DJI put me in business, and is taking me out...

econfly

econfly

Member
Freedom works. A couple can hire a guy with a phantom or not, the people in the church are free to leave, the church is free to ban copters inside, etc. We have to separate what we believe to be good ideas (or even safe ideas) from the benefits of not interfering with freedom just to get people to do what we think is best. There is a difference between a crowd in public, perhaps unaware of the risk of a craft flying overhead and a crowd well aware of a contained risk. I wouldn't fly in a church over heads with a phantom. That's as far as I need to go with the concept. What other people do or tolerate of their own free will is not (and should not be) up to me.
 

janoots2

janoots2

Member
You will never persuade me that this video is of acceptable conduct in a public or private situation. It is highly irresponsible marketing. People thought cigarettes were cool once too until they became aware of the risks. If you think people will leave a wedding because someone hired an aerial rig, you are wrong. They will sit there unaware of the risks until something on the rig fails or there is operator error and they or a loved one will be injured, I pray not severely. No need to debate though, I'm sure many venues will simply not allow them.
 

econfly

econfly

Member
I didn't say it was acceptable. I said we are better living in a world where people are free to chose the risks they take. What I think or what you think is only relevant to our own lives and choices. Where I draw the line is in imposing risk on people without their consent or freedom to choose (e.g., flying over a crowd). I take it even further and refuse to fly over private property without owner consent. What I won't do, however, is report people to the government or tell them what risks to accept. It's none of my business.
 

dazzab

dazzab

Member
Unbelievable! Now I've seen it all. I can't imagine any wedding couple I've ever photographed being happy with a drone buzzing their ceremony. Honestly, how incredibly stupid. DJI's credibility has always been low but this takes them to new lows.
 

janoots2

janoots2

Member
I agree with your comments econ, but in the spirit of this particular thread's title - I think people's trust and maybe ignorance are being taken advantage of.
 

Old Man

Old Man

Active Member
That wedding video was so completely staged, and the narrative absolute crap. Not one person looked in the direction of the Phantom. Nobody was watching the photographer. If real everyone would have been watching the copter, including the bride and groom. Everyone would have been nervous or apprehensive.
 

S

Str8 Up

Member
In a few years there will be TV shows like "Most Shocking Drone Videos" and "Funniest Drone Crashes". Not kidding.
 

B

Banana Furikake

Member
Old Man said:
Please keep us posted with what you find out.

For the record, I'm one that provided an FAA comment opposing the use of Micro UAS over people, and suggested reducing the defined size of Micro UAS to 1 kilogram from 2.
Click to expand...

Here are the slides that were used.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/UAS_WebinarSlides.pdf?hc_location=ufi

He'll be posting the audio after it processes. As a quick note- he didn't answer the question about the potential Booker legislation.
 

B

Banana Furikake

Member
janoots2 said:
You will never persuade me that this video is of acceptable conduct in a public or private situation. It is highly irresponsible marketing. People thought cigarettes were cool once too until they became aware of the risks. If you think people will leave a wedding because someone hired an aerial rig, you are wrong. They will sit there unaware of the risks until something on the rig fails or there is operator error and they or a loved one will be injured, I pray not severely. No need to debate though, I'm sure many venues will simply not allow them.
Click to expand...

Severely injured from a Phantom- from a height of 10 feet. Yeah right. Though after the bride and groom hear a UAS, I doubt that they'd have one as part of their ceremony.
 


dazzab

dazzab

Member
Well, here's another one. Looks a bit over 400' to me and I wonder if the guy is licensed given it's clearly a commercial video. But the day that CASA fines DJI will be the day that hell freezes over.

 

S

Str8 Up

Member
econfly said:
I didn't say it was acceptable. I said we are better living in a world where people are free to chose the risks they take. What I think or what you think is only relevant to our own lives and choices. Where I draw the line is in imposing risk on people without their consent or freedom to choose (e.g., flying over a crowd). I take it even further and refuse to fly over private property without owner consent. What I won't do, however, is report people to the government or tell them what risks to accept. It's none of my business.
Click to expand...

A guy posted a video flying directly beside a class B airport. I reported him to the FAA. As a pilot this crap scares the hell out of me. If I didn't do this, and he caused an airliner to go down, I would never have forgiven myself. To each his own.
 

dazzab

dazzab

Member
Banana Furikake said:
Severely injured from a Phantom- from a height of 10 feet. Yeah right. Though after the bride and groom hear a UAS, I doubt that they'd have one as part of their ceremony.
Click to expand...
I guess you haven't seen the video of blood pouring out a guys arm that got to close to a Phantom. Size has nothing to do with it. Spinning knives are spinning knives.
 


janoots2

janoots2

Member
Actually it's VERY dramatic and it should be. Please go to :41 in this video and let us know your thoughts on why you you would not call this a severe injury, I'm very interested in understanding your view point:
 
Last edited by a moderator:


B

Banana Furikake

Member
janoots2 said:
Actually it's VERY dramatic. Please go to :41 in this video and let us know your thoughts on why you you would not call this a severe injury, I'm very interested in understanding your view point:
Click to expand...

That's not a severe injury. It sucks but likelihood of bleeding out is very low.

Believe me. I know what I'm talking about. Severe injury is one that is life threatening. That is not.

Compound fractures with bones sticking out of limbs= significant injury. Broken ribs with the potential to puncture lungs= severe injury. TBI= severe injury. Closed broken collarbone= not a severe injury. Broken wrist= not a severe injury. ER Docs would not classify this as a "severe" trauma. (e.g. level 1 or 2)

https://medschool.vanderbilt.edu/trauma-and-scc/files/trauma-and-scc/public_files/Protocols/Trauma Alert.pdf

Chance on injury of flying inside a church with prop guards- contusions. Injury to the operator's ego.

That's quite different from a heavy lift with CF props crashing down on someone. The chance of a severe bleed with significant injuries is multiplied.
 

janoots2

janoots2

Member
Whatever dude...go start pitching churches for your services then. Am I logged into RCG's by accident? Somebody pinch me...
 


janoots2

janoots2

Member
Banana - you are actually helping to prove this thread's point. Thank you for sharing your views. Please note the prop guards installed in the video.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top