DJI F550 flies ABOVE the clouds, then crashes

[Warren Kawamoto]

Despite knowing the rules, many people will probably try this at least once in their lifetime...but the outcome will be deadly. It's just a matter of time, folks. Just a matter of time.

DJI F550 Hexacopter crash after flight above the clouds - YouTube

[John Cash]

What are the rules? According to who? Local laws may cover where and how but as of right now.....there are no rules


Guidelines? Ummmm maybe, but in the United States no one could send you to jail be cause to go to jail you have to break a law. And as of 5-19-14 there are NO LAWS governing the flights of multirotors in the united states.

The FAA may try to threaten you, but at this point THAT is against the law

Im not saying the above is smart, but I will point out there are no laws other than local laws againts flying anything radio controlled.

and please dont quote AMA rules, they are not laws

[Jody Arnott]

Here in NZ, any radio-controlled aircraft are governed by a small set of rules. Breaking those rules leaves you liable for pretty hefty fines.

It's pretty basic stuff; 400 foot height limit, don't fly over people, don't fly within 4km of any controlled airspace, etc.

Even if there are no rules like that in other countries (I'm willing to bet there are in most), I personally think that it is extremely irresponsible to go above ~400-500 feet or fly within controlled airspace without permission. The risk to aircraft with actual people in them is too great.

What if the F550 in that video had been sucked into the engine of an airliner? I personally have mine set to a maximum height of 500 feet. In NZ, that's getting close to the altitude that passenger aircraft are allowed to fly.

We really need to set a good example so that our drones aren't banned completely.

[Scott Wilkinson]

As a hang glider pilot, FAA rules in the US for freeflight are to stay at least 500' away from clouds, period. On good flying days (for hang gliding) cloudbase is usually at 4K feet or higher, so that's not a problem. Though I remember one EPIC flight on a beautiful morning when there were well-defined clouds at a low altitude (like 900 feet), and on an aerotow flight I flew right through a few of them---definitely one of the highlights of my life! :-)

But yes---I definitely don't plan to fly our quad to (or above) cloudbase!

Truth is, 99% of all the shots I want to get with our quad are probably no more than 100 feet off the ground max. To me, LOW-altitude videography is where these things shine. If you want shots above the clouds, rent a helicopter!

Scott

[John Cash]

My posts are aimed at laws only, and U.S. laws only.

rule- a guideline agreed upon by members of an organization. Breaking the rule can lead to you being expelled from the organization who formed the rule

Law- passed by congress, defined with defined actions for those who break said law.

Our history on this issue is a governing body (The FAA) overstepped its authority and sent threatening cease and desists letters to individuals without going through written LAW as to how to go about changing their own policy....i. e. they overstepped the LAW by trying to write LAW.

One individual stood up to the unlawful action of the FAA and said, I wont pay your fine see you in a court of LAW.
The Judge, who does have the autority to ADMINISTER law, but not write LAW RULED in favor of the plantiff. The fine and cease were put on hold ( a stay) untill the FAA can write rules they hope to become law.

So, as of now their are NO LAWS regulating the flight of any model aircraft in the US airspace at the federal level. Some states have enacted laws against using drones to get photos and video, and some local goverments have passed laws agaist flying remote controlled aircraft within city limits but thats it.

I cannont speak for New Zeland, England, Canada , France ,Germany, Iceland or any other country. I am only familiar with the current law in the U. S.

[Dave Blackhurst]

There is also a "rule" of "common sense" that when one fails to follow... may result in death or serious injury to self or others. THEN you can guarantee someone will be looking to pass some LAWs... Just because you CAN do something, doesn't make it a good idea, well illustrated by the video... lack of common sense!

I can't imagine how the person who shot this video fails to see the implications/risks of his "flight plan" or lack thereof, and for what? Too bad his rig didn't "disappear" instead of just turn to wreckage for someone to find.

I'm wondering how or why "failsafes" didn't apparently return the craft - guess maybe some winds and stuff the guy on the ground was clueless about?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by John Cash

What are the rules? According to who? Local laws may cover where and how but as of right now.....there are no rules


Guidelines? Ummmm maybe, but in the United States no one could send you to jail be cause to go to jail you have to break a law. And as of 5-19-14 there are NO LAWS governing the flights of multirotors in the united states.

In the absence of laws, then it may be true that you can't be sent to jail just for any flight as such.

But if something goes wrong, if somebody gets hurt or killed, then expect to end up in court to defend your actions. And in which case, your best chance of avoiding any prosecution or civil action is to show beyond reasonable doubt that you were acting in line with "best practice", whatever that may be. If it can be shown that you were doing anything contrary to any established "rules" or guidelines, that can only seriously harm any defence.

And whilst it may be true that the chances of anybody being directly hit may be small, then with enough drones flying, it's only a matter of time - and it's not just direct impact on a person, what about the potential for a drone falling on a busy road to cause a traffic accident?

But aside from all that, I think Jody probably says it best with "We really need to set a good example so that our drones aren't banned completely." Whatever the situation is or is not with laws at the moment, that situation is likely to change - laws WILL come about everywhere eventually. And the more drone operators take a "in the absence of laws, we can do what we like" attitude at the moment, the more draconian future legislation is likely to be.

[Dave Blackhurst]

You can bet if the heli in that video had gotten sucked into an engine or bought down a full size Heli, the person returning the parts would have had a VERY different agenda, likely involving a charge of "reckless endangerment". There are already laws on the books against certain types of foolishness that could be applied... Sometimes you don't NEED new laws to prosecute successfully.

And no new law would be required for a civil suit for negligence... lose the heli, the camera, the house, the car, and the bank account all for a few minutes of "cloud video"...

[Craig Chartier]

This is one of those cases of Want Don't Get.. The owner wanted the flight to go OK, He wanted the SUAV to return home, He wanted the failsafes to work, he wanted the batteries to last longer than they are suppose to. And now he wants to get only cool replies for his bad behavior.

John Cash. He was breaking the law. He went above the stated Law allowing for hobby flight. He entered flight altitude he did not have clearance to be in with a craft that is not designed to regularly perform within. AS clearly pointed out by the in ability to control the craft.

Getting a "stay " does not mean you will not get into trouble once the laws are clearly defined. Also fools like this will certainly piss off those that will be drafting the laws, making it harder to get what I want.

[John Cash]

Im not defending the actions of the person. I too feel the flight is a danger. I film with a multi and I dont think they are very good for that above 50 feet or so. But what I get tired of is people constantly posting about LAWS that do not exist. Yes, civil court is always there and yes you will be very sorry in the wallet if you screw up.
But, there are NO LAWS in the US that says you have to stay below 400 feet. Or that you have to fly line of sight,or anything.

What Im stating is at the Federal level inthe US their are no laws governing any RC type.

Their are state laws in some states and thier are local laws in many places
I just wish people would stop with the illegal speak.

For example- A company in Texas has filled suit in Civil court against the FAA for not allowing it to use its foamy plane to hunt for missing persons.

They have to go to civil court to prove what Im typing right now.


Self responsibility is a great thing But before something is against the law, the Law has to be written

when you park in an area that you can be towed the sign will stae which municipal code covers the no parking. It has a number, sometimes letters in front.

In California our laws usually start with " AB-----" which stands for Assembly Bill

If flying a multi/RC craft is illegal in the US then surely someone can give me the number of the law?


Please dont quote the 2007 advisory the FAA put out. its clearly an ADVISORY

[Warren Kawamoto]

Originally Posted by John Cash

What are the rules? According to who? Local laws may cover where and how but as of right now.....there are no rules

It's called "the rules of common sense." All operators should have them, but sadly many do not.

[Jim Michael]

Some of those commenting here seem to imply there would be no repercussions if this toy had been sucked into the intake of a low flying helicopter resulting in a crash. Forget the FAA regulations (although they would surely be part of the onslaught), start worrying about your manslaughter charges.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Craig Chartier

This is one of those cases of Want Don't Get.. The owner wanted the flight to go OK, He wanted the SUAV to return home, He wanted the failsafes to work, he wanted the batteries to last longer than they are suppose to. And now he wants to get only cool replies for his bad behavior.

John Cash. He was breaking the law. He went above the stated Law allowing for hobby flight. He entered flight altitude he did not have clearance to be in with a craft that is not designed to regularly perform within. AS clearly pointed out by the in ability to control the craft.

Getting a "stay " does not mean you will not get into trouble once the laws are clearly defined. Also fools like this will certainly piss off those that will be drafting the laws, making it harder to get what I want.

The judge did not issue a stay, the case was thrown out of court with prejudice, the FAA did not have the right at all to regulate AP from RC's. The FAA threatened to appeal the ruling, which they are entitled to do but that does not mean that the court has to hear it, nor does it mean that even if its ruled that the FAA has standing for the appeal they will win [the outcome will in all likelihood be the same] and it also does not mean that the "non-existent" rules that were [not] in-place before the case go into effect while the FAA tries to pull their head out of where there is no light of day.

I keep making this point and videos like this keep getting posted that I think support my argument even more -- YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY! No law would have prevented this fool from doing what he did.

In case you want something to read here is the judges ruling against the FAA. The FAA got its A$$ handed to it - our tax dollars at wok.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...A-v-Pirker.pdf

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

I keep making this point and videos like this keep getting posted that I think support my argument even more -- YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY! No law would have prevented this fool from doing what he did.

No, but you can make it easier to prosecute somebody in either a criminal court or civil court if bad things happen as a result of stupidity. And that doesn't necessarily need a law as such - a "rule" may be enough.

As example there is (in the UK) the Highway Code - the do's and don'ts of what to do on the road. ( https://www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction ) Some things in it are laws - you may be prosecuted simply for disobeying them (breaking a speed limit, for example) even if no consequences result. But others are "rules" and simply going against them is not in itself an offence - but...... As the Highway Code puts it in the introduction:

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence..........

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

In other words, there are some actions which wouldn't lead to a prosecution in themselves, but could be used in court in the event that a case was brought.

It's also the case that many rules which started off as "advisory" (using a mobile phone whilst driving is a good example) have subsequently become mandatory due to being largely ignored at first. Users of drones who take a similar view of corresponding rules "because I can't be prosecuted just for doing it" should take note of that. It could lead to tighter laws in future.

[Nick Danaluk]

Just think if there was a sky full of flying cars with the same people driving as flying some of the quads. Could have easily been a $10k mistake or much worse.