on the data derived from the video.

 

[RaptorMan]

Perhaps it's wrong of me to make assumptions, but I don't think I'm out of line to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was flying within LOS on this clear day, therefore making the presence of nearby helicopters very apparent.

Sorry that I don't agree with totalitarianism, self-imposed or otherwise. It could turn out that he was being a complete **** and wasn't watching his flight area and this was all based on luck alone, but I just don't see any inherent issue based solely on the data derived from the video.

It appears he/she took off from the north west side of the bridge and I have an idea just where that might be. He/she was clearly well beyond visual eyesight of the drone as the drone was well beyond the range of human eyesight. The idea that he/she could absolutely see/hear a helicopter in time is laughable -- a helicopter coming from the north east side and below the hillside would not be seen nor heard by the drone operator on the other side of the hill. Again, I know the area.

It is idiots like this that WILL result, sooner or later, in a drone-helicopter crash that results in death. THIS WILL HAPPEN and when it does you may put away your drone as it may well become nothing more than an expensive paper weight.

Assuming the drone flight in question occurred in the last year or so then the drone was WELL above the 400 foot elevation. In fact, my estimate is that it reached above 1200 feet -- much higher than the 754 foot high bridge towers. This was done by my estimate about a mile or more from the drone operator and in the middle of the channel area where private planes and helicopters fly. A drone operator can not count on "seeing" the helicopter with there FPV screen as the FOV is limited and they would need to be looking in the right direction.

This is not about totalitarianism -- you have no idea what that even means. Again, you are clueless!


Brian

 

[Morgon]

People that think like you are dangerous.

And I think people who believe they need to be hand-held are dangerous, too.

Look, I'm not advocating that anyone and everyone go out and do it without a second thought. I'm simply giving this person the benefit of the doubt that he had some knowledge of the area, his bird, and the nearby flight traffic. Again, I will point out that he flew well away from the bridge, even when above it; a clueless newbie would be getting as close as they could.

It appears he/she took off from the north west side of the bridge and I have an idea just where that might be. He/she was clearly well beyond visual eyesight of the drone as the drone was well beyond the range of human eyesight.

Okay, thank you for providing an actual counterpoint based on realistic facts and 'what-if' statist ********. I will wholeheartedly agree that it was reckless if they were doing an advanced flight like this beyond LOS (and thus beyond visual range of aircraft near his bird). I'm just sick of hearing that we should feel like criminals if we're at 401 feet, without any regard to context or conditions.

 

[MacDyver]

Am I a bad person if I don't clutch my pearls or reach for my pitchfork while watching this? I would argue there's exponentially more danger from the other people driving on the bridge than him flying near it.

His shots around the bridge were still quite far away (above or beside) as to not have any potential ferric interference or physical contact, and with only one exception that I know of (a helicopter touring company that allegedly has a grandfathered license to fly under the bridge), there's no danger of him being in the way of any other aircraft.

I just can't get on board with the wholesale demonization (by the government or the community) of flight above an arbitrary number when they're clearly not in the way of anyone else.

In 5 years I'd like to see a comparison of crash data and financial loss of sUAS's vs. manned aircraft, I'm guessing the losers will be manned aircraft in both categories by a large margin. However I still agree if the rules say 400ftt or below we should follow that.

 

[William Gaddy]

Ok, I've experienced a prop pop off of a quadrotor, and what happens is the same thing when you drop a brick. Straight down. If you're 300 ft AGL over a bridge like that, and a motor fails; a prop snaps or pops off, a bird flies into you, that quadrotor is coming straight down and achieving terminal velocity. If that hits someone's windshield when they're doing 55 (haha the Golden Gate bridge, who is doing 55?), this would kill someone. This is why you never, ever fly a quadrotor over a busy roadway. If this guy had a hexarotor or a counterrotating 8-prop quad (see ShotOver.com) arrangement (and a waiver), I wouldn't bat an eyelash. But RaptorMan is right. Stuff like this is going to ruin it not just for the commercial operators, but the hobbyists too. And don't tell me that the Mavic is Small. If Payton Manning threw a Mavic full tilt at your head, you would be an inpatient at the hospital if not worse.

 

[DennisR]

And I think people who believe they need to be hand-held are dangerous, too.

Look, I'm not advocating that anyone and everyone go out and do it without a second thought. I'm simply giving this person the benefit of the doubt that he had some knowledge of the area, his bird, and the nearby flight traffic. Again, I will point out that he flew well away from the bridge, even when above it; a clueless newbie would be getting as close as they could.

Okay, thank you for providing an actual counterpoint based on realistic facts and 'what-if' statist ********. I will wholeheartedly agree that it was reckless if they were doing an advanced flight like this beyond LOS (and thus beyond visual range of aircraft near his bird). I'm just sick of hearing that we should feel like criminals if we're at 401 feet, without any regard to context or conditions.

If you don't feel that rules are for safety and should be followed, then its best you take the props off your drone and go about your day looking for other hobbies. If people were allowed to fly around the bridge there would be thousands in the sky there. Im in Australia and I would love to get some drone shots of such an amazing USA iconic. I wouldn't like to be in a car on the bridge though if one came down on top of me. You seem to have the idea that a drone would glide to the side to avoid falling onto traffic?

 

[DennisR]

Ok, I've experienced a prop pop off of a quadrotor, and what happens is the same thing when you drop a brick. Straight down. If you're 300 ft AGL over a bridge like that, and a motor fails; a prop snaps or pops off, a bird flies into you, that quadrotor is coming straight down and achieving terminal velocity. If that hits someone's windshield when they're doing 55 (haha the Golden Gate bridge, who is doing 55?), this would kill someone. This is why you never, ever fly a quadrotor over a busy roadway. If this guy had a hexarotor or a counterrotating 8-prop quad (see ShotOver.com) arrangement (and a waiver), I wouldn't bat an eyelash. But RaptorMan is right. Stuff like this is going to ruin it not just for the commercial operators, but the hobbyists too. And don't tell me that the Mavic is Small. If Payton Manning threw a Mavic full tilt at your head, you would be an inpatient at the hospital if not worse.

People like this don't get the danger. Thats the trouble. They are not equipped with normal thinking and are dangerous people.

 

[Morgon]

Ok, I've experienced a prop pop off of a quadrotor, and what happens is the same thing when you drop a brick. .

Time to ban cars from bridges too, because tires can pop, brakes can fail, people can get scared and lose control on their own volition.
I understand what you're saying, but living your life as a series of "what-ifs" for one thing but not another is frustrating to me.

And don't tell me I "don't get the danger", @DennisR. I fully understand it; I'm just not consumed by it like you are. How do you leave your house? Any manner and number of accidents can happen at any point - during your commute to work; eating lunch at a new restaurant; riding a bike; playing any sport whatsoever. Every single breath is a roll of the dice.

It's the same argument about driving. I am 100% safe in my flights, even in the flights where the little number on my screen goes above some magic number. I fully understand that there are places in which 400 ft is a prudent ceiling. But projecting that on all 3.8 million square miles of the United States is ludicrous.

 

[William Gaddy]

Well, let's take a step back, before we jump to conclusions here. Here's what we know.

1) Some random guy (who we don't know) posted a video that CLAIMED to be a Mavic flying over the roadway on the Golden Gate Bridge.
a) If this is true, this is unwise because of the fact that the Mavic is a quadrotor, and at 300 FT AGL it's teminal velocity upon failure is like a bullet.
b) Quadrotors are prone to failures (props, motor, battery) -- it's an outside risk, but not a zero one that it will drop out of the air like a brick.
c) It's a V1 pre -release UAV, who in their right mind would conduct such a risky flight with an unproven platform?
d) I call bulls***t.

2) This could be a repost/clickbait. Someone posted a video of a properly outfitted Matrice, S1000, ShotOver or other UAV with proper redundancy, and was flying with a Sec 333 Waiver, and this other a******e reposted the original video with a new tagline with "Mavic" to get clickbait.

Or, it's somwhere in between these two. I suspect we'll never know.

Nevertheless, the fact that 3rd party people on here are actually DEFENDING situation 1) above are actually my main concern. People need to understand the limitations and dangers of these things.

 

[DennisR]

Time to ban cars from bridges too, because tires can pop, brakes can fail, people can get scared and lose control on their own volition.
I understand what you're saying, but living your life as a series of "what-ifs" for one thing but not another is frustrating to me.

And don't tell me I "don't get the danger", @DennisR. I fully understand it; I'm just not consumed by it like you are. How do you leave your house? Any manner and number of accidents can happen at any point - during your commute to work; eating lunch at a new restaurant; riding a bike; playing any sport whatsoever. Every single breath is a roll of the dice.

It's the same argument about driving. I am 100% safe in my flights, even in the flights where the little number on my screen goes above some magic number. I fully understand that there are places in which 400 ft is a prudent ceiling. But projecting that on all 3.8 million square miles of the United States is ludicrous.

As I said, you are not right in the head. Cars have inspections too. Their tyres are meant to be checked and they have speed limits plus drivers are meant to be trained to drive and follow the rules. You are a danger, not only to yourself but to others.

 

[Morgon]

As I said, you are not right in the head. Cars have inspections too. Their tyres are meant to be checked and they have speed limits plus drivers are meant to be trained to drive and follow the rules. You are a danger, not only to yourself but to others.

Of course they do. But yet, **** still happens, doesn't it.
You didn't answer my question: How do you leave your house if you're so fearful?

 

[William Gaddy]

Of course they do. But yet, **** still happens, doesn't it.
You didn't answer my question: How do you leave your house if you're so fearful?

Risk is not a binary thing. It's a continuum, from 0% to 100%. No one is saying flying a Mavic like this presents 100% risk (although I didn't see him LAND, did you?). It's a judgement call, but firstly it requires knowing the RISK factors BEFORE you make that call. And if you can't see why flying a Mavic at 300FT AGL over the busy congested roadway of the Golden Gate (with class B airspace like 20 feet over his head, by the way) is unwise, there's not much I or anyone else could do to convince your otherwise! Safe flying, Morgon.

 

[Morgon]

Risk is not a binary thing. It's a continuum, from 0% to 100%. No one is saying flying a Mavic like this presents 100% risk (although I didn't see him LAND, did you?). It's a judgement call, but firstly it requires knowing the RISK factors BEFORE you make that call. And if you can't see why flying a Mavic at 300FT AGL over the busy congested roadway of the Golden Gate (with class B airspace like 20 feet over his head, by the way) is unwise, there's not much I or anyone else could do to convince your otherwise! Safe flying, Morgon.

I was so caught up in the discussion of the flight itself that I forgot to mention that I don't believe for a second that this is Mavic footage. Sorry for the confusion. The very second video on this person's channel is titled "Brilliant Dji MAVIC Pro Crashes on 3rd Day", yet the video itself clearly features a Phantom 4. They're just reposts with Mavic keywords to promote their spam site.

Anyway, Mavic or not, your post highlighted a point: "I didn't see him land". You don't see a lot of things in this video, so all this talk about the safety of the flight is conjecture. People are calling for his head because of the blanks they're filling in themselves.